this is could be a headshot to mccain. might not kill his nomination but could make him unelectable. thus, helping hillary against obama since hillary's paper, mccain's scissors and obama's rock.

@putch:
I don't think so... the way the article was written, it was like, "once McCain inadvertently did some things that made him look like he might be a little unethical... but then he was really mortified by the whole thing, and he really felt bad and he apologized quite a bit." It was so watered down that - at least in the Times' version - it probably won't have much of an impact.

This will only rally the conservatives (who hate the NYT) around McCain. It's a good thing, in that way, for him.

It also gives Huckabee a reason to stick around a little longer. So everybody wins, right?

The Times and Danny Glover's father in the Color Purple are exactly the same.

This smells like Rove to me.

I know what you're thinking, why would Rove want to undermine the party? Well, he's not. By floating some insupportable story out there (the Keating five is the real story, but not zexy enough to stick) he can weaken McCain enough to allow a forced Romney VP -- basically showing to McCain how vulnerable he can be without the party's support (remember that Rove and Bush endorsed Romney).

Romney as VP would act as Cheney does now -- the less-visible but more potent power -- and fall in lockstep very nicely. The result of this would actually be a stronger ticket and appeal to the base who values stability over mavericks.

And, no, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's just politics.

What, exactly, is the story here? Much as I'd love to see him go down, the most interesting thing about this piece is that McCain has some former aids who are willing to make him look bad, albeit in the vaguest, most unsubstantiated possible terms. In other words: Where's the little black dress?

Huckabee's vaguely inappropriate relationship with Chuck Norris, meanwhile, continues to attract no media attention, and the two have been told to try holding hands in public.

@meech: I can see how you'd be suspicious, but FYI, the thin, pasty faced Rove now lives somewhere in Texas in a small room. He has only one phone and no cable. The walls of said room are lined with tin foil to keep out the sun, and the last person who approached him was asked if he was "an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill..."

@meech: @Helman:
The Keating story was in there, but glossed over and buried so far down you really had to dig for it.

Interesting idea that Rove might be behind today's story. The Republicans are so byzantine it wouldn't surprise me.

One time, about 8 years ago, I stole a bracelet from Urban Outfitters. It was one of those little thin elastic thingies.

I can has nomination?

"With revenue plummeting and its board grappling with a hostile investor, why did the Times yet again hold a big story until it went stale?"

Is this what now passes for armchair analysis around here? Wow, Nick, if this is the version of the John McCain post you allowed Tate to post, I would love to have seen the one you apparently spiked...

@urnidiot:

This is basically the same, with some of the attack rhetoric toned down.

@urnidiot: Hey, could you email me? (Fair point on that one line, which is a bit of a stretch, but I thought the piece as a whole was fine.)

Did they get her age wrong? 40? If she is 40, I am 12.

Why the post change? Just curious. Anyway, I'll give it another shot.

What if this was the scenario?

The Times wishes to rehash the Keating/McCain connection, and they research and write a piece. Some asswipe - maybe Keller, maybe not - reads it in an editorial meeting and says, "It's not sexy enough." Reporting team then digs, and digs, and digs some more, until they come up with the lamest sexy in the history of sexy. They put it in, but cooler heads prevail (possibly Keller in this role, instead) and the story is pulled. Asswipe is unhappy and leaks it to Drudge, because Asswipe wants the sexy! Finally, several thousand painful editorial meetings later, Asswipe gets his whiny way and it's printed. And today, somewhere in the Times building, cooler heads are saying, I TOLD YOU SO.

Just a thought.

You know what would make this story take wing? A picture of the woman in question.

The fact is that the religious right is really hung up on this sort of thing, and Huckabee is technically still in the race.

D'oh, can I take that back?

I don't see why this is pointless. Republicans claim to be the party of "family values" (which is a joke considering their members' history with pedophilia, sexual harassment, hiring hookers, looking for sex on public bathrooms, dumping their wives via press conference, etc. etc.) and this is further proof that, in this aspect, as in the rest, they are a pathetic joke. McCain cheated on his first wife with Cindy, and I'm a firm believer that once a cheater, always a cheater.

More importantly, Vicki is a lobbyist, and any favors she might have gotten out of having sex with the geeker is news.

This story is dry as dirt, but then the tabloids pick it up and it gets super sexy scandal treatment on the front page. McCain does not come off badly if you read the NYT piece. Now, if the sources identify themselves and it turns out that those meetings he was denying this morning really happened (the "this looks bad, sir" ones) then it would have an effect. But how likely is that? Instead, he get a dig in against the liberal New York Times (seconded by his wife) which the conservatives LOVE! I don't see any major damage here.

The Times pieces is a perfectly legitimate news story. The woman was a lobbyist, and McCain was involved in Senate telecom-deregulation legislation benefitting this woman's clients. He wrote letters in support of her client while this one lobbyist was visiting his office, alone, repeatedly, riding around with him on a private jet owned by one her telecom clients, going to fundraisers with him and basically so much time with him that McCain aids had to intervene and tell her to keep away.

Regardless of whether he was having sex with the woman (although it's pretty obvious to me he was), this is a still a legit news story because -- during this time (and since) -- McCain has positioned himself as the "Mr. Clean" pol who isn't influenced by Lobbyists.

