Over the last 10 days, Hillary Clinton raised a few eyebrows when she compared Barack Obama to George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Now, her campaign has raised the stakes a little more.
A Clinton campaign spokesman Thursday compared Barack Obama’s recent criticism of the New York senator to the actions of Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr.
Since his losses on Tuesday night, Obama has stepped up his attacks on Clinton for her failure to release her most recent tax returns and other documents related to her time as first lady. Her campaign has said that she will release the tax records in advance of Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, and that it cannot control the release of the White House schedules in question.
On a Thursday conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said that the Illinois senator was attempting to sidestep questions about his readiness to lead the country. “He chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton. I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president,” said Wolfson.
Is it me, or is this response far stronger than it needs to be? Obama’s point is hardly unreasonable — Clinton hasn’t released her tax returns, and hasn’t explained why they need to be kept private. (She’s said publicly she would release returns after winning the nomination, not before.) One of the Obama campaign’s underlying criticisms is that Clinton is overly secretive, and the senator’s reluctance to disclose tax records plays into those concerns.
But is this really Ken Starr-like? Do we really need to see the amp turned to 11 for what seems like a routine criticism? After all, Clinton criticized Rick Lazio, her Republican Senate opponent in 2000, for not releasing his returns, so it’s hardly as if Clinton thinks the subject itself is beyond the pale.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton responded to the criticism:
“…We don’t believe that expecting candidates for the presidency to disclose their tax returns somehow constitutes Ken Starr-tactics, but the kind of transparency and accountability that Americans are looking for and that’s been missing in Washington for far too long,” said Burton, in a statement to reporters.
“And if Sen. Clinton doesn’t think that the Republicans will ask these very same questions, then she’s not as ready to go toe-to-toe with John McCain as she claims.”
We’re apparently poised to see more of this.
They say irony is dead, but Hillary Clinton’s campaign may be on a mission to prove that wrong. In a memo today, the Clinton camp went negative on Barack Obama for, yes, going negative on Clinton. “Senator Obama lost Ohio and Texas because voters had doubts about his ability to serve as Commander-in-Chief and steward of the economy. But instead of addressing those concerns, how is Senator Obama responding? By attacking Senator Clinton,” the memo reads. […]
Forget the inherent internal contradictions here; the Clinton campaign hasn’t made any secret of its negative campaigning strategy over recent days. As a colleague observed — correctly, we think — the memo is sort of like starting a fight, then complaining when the other guy hits you back.
After seeing the kitchen-sink strategy in action, it does seem a little odd to see a campaign memo complaining about political “attacks.”
If Obama does confront Clinton more directly in the coming weeks — as now seems inevitable — expect this entire dynamic to get increasingly annoying. I suspect every criticism will soon be characterized as a) a right-wing talking point; b) a page from Karl Rove’s playbook; c) Ken Starr-like; or d) some combination thereof.