Novak and Clinton and Obama … oh my

November 18, 2007

If the acrimony between the Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns was kindling, Robert Novak’s shamelessly unethical column was a match.

If you’re just joining us, Novak reported yesterday that Hillary Clinton’s “agents” are gossiping in Democratic circles that the Clinton campaign has “scandalous information” about Obama, which they reportedly will not share.

Of course, as a matter of journalism and professional standards, Novak’s piece was a textbook case of media irresponsibility. His column shouldn’t have even run — Clinton supporters (who he will not name) are allegedly spreading rumors about rumors (which he cannot identify) addressing an Obama scandal (which may or may not exist). Joe Klein suggested that Novak may have “simply abandoned all pretense of being a journalist.”

What’s most striking, however, is the full-scale war between the Clinton and Obama camps in the wake of the piece. Consider the timeline of events:

* A couple of hours after Novak’s piece was published, Obama’s campaign blasted the column, criticized Novak, and urged Clinton to “either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.”

* Two hours later, the Clinton campaign responded, accusing Obama of “echoing Republican talking points” and criticizing Obama for not being “experienced” enough to ignore Bob Novak. As for the alleged dirt, the campaign said, “We have no idea what Mr. Novak’s item is about and reject it totally.”

* Within an hour, Obama spokesman Bill Burton lobbed another one: “The ‘experience’ America’s looking for today is not the practiced Washington art of evasion and deflection. Once again, the Clinton campaign refuses to answer two simple, direct questions: Are ‘agents’ of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have ‘scandalous’ information that they are not releasing? ‘Yes or no?'”

* Around the same time, the Clinton campaign noted that Obama’s campaign has been engaged in opposition-research attacks, including pushing the Norman Hsu story, and “digging for damaging facts” at the Clinton presidential library.

* Shortly thereafter Obama spokesperson David Plouffe added, “The Clinton campaign has admitted that they do not possess the ‘scandalous information’ in question and we take them at their word. But what we don’t accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks. This is exactly the kind of smear politics Democrats need to fight back on, regardless of the source or the party. Democrats should know that when Barack Obama is their nominee, he will not allow the ‘Swift boat’ politics of fear and diversion to prevail in this campaign.”

* And shortly after that, the Clinton campaign added, “It’s telling that the Obama campaign would rather spend the day throwing mud in Bob Novak’s sandbox than talking about the issues.”

A few observations: First, Novak’s column smeared both Clinton and Obama, and the two campaigns proceeded to make it worse by spending the entire day bickering over what was, as a practical matter, a dumb column devoid of any substance.

Second, I guess Obama’s rapid-response operation is finally up and running.

Third, any talk about a Clinton-Obama ticket seems quite silly in light of recent events. One gets the sense that the two campaigns genuinely dislike one another.

Shakespear’s Sister just pointed out that with all of the Bush catastrophies the Dems have to run on, they are choosing instead to run against each other.
Truly we are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • Two points: Clinton should have immediately confirmed that there wasn’t anything scandalous they had on Obama; since Obama’s people were so quick to challenge that any info be released, my best guess is that there really was no scandal at all. Scandals- real scandals- involving Democrats reflect poorly on all of us, so we shouldn’t tolerate the appearance of scandal when there isn’t one.

    Obama’s campaign was wrong to claim that it’s “smear politics” when you say that someone is falling for Republican tricks. Smear politics is saying that someone is diddling little boys or stealing government money or cheating on their spouse or abusing law-enforcement resources at their disposal, when in fact the allegations aren’t true. If we can’t say that someone’s falling for Republican tricks, how can we talk about it and counter it when someone does? How can we learn not to do it? It’s not a slander to accuse someone of being stupid- instead of accusing them of being evil- even if Obama’s campaign doesn’t want to look bad because they want him to be able to become president. But calling Clinton someone who engages in “smear politics” is calling her evil, and that is “smear politics.”

  • Obama’s camp was right to want to get a confirmation from Clinton that nothing was going on, but if this was more heat than they had to use on her people to get that from them, then Obama’s campaign did something wrong by using too much heat.

    If Clinton’s campaign purposely let this rumor sit out there, then they did something wrong, in that.

  • Obama’s camp was right to want to get a confirmation from Clinton that nothing was going on, but if this was more heat than they had to use on her people to get that from them, then Obama’s campaign did something wrong by using too much heat.

    Basically, once they got the confirmation, there was no reason to break kneecaps, so yeah, calling her someone engaged in smear politics was too much.

  • “We have no idea what Mr. Novak’s item is about and reject it totally.”

