Josh Marshall's TPM take on the McCain story.

[kstewart33]

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.

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. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

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 Post's decision to jump in very quickly. Charles Kaiser, at Radar, gives some of the backstory on the other publications that were in the hunt and why the Times may have pulled the trigger when they did. Apparently some others were about to jump in too.

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.

More at: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Prefer]

1. He had his ProQuo in her Quid...

that's what happened...

[PA Democrat]

2. Interesting how much pressure was put on the NYT to stifle the story back in December.

Why the panic if there was nothing to the story? I think that Marshall is right in that the reporters involved in this story know a lot more than was has been printed. I hope that more will come out over time.

[texpatriot2004]

3. I think there is more to the story and I agree that the NYT would

not "put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know alot more..."

We will see.

[gratuitous]

4. More to the story?

Well, on the very morning of its publication, McCain called a press conference to address it. There are a lot of people (some of them here at DU) opining that we shouldn't delve into this, no matter what, because it could "backfire" on Democrats. Or because it's not much of a story. Or because they personally like Maverick Johnny of the Magic Waterboard That Does Not Torture.

Whatever. But notice that McCain himself seems to think this warrants the full non-denial denial treatment.