Try reading the actual NYT story before you commenting, folks (rather than relying on Ryan Tate's description of it).

@KarenUhOh: How else would you suggest they exchange long protein strains?

I wish the Times had just wrote the real story, "befuddled crazy old man to head republican ticket"

@MisterHippity: It would be a legitimate news piece if it wasn't

1. Eight years old

2. Already printed elsewhere

3. Unsubstantiated by any credible sources

@MisterHippity: I read it. And then I read about it more on Slate. Then I heard about it some more on NPR. Now I'm reading even more about it on CNN. So there! But more importantly, why is it obvious to you that they had sex? Now THAT would be a good story.

I hear Times writers are busy gathering details on a John McCain/Wilfred Brimley lemon party love weekend that occurred seven years ago in Mykonos.

I'm confident Bill Kristol will clear this all up in his column on Monday.

@Helman:

Because if we're leaping, we might as well leap with all of our might.

Another hatchet job by the Times. Endorse him as the least of their perceived evils, then try to bowl him over once the nomination is secured. More crap like this to come from NYT over the next 8 months, to be sure.

It's just like 1996!

@ADismalScience: No other way to leap, baby!

1. It doesn't matter that it was 8 years ago. McCain is still presenting himself as the guy who isn't part of the reward-special-interest, cozy-up-with-lobbyist Washington culture - it's the cornerstone of his political image.
2. Printed where? The Drudge Report mentioned that the Times was developing a story on it, but didn't go into detail. If others reported on this, apparently nobody noticed.
3. John Weaver, for one, has confirmed the story. From the Washington Post: "Weaver, who was McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe at Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain."

@Helman: Hmm. Let's see. McCain, a married man, was spending bascially all his spare time with a younger, attractive lobbyist when it reflected politically poorly on him to be doing so, given that the lobbyist represented clients with an interest in legistlation he was working on. But despite political appearances, and against the urgings of his aides, he kept hanging around with her and taking her places with him. What powerful force could cause him to abandon all political sense like that? Her great sense of humor? Their mutual interest with him in the history of 19th Century Russian literature? She was a kick-ass Scrabble player? Yeah, that was probably it.

@midtown43:

It's pointless because none of this is new information, and it probably isn't going to hurt him now that he is so clearly the presumed front-runner.

Furthermore, there's no reason to assume Miss Lobbyist was boning Walnuts. Attractive ladies often just smile and brush up against old dudes to make them feel like they could score in order to get what they want. This is creepy, but not unethical, at least not in that bastion of morality, Washington DC.

@MisterHippity: But one of the single most frightening aspects of John McCain is complete and total stubbornness. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he told his aids to fuck off -- regardless of appearances -- because he knew he was not doing anything wrong or dishonorable. To stop associating with her could, in his mind, give the impression that there had been something improper occurring.

(I can't even believe I am pseudo-defending McCain!)

The only thing wrong with the story (apart from the fact it was held too long) is the fact that genuine news has been prettied up to make it a lament about a man who trusts too easily or some such crap.

'Mr Clean caught with hands in till, possibly lobbyist's pants' should have been the headline.

@Helman: My first thought when I read this story months ago - I think in British newspapers - was that the McCain camp was planting the information out there to make it seem like their guy was still young and vigorous enough to fuck (or at least that he was eight years ago.)

Mr. Denton, I want my analysis back up on the commentary you spiked earlier this morning. Was it spiked because the headline was too racy? I know it used Fuck.

And I thought my points were valid and did not need to be erased.

@meerkat: We just shouldn't forget how Cheney and Rove manipulated the NY Times in the whole Plamegate affair, or how they used mole-in-residence Judith Miller and Ahmad Chalabi to make their Iraq WMD claims more credible (...after all, it was in the Times...).

@drunkexpatwriter: He does have fuckability issues. But it's less the age and more the non-bendable arms.

@City_Dater: You raise a good point. A pretty waitress will get big tips out of a lot of horny old guys, and she obviously doesn't need to give them blowjobs under the table to accomplish that.
@Helman: Actually, that seemed to be exactly what NYT was suggesting: He probably didn't do anything wrong, but he let his stubbornness get in the way of political sense. Personally, I thought that was a rather charitable interpretation, but you certainly can't accuse the NYT of suggesting a more sordid explanation.

@TheHonJudgeSmails: Hatchet job maybe, but this just seems like poor journalism, not a smear campaign. The NYTimes were basically called chicken by Drudge and the New Republic for sitting on this story for so long and they went forward to make sure it actually still carried any merit, because we all know if they said they were "working on it still" and all that jazz, the right would have flipped out about it.

And I think at this point we need to move on from NYTimes and its "liberal bias". I know you didn't say it exactly, but the newspaper is geared to the upper class and stood behind McCain and Clinton for this election and I am pretty sure none of those descriptions go hand in hand with being liberal. While McCain isn't a crazy conservative, you and I know he is no way a liberal - he is a moderate and when it comes to political dealings a level headed person. Clinton is similar in her dealings.

@Helman: Yes. Almost everyone STILL misses the point: McCain's staff are out of control, and are afraid of what HE'll do if HE's out of control.