Apparently not wanting to be outdone, John McCain submitted his own op-ed piece to the Times that they subsequently rejected because they didn't think that it contained any new information. Opinion Page Editor David Shipley:
"Let me suggest an approach," he wrote Friday. "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece."
You would have to be from another planet to not know that the Times tends to slant to the left. Why wouldn't it considering that their target audience is in one of the more liberal states in the country, but if you read the McCain piece, you would have to agree with Shipley that other than ripping Obama it has no substance.
While there is no doubt that both the Obama article and the subsequent response from McCain are nothing more than campaign ads disguised in the op-ed clothing, Obama's actually contains some semblance of news, his policy stance going forward. McCain's on the other hand is nothing more than an Obama attack ad.
As McCain's article consists now, I can understand why the Times has issues with putting it on their Op-Ed pages. With that said though, if McCain wants to keep the piece as is without offering any new policy, I am sure they would be happy to sell him a full page ad because hit pieces, even against liberals, are much more palatable for the media when they get paid for them.