The NYT's McCain Hit Job

The story of the morning in the political world is, without a doubt, the New York Times' hit job on John McCain. It's the most absurd coalition of rumor and innuendo, shameful journalism even by the standards of the Times.

McCain's denied the allegations, with his campaign saying he's going to war with the paper over the allegations. The Times has their own version of the back-and-forth, including a statement from their editor which makes reference to "facts;" he fails to note that they are few and far between in this particular piece.

Meanwhile, John Weaver, one of the figures at the center of the Times' concocted drama, has issued a statement explaining his role - and it contradicts what NYT says. He's McCain to the end, it would appear. TNR has a must-read metacommentary on the story - the story behind the story, the debates within the Times as to whether or not to publish, etc. It's a hit piece, but apparently not everyone was comfortable with that. Others were apparently dismayed by the timing; the story had originally begun circulating (according to Drudge at least) back in December, but was pulled; some wonder if the Times was holding its fire to help its favorite Republican.

And last but not least, the law of unintended consequences kicks in: the Right is rallying behind McCain. This whole story - especially if it starts to backfire on the Times - also helps McCain in drawing attention away from Obama/Clinton, which had been largely dominating headlines and news coverage. Unifying the party, giving McCain the spotlight with its BS - I never thought I'd say it, but thank you Grey Lady!

CQ has a worthwhile post that's part summary, part analysis, but is definitely worth the time (as is everything that Ed writes).