Today, the New York Times unloaded this story about John McCain's supposed ethics issues and insinuates that he had a "romantic relationship" with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The ethical issues are very old news, both McCain and Iseman have denied the allegations of an affair, and the McCain campaign issued a statement with facts the Times left out. Practically every blogger is on the story--and after dissecting the Times's painfully long rant (the Swampland has Cliffs Notes), many agree that the tale might not get the reaction its editors had hoped.

This morning, Richelieu made a few important points here. He asks, "No allegation of corruption, no favors, both sides deny an affair. Why is this even a story, and why is the timing so partisan?"

Most bloggers seem to agree with the Cardinal. Matt Lewis at Townhall says that although the Times might have more information, "the only people I can find who leveled allegations were 'two former McCain associates' who reportedly became 'convinced' (read: not 100% sure) something was going on."

Greg Pollowitz at NRO's Media Blog wrote, "With the McCain piece, the Times needs to answer why they held this piece until after McCain won the nomination, as well as the Times' endorsement before the New York primary. If the Times thinks eight-year-old allegations and innuendo are newsworthy, they had a duty to bring this up in their endorsement of McCain. " Allahpundit explains further: "A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record."

How will this affect McCain? Mary Katharine Ham's post's title says it all: "What's the Quickest Way to Rally Conservatives 'Round McCain?"

Clay Waters at NewsBusters agrees: The story "promptly fizzled out among conservatives and liberals alike, who dismissed the story...as a strained mix of sex innuendo and old news...being attacked by the New York Times might accomplish what no conciliatory CPAC speech could: rally skeptical conservatives to John McCain's side." Proof: Even Rush Limbaugh is defending McCain, the Politico reported today.

This article mostly makes the New York Times look bad. Marc Ambinder says that the McCain campaign has had an effective, convincing response so far. And while some lefty bloggers say this article will hurt McCain, still others are skeptical of the story. Jamie Kirchik at the New Republic's Plank says, "If you had been wondering whether the Times was in the tank for Obama, well, here's your answer."