The campaign is REALLY heating up now, with the controversy over the New York Times piece about Arizona Senator John McCain, McCain’s big denial, the New York Times and press coverage becoming issues, plus the big debate show-down in Texas between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The blogosphere is abuzz — and here are some links to some notable buzzes. NOTE: Links and quotes do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of TMV or its co-writers.

The McCain “Scandal” Is A Story With REAL “LEGS”: Tons of reaction in the blogosphere on all sides. Just a smattering 4 U:

–Right Wing News:

When a Democrat is accused of some sort of affair, the mainstream media is extremely concerned about making 100% sure the story is drop dead accurate, down to the last detail, before they’ll even begin to think about printing the story. That’s why Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story to the public, not the MSM. It’s also why stories about affairs involving John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton have been buried or not printed at all in most MSM outlets over the last few years.

However, when a Republican is involved, Weekly Week World News standards become the order of the day and no excuse is too flimsy to run a story about an alleged scandal.

Unfortunately for John McCain, now that he’s the Republican nominee for President, the MSM has revoked his “honorary Democrat” status and is treating him just like any other Republican, which is why the New York Times has published one of the flimsiest, most insubstantial smear pieces since their attacks on George Bush in 2004.

–Middle Earth Journal:

Unfortunately, having set out a very attractive plate on the table, the Times fails to put any meat on it. Nobody is so much as hinting that there is evidence that the two of them were invoved. Even further, McCain’s voting record clearly shows that the woman’s clients got no traction with McCain and he cast no votes out of the ordinary which differed from his stated positions.

This was a horrible decision on the part of the Times and has the odor of a smear attack. And it could well backfire on them. An attack like this will likely rally some of McCain’s more doubting party members to come charging to his rescue. For the record, I don’t hate the New York Times, though I think they have fallen down on the job on many occasions over the years. But this certainly brings into question the competence of their management. This is a story that should have never gotten out of the draft stage unless they can bring up some more credible, named witnesses and/or evidence.

–Political Scientist Dr. Steven Taylor who also has a good roundup:

Given that key portions of McCain’s appeal are supposed to be his character and his anti-corruption stances, this story has the potential to be quite damaging, especially if he ends up facing off against Obama, who has a visible, and seemingly quite stable, marriage1 and is running against lobbyists. Also, this raises the whole Keating Five business, which mostly has been relegated to the past.

Again: I don’t know what to make of the story at this stage, except to say that clearly this isn’t the kind of thing that the campaign wants to be dealing with at the moment.

–Josh Marshall:

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….

…..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.

–Red State:

To bring you up to speed, the New York Times ran this article on John McCain alleging that he had an inappropriate relationship spent too much time at the same public events as a female lobbyist. I’d note, of course, that they’ve never run even more serious and better sourced allegations about John Edwards’s extra-marital relationship.

–Sam Stein’s MUST READ in The Huffington Post begins this way:

In the wake of revelations that Sen. John McCain had a close and perhaps romantic relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist, political observers are left wondering why The New York Times chose to run the article when it did. Meanwhile, conservatives are contemplating how different the election would be had the story been published sooner.

–Michael van der Galien:

There’s only one problem with the article: it’s a very dangerous subject, but the Times doesn’t have any proof. They basically accuse McCain of cheating on his wife, but they don’t have any solid info to back that claim up with. This means, of course, that it could very well be that this story dies a quick death, but it could also mean that the story will damage McCain nonetheless and that, as a result, an article that should never have been published effects the outcome of elections.

–Americablog:

So, let’s figure this out. This major story was brewing. The entire McCain operation was focusing on it last December — bringing in power lawyer Bob Bennett. John Weaver tells the NY Times about his meeting with Iseman. Weaver then tells the McCain campaign what he told the Times. But, McCain “did not know anything about it.” Really?

–Ed Morrissey:

Will this hurt McCain? Not at all. First, this is even older than the smear job the Times did on Rudy Giuliani last year. Second, they don’t have a single named source for this story. Third, the Times left out numerous examples where McCain acted against the interests of Iseman and her clients. The effect is likely going to produce more support for McCain among the GOP base, especially given the egregious and salacious nature of the controversy.

–Firedoglake:

Funny how all that telecom money seems to be swimming around the yacht parties that McVain frequented, jetting down on private planes to hobnob with the influence peddling crowd he calls friends and staffers, isn’t it?

