Actually, it helps McCain.  McCain has conservative problems, and nothing (besides a Clinton nomination) galvanizes conservatives like an obviously biased attack from the New York Times against a Republican. Moreover, at this juncture in the race, Obama will have to say that it's no big deal - lacking evidence of malfeasance - so that will shoo it away, and when someone brings it back up in September or October folks will be like, "Eh, we already saw that." It also counters some of the Old Man sentiment out there.

I think this helps McCain, a lot. I'd be more than happy to be wrong, though.

The Underground Railroad

It's an odd article.  It starts out with the sex angle and then it devolves into a history lesson.  For anybody who doesn't already know the Keating story I think it would be somewhat hard to follow.

To me the biggest question isn't about McCain's alleged infidelity but rather who wants this rumor to officially hit the newstands right now.  

If the staffers talked to the Times in December (and how weird is it that they would go to the Times And not whatever NY paper it is that prints stuff like this but is considered a level higher than the Enquirer.  The Daily News?) why is it hitting the stands now?    

Although I somewhat agree with Oscar.  If a smear is going to hit him, this is probably the best time.  Huckabee isn't a threat and it's long before the convention and the GE.

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55

This isn't about sex at all. It's about lobbyists, and from a campaign standpoint, it's brilliant.

Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999...

From the Republicans' standpoint it's too late for anyone else to catch up to McCain, so the only option at this point is for him to back off voluntarily, which he won't do. Three weeks ago it might have affected the primaries. Now it just causes chaos.

While at the same time it opens a big door for Obama to attack McCain on lobbyist connections.

Four weeks ago it might have helped Romney. Now it's just a tangle for the Republicans.

Michaela

"Please lord, let there be a stained blue dress somewhere."

Fuck this shit, Booman. "Shameful hit piece", my ass.

If it was good enough for Clinton, it's good enough for McCain.  Last night I watched ABC News all but declare Obama a cult leader who's coming for your daughter or son. Meanwhile O'Reilly's talking about lynching the dude's wife. And you're worried that the New York Times is treating McCain unfairly.  Boo hoo. Boo fucking hoo hoo hoo hoo. I weep tears of piss for the Bullshit Express, who voted Guilty on Clinton's impeachment while he was sticking his dick in a woman that's not his wife. Boo hoo hoo for Senator Straight Talk. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.

McCain not only cheated on his [second] wife, he gave his mistress preferential treatment and took a free ride on her jet where he probably joined the Mile High Club (if the old codger was able to maintain an erection).  And shocker of shockers, someone's made political hay out of it.

Is it true? Who fucking cares? McCain certainly didn't in the 1990s, why should he be extended any special courtesy?

Hand. The. Man. His. Anvil.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

ThinkProgress catches exactly what got me interested when I read the article...

McCain's unethical relationships.

The New York Times reports on Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first run for the GOP nomination in 2000, which often led to political favors:

   A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman's clients. [...]

    In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain's staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain's staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

    Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.

The Times reports that McCain denied having an affair with Iseman.

UPDATE: In a statement tonight, the McCain campaign claimed that the Senator has "never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists."

And once more comes out about McCain and Iseman each lawyering-up once the NYT started questioning about the story in November, maybe we'll find out what kind of deal the lawyers were trying to strike with the NYT (a big Media company themselves who want to get into TV) in order to not publish it.

There appears to be ALOT more to this story than an alleged affair. Could it have had anything to do with the FCC desperately forcing the latest round of media ownership rule changes before the end of 2007, despite intense public protest? That round of deregulation involved media companies owning newspapers and TV stations in the same market.

Note that the article talks about Iseman's big client being Bud Paxson, a fundie media mogul behind the "PAX" media network, later named "i" and now "ion" television, working with NBC Universal. He has owned many TV and radio stations and was very interested in destroying the FCC regulations relating to media ownership - for profit and to help turn our media into the mind-numbing awful disaster that it has become in the last 20 years or so.

We're not going to hear about much more than the sex angle of this story from big media corporations. This is the REAL job of the blogosphere. I hope others dig a little deeper than it appears Booman is willing to do. Forget the sex. It's about McCain using his position for many years as Chairman of the committee who oversees the FCC to push for deregulation of media ownership, against the interests of the public. Was there some quid pro quo going on? I think so.

