The Newspaper and the Senator

The Times has an on-the-record confirmation from John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, regarding an aide to the senator warning Iseman at a Union Station meeting to stay away from the boss. Weaver e-mailed that he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about her.

Weaver said: "Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation's interests before either personal or special interest. Ms. Iseman's involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort."

On the policy front, the Times cites McCain, a champion of deregulation, sending several letters to the FCC that would have benefited Iseman's clients, among others. In one instance, Iseman acknowledged to the Times that she sent McCain draft language for a letter to the commission on behalf of Paxson Communications.

As for the timing of the story, you might think the Times had waited until McCain had all but secured the GOP nomination, to avoid influencing the primaries. But my understanding is that is not the case--that the team of reporters has been wrestling with it and the editors published it when it was ready.

The McCain/Bennett strategy, of course, is to make the Times the issue. The senator's statement doesn't deny any of the specifics in the piece.

As for the political fallout, the issue should be the confirmable facts and what they say, or don't say, about McCain's run for the presidency. In Bill Clinton's case it turned out to be quite relevant, and he had sexual relations with that woman, and some others. In this case, we have two people who deny such a relationship.

Oh, and for those who think newspaper coverage follows an editorial line: The New York Times endorsed John McCain.

Time reaches McCain confidant Mark Salter: "The bulk of the story's more titillating accusations, he said, stemmed from 'two blind quotes . . . Are these the standards of the New York Times? No. They are the standards of the National Enquirer.' "

Christopher Orr opines in the New Republic: "One interesting question about the piece is just how it will be received by the considerable segment of the conservative movement that already views McCain with deep suspicion (the Ann Coulters, the Glenn Becks, and other assorted anti-McCainiacs). On the one hand, as Noam notes, being 'attacked' by the New York Times is seen as a feather in the cap by many Republicans and, as printed, the story is hardly dispositive. On the other hand, the story does feed into the feeling on the part of some conservatives that McCain is a sanctimonious phony who's really no purer than the fellow politicians he occasionally castigates."

On to the Democratic race:

How far are journalists going in suggesting, implying or insinuating that Hillary Clinton's campaign has two weeks to live?

Is her latest crushing loss, in Wisconsin, being depicted as the beginning of the end?