Meghan McCain Strikes Back at NY Times 'Hit Piece'

New York Times blogger Judith Warner dug into Meghan McCain with gusto, posting a concern-trolling piece about Meg's appearance on the Colbert Report. She writes that she "feels sorry" for Meg:

I really have no business feeling sympathy for a wealthy, pretty, well-connected recent Columbia grad who's already been given a political blog by Tina Brown, who's already been paid a reported high six figures to write on the future of the Republican party, and who, despite it all, was foolish enough to go on "The Colbert Report" on Monday night and call herself "a 24-year-old pro-sex woman."

I suppose the success or failure of Meg's appearance on Colbert is a subjective matter, but it is easy to see that her guest spot is consistent with her public persona. She's proudly free-spirited and outspoken, and is known for mixing the political with the apolitical.

The piece goes on to compare her with 24 anti-heroine Kim Bauer, and goes downhill from there.

Meghan McCain isn't taking her trashing lying down, most recently by tying this with the NY Times' previous attack on her father, and their suggestion about his fidelity. Via Meg's Twitter feed:

I think the NY times should write a hit piece about every member of my family. Already got 3 down, my 17 year old sister can be next. Such amazing journalism about 1 hour ago from txt

This followed several other NYT-related barbs:

So apparently there was some oped in the NY times criticizing me, all I have to say is the NY Times will never write anything positive about anyone with the last name McCain... 10:45 PM May 22nd from web

but thanks for comparing me to Elisha Cuthbert NY Times, how hot is she? Total girl crush of mine! 10:46 PM May 22nd from web

My dad just belly laughed that the ny times compared me to jack bauers daughter on 24 because he always compares himself to jack bauer :-) about 1 hour ago from txt

I almost feel sorry for the NY Times here, even though I shouldn't.

See, if the criticism had been done in a coherent, reasonable way, it might not have begged such easy comparison to that smear-job of her father. Neither is necessarily representative of the Times, but it is completely fair for Meg to bring them up.

This also touches on a discussion I've been having on Twitter about notions of feminism. Warner lists a series of things that Meg "can't do" with her position because they're "just stupid," but doesn't really explain how. Sure, claiming the Republicans are "an awesome party to be part of" isn't how someone like, say, Chairman Steele might say it, but that doesn't make it less appealing to Meg's audience.

Which, despite Meg's calls for moderation,. probably doesn't intersect that much with the Times'.

Tommy on: Daily Dose:

• • How to Miss the White House Briefing and Still Salvage Your Day
  • Absurd Photo of the Day: Chuck Schumer is HUGE!
  • President Obama's Speech on National Security: Post-Speech Analysis
• Comedy Central and Tommy Christopher in Feud
• Obama's attempt to block photo release: Good idea, bad idea?