Here’s what everyone will be chattering about tomorrow - over the past 8 years, John McCain has presented himself as a paragon of elected integrity. But it seems as if McCain’s past (and present) relationships with various lobbying groups runs counter to his claim of conducting his Senatorial business with impeccable ethics.

The New York Times has just posted a bombshell of a story about McCain’s past shady dealings, his connection with the Keating 5 scandal, and an apparently close relationship that he had with a young, pretty lobbyist for the telecommunications industry:

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity…

The NYT article then goes on to reconstruct McCain’s involvement with the S&L scandal, and provide background on other other involvement with lobbyists and special interest groups, well into the mid-2000’s.

The real bombshell, though, might be buried toward the end of the article (which has apparently been in the works for awhile):

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries…

There are two old sayings that come immediately to mind:

- Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
- Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

The McCain camp is going to have to respond to the damaging charges made in the article. But more importantly, McCain himself should be held to account for going straight to the editor of the New York Times and trying to squash the inquiries. It’s a safe bet that due to the very sensitive nature of the allegations that the NYT vetted this story as well as journalistically possible. Total denial is not going to work well. So, the response from the McCain campaign will be interesting (their rapid response war room is most certainly working overtime tonight), and likely to dominate the blogosphere tomorrow.

Update: The Washington Post weighs in with its own version of the story.

And, the McCain camp responds:

U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker:

“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

A “smear campaign”? Wait. Didn’t the NYT endorse John McCain in late January, knowing full well that this story had been in the works for months? Why yes, yes they did. And TPM is also reporting that the McCain camp has been furiously trying to bury this story since December.

In a further development, it’s now being reported that McCain will personally respond to the NYT article at a news conference on Thursday morning. This seems like a bit of a risky strategy to me, but then, the damage this article could cause to his presidential aspirations might be enormous enough that he has no other choice.

2nd Update, 2/21: The New Republic has published its story of their investigation into the nearly three month hold on the NYT article. Various sources have said that the TNR investigation, which was ready for publication, actually caused NYT’s Bill Keller to release the hold on the article.