The Times wasn't totally in control of the timing after all. When they approached McCain in December, both he and his lobbyist-friend "lawyered up" and that's what held the story up. But the end result is a disaster for the Republicans.

To say that if the Times had published its expose when it first had the story in December it would have changed the dynamic of the GOP race is perhaps the understatement of the decade. If it had come out two months ago, McCain would have been reduced to a political asterisk, a footnote alongside Tommy Thompson and Tommy Tancredo.

Michaela

This is not the Times' style. I would bet a lot that they have much more than this.

He has never violated the public trust,

Yeah, right.  Some of us do remember The Keating Affair, as well as how he treated his wives.  The filthy grasping for sex and money and power all shamefully hidden under a cloak of patriotism.

A Senator brought up for cheating
Was caught in the scandal with Keating
"I've never betrayed you
Even though I mis-laid you!"
His hold on reality retreating.

There is material here for several limericks.  I'll be merciful.  Momentarily. ;^)  

Is Iseman pronounced like Iceman?  If so, I'll not be able to resist... oh, hell:

Ms Iseman comes offering studies
To press a need for broadcasting buddies
McCain feels much bolder
With hand on her...shoulder...
And ownership rules he then muddies.

Given how the corporate media are enabling the devolvement of this country into a Police State, some historians of the future are going to probe every instance where an authoritarian politician helped them obtain power in return for favorable positioning and coverage later.  Add a dollop of sexual intrigue and they'll simply add a value for that transaction to the equation.

I have to go shower and grab a bit of sleep before going out to Pelosi's office tomorrow.  Potential limericks will survive the steam-cleaning.  And the rain.

calvin usually finds himself in agreement with BooMan, but not on this issue.  It's important because it exposes Sen. "Straight-Talk" as not being so straight.  The media can no longer give him a pass on that BS.  There is an old saying that goes something like this, "If he cheated with you, he'll cheat on you."  This, if true, would be cheat number two.  Afterall, he dumped his disabled, older wife just like Newt.  Tie that tin can to his butt as well.  The general public is much more likely to understand the sex angle than the influence-peddling charge.

Add a heavy does of Keating to this.  Now, we start to see why he needs public financing and why he's kicking up the dust on that issue.  It isn't because he's "simon pure", but rather it's because Obama his kicking dirt in the face, fund-raising-wise, and will continue to do so.

Don't let the bastard try to take the high road.  Rub his nose in it.  With dignity and class.  For example, "I'd never bring up the fact that Sen. McCain had two affairs while voting against Bill Clinton during his second one.  It wouldn't be right."

calvinthecat

What a clusterF things are at the NYT...

How many stories did they sit on over the last four or five years, because the story or the timing was 'delicate?'  Yet NOW they feel compelled to push this inuendo onto the scene?

(As an aside, is this the rumored story of Senatorial infidelity that was getting everyone all hot and bothered last fall?)

I almost feel like the NYT has published this specifically because they've been called on the carpet over past failure to publish at the right time, but in a half-asssed way that basically boils down to "we'll show them we won't sit on a story, even if it makes us look like fools!"

To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, "What the hell is going on up there?!?"

Watching Morning Joe now. He's spent all morning questioning NYT's motives... never talking about what industry the clients of this lobbyist were in (telecommunications, including TV and Radio.) Hmmm. Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest to be defending McCain without disclosing that their own parent company is or has been represented by this lobbying firm?

CNN has come to McCain's defense as well. Again, they don't mention what industries she represented either, or mention any specifics about what kind of favors McCain was doing (pressuring the FCC for further deregulation of TV/Radio ownership.)

Anyhoo, I just can't wait for the next logical step - put Mcain and his Botox-Barbie wife on the couch on the Today show to explain away how much they love each other and how this never happened, or how she forgives him.

Just wait. More will come out in other publications soon. McCain should go down over this. Not the affair, but for the fact that he's lying about never doing favors for lobbyists. This could be like DeLay/Abramoff if anyone follows up on it. If we want to fix the FCC (whose commissioners also see no conflict in receiving lavish trips paid for by the industries they regulate,) we NEED to bring this stuff to the forefront.

It's the perfect debate for Obama to have as well. As someone whose achievements are in the ethics area and with his vision of fixing the media ownership situation. Perfect.

You guys are thinking too hard again.

