Apparently the NYT is raising McCain's birth in Panama as some kind of possible impediment to being president under some theory that it somehow means he's not a "natural born" citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible for the office of president.
This nonsense says a lot more about the declining news judgment of the NY Times than it does about McCain. The issue is really a stupid one, the kind of thing whispered by the same sort of person who tortures the language worse than a Gitmo detainee in order to argue things like the 16th amendment didn't actually establish an income taxing power.
The very first Congress, in 1790, which included quite a few Founders, made it clear that people who happened to be born overseas or at sea to a U.S. citizen couple were "natural born" citizens. Thinking otherwise results in the bizarre result that the child of some illegal immigrants who happens to be born in Texas has a better claim on being president someday than the child of two decorated U.S. military wartime veterans stationed in Germany who happens to be born on a U.S. military base. Come on. Does anyone think that's likely?
This "story" doesn't pass the smell test. It's a nonstory. It's something any decent reporter on a small-town daily would dump after a few minutes of research. It simply doesn't check out.