David Brooks provides it, positing that yesterday's NYT story grew out of the longstanding divisions in McCain Land between the Rick Davis camp and the John Weaver camp, both of which represent the two sides of McCain's own personality. (His Maverick and Iceman sides, if you will.)
That was the most interesting part of the column. The most surprising part was Brooks's fairly stark assessment of what the NYT story means for McCain. While most McCain defenders have tried to turn the story back on the Times, Brooks writes:
At his press conference Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn’t just say he didn’t remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over. If no evidence surfaces, his campaign will go on and it will be clear that there were members of his old inner circle consumed by viciousness and mendaciousness. [Emphasis added.]
I guess if we want to read a McCain booster bash the Times on the paper of record's own op-ed page, we'll have to wait for Bill Kristols' column on Monday.