Always ask "Qui bono?"

Who benefits?  Simple as that.

The GOP is reeling right now.  They hate McCain and they are getting killed in the primary numbers right now.  They need something to rally around, and remember how your average Republican mind works...they are the most united behind an enemy to hate not a leader to lead.

The real motive was to indignantly close ranks and unite the GOP behind John McCain, a weak-ass, easily deniable, easily spinnable hit piece like this is the perfect method.  Not everybody in the GOP likes McCain.  But they all hate the NY Times.

Voila!  Suddenly, even the most anti-McCain Republican is behind "our candidate" because of this story.

Your liberal press in action, ladies and gentlemen.  United GOP, hopelessly divided and broken Dems.

As AG would say,

Watch.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

You mean he's not a doddering old fool looking back on his glory days - he's really a vigorous and busy studmuffin?

I think it's all about image, since the race angle isn't gonna work.

What kind of leader does America want - a Harvard intellectual or a fighter jock with a blonde on each arm?

One more question - where's Dick?  
I've been saving this for the day we got distracted by the sex lives of presidential candidates.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

Yeah, I'm a tinfoiler, and I hope this is my last comment on the campaign.

But wait - there's still the subject of underpants.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven.  Not so much McCain's alleged almost an affair.  Or even that it was with a lobbyist.  What stinks to me was how it was handled.

I was watching Tweety, waiting for Keith, when all of a sudden the screen goes blank.  Then up comes the Big Red Breaking News Banner with the Ponderous Urgent Breaking News music to let you know that, this is Something Really Really Important that is, you know, Breaking Right Now.  Then Keith comes on to announce that MSNBC is pre-empting Hardball with Some Breaking News.  Then our hero launches into a breathless expose of The McCain Affair.  The New York Times is reporting This Hour that staffers have had to Intervene to Protect Candidate McCain from Himself.  This went on at the same breathless pace for about twenty minutes, complete with Reporters In the Field, and Richard Wolf on the Telelphone.

I heard Several Times about McCain and the Lobbyist being seen together at motels, at campaign events, even on a Corporate Jet.  I heard that campaign insiders had Intervened to protect the Senator From Himself because they had become convinced that the Relationship had Become Romantic.  The clear implication being that Something New Has Happened since our last regular news report.  You know, a couple of hours ago.

I listened carefully to try to make out What Breaking New Thing had happened.  I had to parse all the breathless reporting four or five times before I understood clearly that Nothing New Has Happened.  In Eight Years.  And the Times has been sitting on the story for months since they heard about it from Former Campaign Staffers.  About something that may or may not have happened in the 2000 campaign.  You know, the one that McCain lost to W.  Eight Years Ago.

About the time Keith interrrupted the spiel long enough to shift gears from Breaking News Pre-empting Hardball to Now We're Continuing the Story on Countdown, it finally soaked through the fog that I was watching a political assassination in progress.  I still haven't figured out who the assassins are, or who actually pulled the trigger.

One thing is fairly clear to me.  An eight year old alleged affair is Not The Story Here.

Have I ever told you about my poor memory?

The McCains' Billary Flowers moment.

Cindy and John are on teevee holding a presser.


Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

What do the policies of Huckabee and the Dems have in common? Seems the elites are rigging this one to ensure that intersection of ideas is inexorably to be the policy of the next White House.

Declaring the bottom is the only way back up..

This is his "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski" moment.

He basically called The New York Times liars. He denied talking to Bill Keller, except only once briefly. But his lawyer Bill Bennett just admitted 30 minutes ago that they sat down and covered all of The Times' questions orally and in writing in great detail. He said he did not try to dissuade The Times from running the story, when he DID do exactly that with his lawyer. Most importantly, he demands that he has never done any favors for any lobbyists. That's utter bullshit.

Now NYT needs to respond by releasing the dirt they withheld in this article. They have no choice. The NYT is not as stupid or sloppy as some are implying.

Will it help or hurt McCain? That's anyone's guess.

You know who it will definitely hurt though? Hillary. Now  the press at all levels will be so busy covering this story that they won't have any time to cover her attacks she's got planned for Obama. She'll lose the upcoming TX & OH primaries and run out of money.

The Times will take a well deserved hit for publishing this piece.

And McCain will be inoculated against any further scandals.