Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic has a smart take on why the McCain/Schmidt response is bogus:
In a late-night missive written in Schmidt Gothic Bold, the McCain campaign denied what the stories did not allege -- namely, that Davis personally profited from Freddie Mac and therefore had a direct financial conflict of interest in helping McCain develop policy.
Davis retains a stake in his firm, but it's not clear whether he'll benefit financially. Though he certainly has an ego interest in keeping the firm alive, the story's not about profit. It's about influence buying.
That seems to settle the one question that lingered in my mind. Freddie was putting a down payment on McCain, in essence, by hitching up to Davis' firm. Whether Davis profited directly isn't the point.
And just to reiterate, because it's now been probably a couple thousand words since I wrote this this morning, but it's worth repeating: Either Davis lied to or failed to inform McCain about this relationship, or he did inform McCain, and McCain then went out and lied in public on Sunday night.
That phrase "lied in public" is supposed to pack a punch, but I saw as I was writing it that with regard to this year's John McCain it packs no surprise at all. So let's put it this way. If McCain didn't know of Davis' Freddie deal, then it would appear that McCain went out and knowingly told the truth in public!
