The Politico has posted a response from Sen. John McCain's campaign to the New York Times hit piece in this morning's paper. It's some pretty deep-in-the-weeds stuff as written, but it does point out some problems with the Times story.

Greg Sargent, no conservative, tries to tamp down on some of the glee on the left side of the blogosphere over this thinly sourced story.

If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times, wouldn't we all be yelling and stamping our feet about "panty sniffing" and condemning the use of anonymous sources who suggest a possible affair that may or may not have happened and wasn't directly alleged by anyone?

That's a sincere question. Wouldn't we?

After all, the above grafs appear to constitute the meat of this story. The gist of it seems to be that according to anonymous sources, eight years ago McCain's aides intervened in a relationship between him and a female lobbyist that may or may not have been sexual, and may or may not have constituted improper influence peddling, because they were worried that something untoward might be happening and were concerned about what her appearances with him in public looked like.

This is basically the core allegation here, and it's wrapped up in layers of implication about McCain's tone-deafness when it comes to appearances and about his history providing precedent for alleged questionable behavior vis a vis influence peddling in this case.

Sargent also follows up on Times Editor Bill Keller's "defense" of the piece.

The problem is that it's basically impossible to report something like this without also suggesting that an affair has taken place. Given the nature of such explosive allegations, it seems fair to ask that before suggesting something like this, a news org should establish something beyond the fact that unnamed advisers were concerned that it might be happening. Maybe the paper had established more but couldn't report it. But if you can't present documentary evidence of such a thing to a reader, than you should be reluctant to suggest it at all.

Indeed, according to a piece just posted by The New Republic, this lack of solid enough evidence was precisely why Keller held off on publishing the story:

In late December, according to Times sources, Keller told the reporters and the story's editor, Rebecca Corbett, that he was holding the piece in part because they could not secure documentary proof of the alleged affair beyond anecdotal evidence. Keller felt that given the on-the-record-denials by McCain and Iseman, the reporters needed more than the circumstantial evidence they had assembled to prove the case. The reporters felt they had the goods.

What changed between then and now? The piece has none of the "documentary proof" that Keller reportedly wanted in December. Presuming TNR is right, the most charitable possibility is that the proof was brought to Keller but the paper couldn't report it. But this leaves readers at sea and again raises questions as to whether it made sense to go there at all.

It just goes to show you how far out on a limb the Times went with this story that even those who would tend most to defend the paper find themselves wondering exactly what went on that brought us to this point.