Shortly after sundown on Wednesday night, the New York Times posted on its website a long story about John McCain, a female lobbyist, and the relationship--professional and perhaps personal--between the two. By midday Friday, executive editor Bill Keller had taken to the paper's website to offer a defense that, according to Time magazine's Blake Dvorak, represented "surrender from the editor." Dvorak concluded: "Unless the Times has further evidence of infidelity, this is a closed case."

The story first surfaced publicly in late December, when the Drudge Report noted efforts by the McCain campaign to squelch a New York Times article raising allegations about favorable treatment for a "female lobbyist." Drudge also reported a rift between the reporters on the story, who were pushing for publication, and their editors, who counseled caution. McCain, who had already hired Washington power lawyer Bob Bennett, denied the allegations at a press conference on December 20, 2007. The story seemed to disappear as quickly as it had arisen.

But among reporters following the campaign and within the Times itself discussions intensified. Most campaign reporters quickly knew at least the broad outlines of the story and details about the dispute over whether it was fit for publication. The consensus among journalists covering the Republican primary contest was that the story, having been partially exposed on Drudge, would be nearly impossible to contain.

McCain gained momentum after he won New Hampshire and South Carolina. But even as he seemed increasingly likely to be the Republican nominee, the Times story

Last week, after winning in Wisconsin, McCain publicly acknowledged his status for the first time: "Thank you, Wisconsin, for bringing us to the point when even a superstitious naval aviator can claim with confidence and humility that I will be our party's nominee for president." The Times story broke less than 24 hours later. The headline on the Drudge Report noted the timing: "Now That He's Secured Nomination: NYT Downloads on McCain."

McCain advisers don't dispute suggestions of that connection, and they moved quickly to raise money off of the perception that their candidate was being attacked because of his politics. But several of them believe it was a forthcoming story in the New Republic about the dispute between the Times reporters and editors over the story more than the inevitability of McCain as the GOP nominee that pushed the Times to publish.

Whatever the reason, the Times chose to play the story big. It was the off-lead of the paper, running above the fold in the two upper left-hand columns, and at more than 3,000 words. Four reporters received bylines, a fact that further suggested the seriousness of the investigation.

The big problem for the Times remained: The story was almost entirely attributed to "people involved in the campaign" speaking "on the condition of anonymity." The Times had only one former McCain adviser who would speak for the record, and his comment did not speak directly to the alleged affair, which was, despite the Times's awkward attempts to pretend otherwise, the most potentially newsworthy aspect of the piece.