The Times (of London) should have found itself generating big web traffic thanks to its print edition making the front page of Drudge.

So how did it (nearly) happen? With a little help from unfounded allegations of a lesbian affair involving Hillary Clinton and an aide.

Last week the Drudge Report originally linked to this Times story from 22 November, which detailed some of the smears being levelled at various presidential candidates.

The piece began:

The anonymous e-mails and letters began dropping into inboxes and through front doors this summer.

One claimed that Hillary Clinton was having a lesbian affair with Huma Abedin, her beautiful aide. Another online mass-mailing cautioned of the “dark secrets” of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. A blogger claiming to support John McCain said that Rudy Giuliani’s wife supported the killing of “innocent puppies”. Flyers appeared on cars accusing Barack Obama of being a Muslim extremist. An anonymous website said that Fred Thompson was a corrupt playboy.

Welcome to South Carolina, the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America. This state’s primary race has already become the sleaziest leg of the 2008 presidential campaign.

The Drudge link generated some modest traffic. So far, so straightforward. But then Drudge got hold of the paper itself.

That main photo (of Clinton walking with aide Huma Abedin) is captioned: “Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin.” And, on the strength of that caption, the story made Drudge’s main page.

DON’T GO THERE: BRIT PAPER STARTS ‘UGLIEST MONTH’
Sun Nov 25 2007 20:45:12 ET

The TIMES of London starts ‘The Ugliest Month’ with a full page photo takeout on Hillary Clinton and her beautiful personal assistant.

“Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin,” reads the caption.

The splash stunned British readers and angered campaign insiders.

“This does not even qualify as tabloid trash… it’s ridiculous and reckless,” a Hillary confidante explained over the weekend.

Taking the whisper from the underground to the overground, the paper made no claims to knowing any truth of the relationship between Hillary and Huma…

But Drudge didn’t link to the original online story that puts the caption into context. So, no extra traffic for the Times.

Is this a little disingenuity by the US site? Or a case of not looking back to see that – caption aside – this is in fact the same story you already linked to?

Still leaving politics to one side – with David Montgomery dissing sub-editors, what better illustration of their ability to sell stories than this?

And finally, a print edition that could have driven online traffic (well, almost).