But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.
Though the failure to sue the NYT does not seem as determinative as John Dean suggests, his leaning toward supporting it is right. As the latter link suggests, this is not about sex, though darn if some appear to be spinning it that way (helped by the article's hook, surely). See also, Talking Points Memo for ongoing analysis of the charges. Charges in no way about events, again as some claim, that only happened long ago. Even if the "hook" might have, a hook that was meant as something that "underscored an enduring paradox" involving various other things as well.
Sadly, some seem to be missing the point, suggesting this is "old news" and not just a flawed story that has an important core of truth. Media Matters provides a useful analysis, including the double standard when Democrats were under similar scrutiny. We are reminded that imperfection doesn't suddenly make something unworthy of respect. [How selective we are on that count.] It also quotes Eric Alterman on the alleged affair: "[I]t's none of our business and does not belong on the front page of The New York Times, regardless of timing. What's more, the sex gets in the way of what is really important about McCain's behavior." OTOH, there is this:
Obviously, I don't know whether or not McCain had sex with Iseman. I suppose by "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" standards, he didn't even deny having had sex with Iseman. Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's "character" appeal.
This is partially why claims that some of the issues discussed are "old news" or covered already doesn't quite work. How were they covered? I know someone who thinks Clinton is a slut and his wife is basically cheap for sticking by him. Others probably agree. But, McCain is this upright soul on that level (inferred, since it is never made an issue). Sure. Likewise, the article is not just about one lobbyist, though we have seen with Justice Scalia that the appearance of impropriety is very important, especially for someone apparently particularly concerned with the matter.
The core of the issue amounts to him being more image than substance, at least not as much as a god as some think he is; see also, his enabling Bush on torture. This is not too surprising, though after years of you know who, it is a useful enterprise. As Rachel Maddow noted, even if this takes a bit of the charm so much of the MSM has for him, it would be significant. And, since his image is very important for McCain to have anything of a shot to win in November, questions will be mucho importante. As one comment on TPM noted, it might have been helpful to learn about it before McCain became the clear nominee. There is again a sort of "horse out of the barn" nature to the enterprise with the sex angle providing a nice dodge ala Dan Rather and Bush/Vietnam.
The core of that story was missed for miniutiae too. Will press love of McCain or dislike of the NYT (whose editors endorsed him ... and then weeks later put out this story, which was obviously in the works for awhile), which is not just among the conservative noise machine that might hate McCain, but hate them more? We shall see. There are some promising signs. I also like his wife's reminded that she loves her country, after some took Michele Obama (who seems to have as much spirit as Elizabeth Edwards) comment out of context. Charming.
I deleted a quickie comment that in part noted that Clinton cannot just win by going negative. It seems her one attempt in the debate yesterday went badly, and thus she ended on a positive note. Good job, since negative campaigning against Dems is more of a Republican move. It does seem that it would be rather hard for her to win, especially since Obama is sure (even if he loses) to win a significant number of Ohio and Texas (which won't go Democrat when it counts, anyway) delegates. As the leader, that should be enough.
Finally, the claim is that he is not "experienced." In respect to the type of person many want to be President, it seems to me he is more so. [Reminds of the whole issue of "qualified" to be a federal judge -- it is a complex thing not just seen in simple legal experience alone.] Given his background [btw on the general subject of his background in the faith movement, this guy sounds pretty interesting], I also don't know if he is so much less qualified than recent occupants -- though some years as governors in a weak governor or smallish Southern states does amount to some executive experience. Time as First Lady, sorry, doesn't impress too much.
So, we are left with an extra term as senator. Wow! I might be somewhat unfair here, though not too much I think, but overall the "experience" thing is at the very best a wash, all things considered. It will be tougher vs. McCain, but more of the above just might tame the waters. Knock on wood.