The article which is titled “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk,” (nothing about sex) starts off as you describe. However the fifth paragraph begins, “But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career.” It then goes on for 29 paragraphs about McCain’s history of taking positions on government ethics before returning to the relationship with Iseman, and explaining, “Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.”

That might be a nice spin for the Times to go with. However, the editors of the New York Times didn’t go that way.

I refer you to the follow up piece they published:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21cnd-mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lead sentence: “Senator John McCain said Thursday that an article in The New York Times about his close ties to a woman lobbyist was untrue, that he had no romantic relationship with the lobbyist and that he had no confrontations in 1999 with worried staff members who told him to stay away from her.”

The author make no attempt to claim that Senator McCain misunderstood the main point of the original article, but appears to agree that the affair was the point.

For that matter, go back to the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

After the teaser of first paragraph; the second paragraph refers to the affair which was anonymously alleged to have been suspected of occurring; the third paragraph refers to the letters to the FCC — with no implication that they were improper, but only that anonymous aides may have been worried that these letters might lead others to stumble on the alleged appearance of an affair; the fourth paragraph contains the requisite denials of the affair…

Can you be clearer on what you thought the writers’ focus was, and why you think they buried the “focus” of their story under the fold?

Or perhaps not.

In the latter case, this story will, as you say, be forgotten in a week. In the former case, …

1) It’s LowellPaxson, not “Bill”.

2) The link is here.

FCC Chairman’s scathing response to McCain’s intervention on behalf of Paxson.

McCain’s categorical denial the he met with Paxson before interceding with the FCC.

Newsweek uncovers McCain’s 2002 sworn deposition in which he admits to having met with Paxson.

The McCain Campaign issues another denial: when McCain testified that “I” met with Paxson, he meant “the Royal ‘I’” — his staff met with Paxson.

Bill Paxson confirms that he met with McCain, personally.

McCain’s first categorical denial could have been the result of mere forgetfulness. When confronted with his previous sworn deposition, the McCain campaign could have said, “Whoops! Yes, the Senator forgot about that meeting.” Instead, they doubled-down and lied about the meaning of McCain’s deposition.

The only interpretation of that move is that they are in full panic mode. Which is why I think this story may have some legs.