I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go.McCain will hold a press conference this morning, allegedly to have his "I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman" moment.
Equally telling, though, is the McCain camp's response and their clear unwillingness to address or deny any the key charges of the piece. (Read the statement closely. It's all bluster.) When it comes to sex stories even falsely accused politicians have some reluctance to get into nitty gritty denials. But McCain - or rather McCain's communications office since it's in their name not his - doesn't even address it.
That tells you something. So too does the Washington Post's decision to jump in very quickly.
Reading all of this stuff I have the distinct feeling that only a few pieces of the puzzle are now on the table. Given unspoken understandings of many years' duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of us can get a sense of what this is all about.
You know, affairs are personal business between a person and their partner. But at the political level, when a candidate or office holder are having the affair with a lobbyist - and policy is forwarded that is beneficial to that lobbyist's clients - the scrutiny is completely justified.
And for the record...yes, the scrutiny was justified against President Clinton for having an affair with a White House intern. It just wasn't impeachable.
As for the McCain story, we'll have to see how it shakes out over the next few days. If the Times story has any legs whatsoever, it is bound to be a very long campaign for the Republicans, unless they switch horses in mid-stream and go with someone else at the convention. Even then, their already difficult quest to hold the White House for a third consecutive term would be soiled.
