I'm not as fair-minded as I claim to be (hold for laughter). If you changed the name in the controversial Times piece from McCain to Clinton, I'd have written volumes today blasting his/her/their duplicity.
I like McCain. I don't like the Clintons. I trust the former (as much as I can trust a politician). I never have trusted the latter.
So, any story that accuses McCain of such rank hypocrisy is going to require more proof and less innuendo. Now it appears the innuendo was misrepresented, according to the alleged smoking gun (who is not at all disgruntled):
I just got off the phone with John Weaver, the former top McCain campaign official who is now an informal adviser to the campaign. I asked him about his 1999 meeting on the campaign's behalf with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. He said he "had no reason to think" that McCain might have been having an affair with Iseman, but he was concerned about word he had heard suggesting that Iseman was telling associates she had connections with McCain. "This was a woman who was saying that she had special influence with John's committee staff and with him," Weaver told me. "I didn't believe that was the case."
Weaver was telling Iseman to stop spreading what he believed was misinformation. He still doesn't believe her claims of special access. He's not John Dean.
Meanwhile, clients of Iseman's firm have donated very little money to McCain's campaigns. Since 2000, they've contributed $85,000 to the former commerce committee chairman. That's peanuts. If there's a quid pro quo going on, then McCain comes cheap.