The Note: McCain at War

Feb. 21, 2008 -- There's nothing like the whiff of a sex scandal to inject some life into a Republican race that's pretty much (yet still not entirely) over and done.

Now we know what all the fuss was about -- and we'll find out in the coming days whether it was worth the wait. There, hiding under a humble tag calling it part of The New York Times' biographical "Long Run" series, is the story that's rocking the presidential campaign this Thursday -- with the not-so-subtle suggestion that Sen. John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.

"A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet," write a Times crew led by Jim Rutenberg. "Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself -- instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him."

Among the details buried low in the story: "A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep [Vicki] Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman's access to his offices. In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career."

This is not (as the Times headline would have you believe) about "self-confidence on ethics." It's about sex. It's a storyline that at this moment is filled with innuendo -- and suggestions that the Times was bullied into running the story on what only MIGHT have been an eight-year-old affair by the controversy over the fact that it wasn't being published.

It also, though, cuts to the heart of who McCain is as a politician -- and thus the harsh and fierce pushback from his campaign. Whether or not it jeopardizes McCain's path to the nomination (and, at this point, it won't) the Straight Talk Express can't be stranded on the side of the road over suggestions that he traded favors for a (maybe) girlfriend.

Thus the anti-Times onslaught: "The New York Times is playing the National Enquirer," McCain adviser Charlie Black tells ABC's Ron Claiborne.

"It was a friendship and a professional relationship, and nothing more than that," Black told ABC's Robin Roberts on "Good Morning America." "Unfortunately, The New York Times, the largest liberal newspaper in America, is running a false smear campaign against the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president, John McCain. . . . This doesn't meet the journalistic standards of a third-rate tabloid. . . . If they can't find one source on the record for this, they shouldn't be running this story. . . . This is nonsense. It's gossip and rumors."

McCain, R-Ariz., faces reporters at 9 am ET Thursday in Ohio -- and expect it to be one of those tour-de-force press conferences, with McCain dialing up the indignity and the outrage and staying until every last question is answered (and every last question is asked of The New York Times' motivations).

It will be a defining moment for the McCain campaign; with much of the news coverage focusing on the denials, how McCain comes off (even more than his campaign's detailed rebuttal) could determine whether the story has legs. Regardless, thought, this won't go away that easily -- not when the Times drops a bombshell like this, not when there's been this much build-up and yet this many lingering questions.

As we wait for The New Republic to publish its take on the Times' internal deliberations, much of McCain's ire is directed squarely at the Times itself: "John McCain's campaign promised to "go to war" against the New York Times Wednesday night after the newspaper posted its long-awaited story on McCain's alleged relationship with a telecom lobbyist," Politico's Jonathan Martin and Michael Calderone report.

Among the questions still out there -- along with who the blabbing former aides are, and what was really behind John Weaver's Union Station meeting with Iseman -- what exactly was denied to the Times, and what exactly is being denied now?

Mark Salter talks to Time's Ana Marie Cox about what went down -- and the underlined portion is crossed out in Cox's write-up, apparently at Salter's request: "Salter says McCain called the paper's editor, Bill Keller, to deny the both substance of the more lurid allegations -- having to do with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist, and her possible "romantic" relationship with McCain -- and to protest his innocence in allegedly "betraying the public trust" with regard to legislation after hearing from former staffers who had been contacted to confirm aspects of the story."

The story at this point is unlikely to impact the nomination -- the fight is too far along. McCain's remaining Republican opponent, former governor Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., has a very big decision to make, but nothing in his time as a candidate suggests a proclivity toward the gutter (or a willingness to take the Times' word for something).

(The frustration, meanwhile, in what's left of Romney land is palpable: This was the story they were convinced would take down McCain, and it's being published after Mitt Romney is out of the race and on the McCain bandwagon. Per ABC's John Berman, some advisers to the former governor are convinced that the story would have sunk McCain if it had been published before New Hampshire, or before Florida.)

The story is still short of confirmable, rock-solid details that would push it forward -- though every news organization on the planet is now looking for smoking guns. "Get ready for a feeding frenzy, with the press as the sharks and John McCain as the bloody chum," Michael Goodwin writes in his New York Daily News column.

Short of some THERE there, it's unlikely to be a deal-breaker. "The NY Times has NO evidence in their story that there was actually a romantic relationship. No phone calls, e-mails, etc.," the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody writes.

"Will some people be put off by the alleged romantic relationship? Sure, but I'm not convinced it's a killer when it comes to McCain's courting of the evangelical vote."