–Megan McArdle at InstaPundit:

Fox News has these details, and is making it sound like this is not a big deal, because the senator did not press for an outcome, but only a speedy resolution. But regulatory uncertainty is very costly for firms; just getting your case jumped to the head of the line could be a pretty valuable special favor. It doesn’t cost the rest of us much, of course–unless we happen to work for the company whose case was delayed while everyone dropped everything to deal with the senator’s request.

That said, I don’t have a good sense of how much impact this sort of thing actually has, and I suspect it’s (sadly) rather common.

–Daily Kos:

Okay, so it’s out there. What’s it mean? It means that for the next few news cycles, John McCain, Mr. Stubborn, the Keating 5 scandal figure, gets to defend his character nationwide. Is that important? Sure it is. Voters care about character, and it’s one thing to be a maverick (already hurting McCain in solidifying the reluctant GOP base that doesn’t care for mavericks) and another to be painted as just another powerful politician who makes his own rules to benefit himself and his circle (the optics of the case), and uses his power to try and kill an unpleasant story. That’s especially true with the mythical GOP values voter, who didn’t care for Rudy’s personal life, and is suspicious of McCain to begin with.

The optics here are terrible for McCain, particularly when the Huckabee votes lately have looked like a GOP protest vote. This is just when McCain needed to make inroads with conservatives and unite his party. That projects now on hold for a few days while McCain does damage control. GOP voters are likely to hold their noise and vote for whomever the party puts up, but if you’re looking for a reason why the GOP isn’t too enthusiastic this year, the feeding frenzy might be just another reason.

–The Daily Dish:

This story coupled with FEC Chairman David Mason asking questions about McCain’s loan makes this a bad day for McCain.

–James Joyner:

When did the Times start this “investigation”? Clearly, they haven’t finished it since they have nothing here beyond allegation. Yet they’ve given it the most prominent space in the paper. But when did they start? Since all this happened during McCain’s last presidential campaign — which famously had flocks of reporters tagging along on the bus the whole way — didn’t they have some inkling of all this then. For that matter, were they working on the story when they endorsed McCain for the nomination only three weeks ago?

–Real Clear Politics:

As funny as it sounds, could a story like this, handled by the Times the way it was, actually be good for John McCain? Conservative columnist Mary Katharine Ham writes that a Times hit-job is the best way to get conservatives to rally around McCain, and others are focusing their vitriol on the newspaper, not their candidate. McCain, who will hold a press conference in Toledo this morning just as this piece is being published at 9 a.m. (turn on your television, it will be hard to miss), refused to comment last night, but while it will cause some headaches in the short run, conservatives could take this to mean the Arizonan is one of them.

–Roger L. Simon

Years ago, when one read something in The Times you thought, oh, this must be true. Now, you think - what’s the latest garbage? How times have changed! [That may be the worst pun of the year.-ed. It’s still early.] The whole thing has a comic dimension. A newspaper accusing some guy of having an improper relationship with a woman… or maybe not… is on the edge of opera bouffe, considering the behind the scenes activities of the newspaper’s own staff, from editor and publisher on down. Oh, but I forgot… We’re talking about politicians here. We hold them to a different standard than ourselves.

–Pam’s House Blend:

Yes, and it’s the grassroots that McCain will need if he has prayer of winning in the general. He simply cannot win if they stay home AND he loses independents on the lobbying ethics front….He’s been trying to win over The Base of bible beaters since he declared the race over, and the professional “Christian” set (Daddy D notably not among them) had begun to circle the wagons around the Arizona senator.

–Dean Esmay:

Some are already calling this a smear, but I don’t see how. When you are vetting someone for the Presidency of the United States, close examination of even small issues is entirely appropriate. Democrats made an enormous mistake in not doing a sufficient amount of this before nominating John Kerry in 2004, and paid a heavy price as a result. The Keating Five issue should be brought once again to the public’s attention, although it’s entirely likely that most people will look at it and decide it’s not a big deal anymore. Ditto allegations that the Senator may have had some questionable actions in his personal life.

AND LEST YOU THINK THAT’S THE ONLY POLITICAL POLITICAL SUBJECT BEING TALKED ABOUT IN BLOGS…THINK AGAIN:

Obama: If not him, who? If not now, when? ATypical Joe agonizes over a vote for Obama and has some concerns.

Progressives’ Hopes To Counter Conservative Talk Radio Grow Dimmer: An Air America station closed in Oregon. Hart Williams has a long piece:

This is how progressive talk radio dies in Eugene, Oregon: not with a bang, but with a whimper.

There is a lot of that going around these days. Progressive talk is finding outlets more and more scarce.

The Rhetorical Battle Between Clinton And Obama Is Getting Thin writes Oxblog’s Taylor Owen.