On July 14, presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama published an op-ed in the New York Times about his plans for Iraq. A week later, presumed Republican nominee John McCain decided to respond with his own opinion piece - but the newspaper opted not to publish it.

 This sparked anger on conservative blogs such as RedState.com where many readers accused the paper of being biased. This incident, “is just further proof that the New York Times is no longer a serious journalistic enterprise, but instead an illegitimate and failing liberal editorial magazine,” one reader wrote. Other readers encouraged the McCain campaign to stop engaging New York Times reporters.

 David Shipley, the newspaper’s Op-Ed page editor, told the McCain campaign that he could not accept the piece because it did not reveal any new information about the senator’s Iraq policies. He said he would review a new draft that layed out these plans in more detail. The newspaper issued a statement saying that it is, “standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission.”

 In response, a McCain spokesman said: “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.”

Ironically, McCain’s op-ed may get more attention now than if it had been published. Because as other media outlets like CNN reported on the incident, they published the rejected article on their Web sites.  So what do you think?  Should the New York Times have run the op-ed as is? Are they favoring one candidate over the other?