That’s what Barack Obama promised, but it sure looks the same old, uh, stuff to me. If the first casualty of war is truth, the first casualty of politics is sanctimony.
For all Obama’s public pledges to run a positive campaign, today’s NYT details how Obama’s campaign attempted a clumsy stealth hit on the frontrunner:
Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.
Which, of course, the Clinton campaign got wind of and jujitsued this way:
A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.
Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: “We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don’t see why anyone would take umbrage with that.”
Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, “I’m going to leave my comment at that.”
This kind of “oppo research,” of course, is pretty standard campaign fare. What makes this episode worth comment, however, is how it contradicts the Obama campaign’s public vows. In fact, media strategist David Axelrod has even implied the campaign does not do this kind of oppo. Here’s something he told Brand X in February:
“We have a long record—actually a longer record in public life than several of the other candidates—and the first order of business is when representations are made about that record, we are completely informed as to what Barack has said and done and written,” says Axelrod. “You’d be foolish to have a campaign without that operational capacity.
“Second, it’s important for us to know what other candidates have said and done because you need to understand where there are similarities and contrasts. The difference is about using your opposition research as a kind of offensive weapon on a day-to-day basis to try to besmirch your opponents.”
(Emphasis mine.)
And here’s what the candidate himself had to say, just last February, about his appoach to oppo:
Meanwhile, the Edwards campaign decides to have fun with all of this, sending the following out marked–as the Obama hit piece on Clinton had been–“NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION”:
JOHN EDWARDS: THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT HIS “GREAT” WEEK
Some John Edwards supporters have said this was a “good” or “decent” week, but a closer examination of the record proves: this was a great week. Between bringing down health care costs for families, widely successful grassroots fundraisers, busy Iowa and New Hampshire trips, and even a little of mom’s pecan pie, the facts are clear—John Edwards is on a roll. …