McCain was helped tremendously by the Times story. It is the equivilant of Bush 41 picking a fight with Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News.
RATHER: "I don't want to be argumentative, Mr. Vice President."
BUSH: "You do, Dan."
RATHER: "No -- no, sir, I don't."
BUSH: "This is not a great night, because I want to talk about why I want to be president, why those 41 percent of the people are supporting me. And I don't think it's fair to judge my whole career by a rehash of Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you
walked off the set in New York?"
RATHER: "Mr. Vice President, the question is -- but you made us hypocrites in the face of the world. How could you sign on to such a policy? And the question is what does that tell us about your record?"
BUSH: "When a CIA agent is being tortured to death, maybe you err on the side of a human life. But everybody's admitted mistakes. I've admitted mistakes. And you want to dwell on them, and I want to talk about the values we believe in and experience and the integrity that goes with all of this, and what's -- I'm going to do about education, and you're--there's nothing new here. I thought this was a news program. What is new?" RATHER: "Mr. Vice President, I appreciate you joining us tonight. I appreciate this straightforward way in which you engaged in this exchange. Clearly, some unanswered questions remain."
Prior to this moment, Bush 41 was viewed with great skepticism by Conservatives. Remember he had called Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics". The above exchange fixed all that.
The people who should be alarmed by the Times story are professional journalists. I think a story rehashing the Keating 5 or investigating McCain's connection to lobbyists is worthwhile, but to include an allegation of a sexual nature based on an anonymous source that had no first hand knowledge of the activity in question, and who was probably fired by McCain* last year, is shameful. Of course, The Times at one point employed a guy who just made his stories up (and he was considered to be a real up and comer), so I suppose they are making strides.
*The only context the Times provides for these sources describes them as having "become disillusioned" with McCain. It's implied that their 'disillusionment" is somehow related to the activities described in the story, but their "disillusionment" failed to surface for eight years until right after McCain fired a bunch of his campaign staff.
Micheal Kinsley, who is not Conservative, but is a professional journalist has
this very humorous take on the Times story.