vj2.thumbnail.jpgTucker Carlson asks the right question of McCain mouthpiece Steve Schmidt -- did the McCain staff hold a meeting to discuss Vicki Iseman? Because that's what the New York Times piece was predicated upon. Schmidt manages to evade Tucker and squirm away without answering:

SCHMIDT: So John Weaver, like the campaign, answered a question for the “New York Times,” believing at the end of the day that the “Times” would act with some rationality, some degree of fairness. And instead what we saw was a salacious gossip, filled with innuendoes, piece of trash that....

CARLSON: But wait.

SCHMIDT: ....probably would be too good to be in the national—you know, too bad to be in “The National Enquirer.”

CARLSON: But hold on, hold on, Steve. Some of the salaciousness comes directly from the lips or apparently from the keyboard of John Weaver, among them, this. He said, there was, quote, “a discussion among the campaign leadership about Vicki Iseman.”

First of all, is that true? And second, if it is true, you will concede that lends weight and authenticity to the claim that she was a problem. Is it true? Was there a meeting?

SCHMIDT: Mr. Weaver talked to the “Washington Post” later today. And what he said was that he went to talk to Miss Iseman about Miss Iseman, according to Mr. Weaver, saying that she had influence on the Commerce Committee. Mr. Weaver went and talked to her about it eight years ago. And that‘s the end of it. I‘ve never been involved in a discussion with that. But I think that the point here is this, is that people are drawing an inference from the salaciousness of the story that that conversation was about an inappropriate relationship, and it was not.

At the end of the day, this story should never have been on the front page of the “New York Times.” It‘s about gossip, it‘s about innuendo, it‘s salaciousness, it‘s based on anonymous sources. You can‘t defend yourself against anonymous sources‘ smear.

CARLSON: I agree. I agree with you.

SCHMIDT: You know.

CARLSON: I‘m not defending the piece. I just think that Weaver screwed you by going on the record, because all of a sudden, there‘s John Weaver saying, yes, we were meeting about Vicki Iseman. We were so worried that we‘re meeting with—about Vicki Iseman.

Holy smokes, I read that and I thought, well, maybe it is—John Weaver is saying that. I don‘t get it, I must say.

SCHMIDT: I—you know, maybe call us naive, but it was beyond our wildest comprehension that a story like this could appear on the front page of the “New York Times.” Wearily, it‘s something that you would expect to see in “Star” magazine or “The National Enquirer.” It is based on nothing. It‘s one of those questions that, yes, hey, when did you stop beating your wife? How do you defend against that?

There‘s very few stories that are as unfair as this. This is in the same league as the CBS story on the president and the forged documents. Very unfair to Senator McCain. But we do have total, faith and confidence in the fairness of the American people.

There are a whole lot of weasel words being used here about this staff meeting. Matt Browner-Hamlin points to this passage in the Washington Post:

Members of the senator’s small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued ties to a lobbyist who had business before the powerful commerce committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions.

Appearing before reporters this morning in Toledo, Ohio, McCain flatly denied receiving such warnings from his aides and said he had no knowledge that Weaver or anyone else on his staff had told Iseman to keep her distance.

As Matt says, McCain seems to be playing word games about what "staff" is:

The first line seems to connect advisers and associates in the same vein as the Times had previously reported the intervention. Neither are saying the people offering this information are staffers or aides. It is clear that at least two people very high up in the McCain universe have confirmed to both the Times and Post that they had a direct intervention with McCain over Iseman.

McCain’s denial, however, is circumscribed to aides and staff. In that sense, when it comes to the intervention by associates or advisers in his relationship with Vicki Iseman, John McCain is issuing a non-denial denial.

I think the press has an obligation to start highlight the intense (dare I say, Bill Clinton-esque?) parsing being committed by John McCain.

Newsweek already caught McCain lying about having been contacted to intervene on behalf of Iseman's clients. He and his campaign people are counting on a press corps that largely lets St. John off the hook not to press them on it, and it's working -- they've successfully managed to turn the story that should destroy his Straight Talk Express credibility into a crusade against the New York Times.

It's downright embarrassing that so many journalists are helping them do it.