    One would think Obama would have been satisfied with this. It couldn’t have been clearer.

    Yes, it does seem now that a Clinton/Obama ticket is most unlikely.

    I have to fault Obama. Clinton’s repudiation of Novak’s allegations should have been the end of it, and Obama should have learned a lesson about Novak.

    Score one for Novak – he succeeded in creating quite possibly terminal animosity between Clinton and Obama, over nothing at all.

    Repubs 1: Dems 0

    As usual.

  • Obama’s people always might have been demanding release of information just to try to appear blameless; thing is, I’m not sure that’s how people usually actually act when they’re actually guilty.

    Think about Larry Craig– he didn’t just start saying, as soon as the scandal broke, “I want you all to check out all the police reports against me because I have nothing to hide and if it says anything against me, none of it’s true” when all there was to discover was someone saying/writing “In my experience as an undercover police officer investigating and arresting gays for soliciting prostitution, this guy solicited me for sex in a public bathroom stall, so I arrested him.” Think back to any other scandal you remember- Gonzales, etc. I think you’ll find the accused acted similarly in almost all of them.

  • The Clinton and Obama campaign have been tripped up by Republican operative Bob Novak. Next time one of these innuendo-riddled “novakian” reports surfaces, the Democratic campaigns should proclaim that “private discussions between campaigns are taking place to clear up the scurrilous claims,” and proceed to release “a joint statement” denouncing the political smear being perpetrated in the guise of journalism. Let’s (Democrats) unite against our Republican enemies. (And yes–they are not merely opponents–they are enemies, born-out by their tactics and disdain for the Democrat (sic) Party.)

  • This shows Obama’s judgmental capability. He jumped on Clinton without even first verifying Novak’s Opinion. He missed on a great opportunity to prove one of the highlights of his foreign policy- talking to enemies and adversaries of rouge states- directly. As Clinton happens to be his adversary now in the political fight to get nomination he should have directly called Clinton and get the answer directly from her. For the party sake, and to keep the “republican scams” out of the party, she would have obliged to answer Obama (if he had directly questioned her) directly and at once. If she had not have answered, Obama would have scored a point. Or perhaps she would have shared her experience with the Republican “Trash Democrats Machine” and advised him not get trapped by Novak. This would have also established that Obama is genuinely means that he can talk any adversaries directly to get expected results. Instead he showed poor judgment which proves his inexperience in handling very sensitive issues. It looks his “direct talk with enemies” is just rhetoric and with no substance and he would be a sucker to enemies of USA. Republican Novak scored a point -big time. And Obama-Clinton ticket is dead.

  • Will these campaign war rooms realize that their hair-trigger defense mechanisms are playing into the hands of beltway puppeteers like Novak. Novak doesn’t use his column to pontificate on the news, he aims to manipulate it. Didn’t they learn anything from the Plame mess?

  • Will these campaign war rooms realize that their hair-trigger defense mechanisms are playing into the hands of beltway puppeteers like Novak.

    Remember those films of the ping pong balls and mousetraps? All Novak had to do was throw the first ping pong ball.

  • Also, I think this was not a valid thing and was a Republican effort to smear Barack because it looks like what they’d resort to to smear Barack.

    Bear with me for a second:

    Remember that a few months ago, everyone was remarking that you couldn’t smear Barack because there wasn’t really anything bad you could say about him. He’s one of those spotlessly clean “you’d want to let your daughter marry him” types.

    So how can they go after a guy like that, if they have nothing- nothing that will turn out to have any substantiation, if actually examined. Remember, what they usually do to our people is find something that has a little bit of substantiation, at least, and then blow it out of all proportion, because it’s actually something not all that bad. Out of desperation, they’ve been just plain making stuff up about Barack. The claims hat he was raised in a madrassa, or that’s he’s Muslim- but nothing backs this stuff up. What’s better than that, if what you have is a flat lie? Well, if you can’t prove to people that something’s out there nasty about this guy, just get them to believe there’s something nasty out there about this guy. Pinning it on the Clinton camp gives it an extra veneer of credibility it wouldn’t have if the source was closer to Rove’s camp, and, they may have felt they could count on them to sit on contradicting it, since all the Dem front-runners are so eager to decisively beat the others.

    So the way the smear came out looked like something the Republicans would logically turn to if they spent a lot of time thinking of how to get Barack.

    What does it mean if that’s so?

    Either: a) they’re starting to think people may be starting to turn against Hillary, and it’s time to start going more against Barack; b) just a chance to get Barack to cover the bases and/or because Barack’s a Democrat and it would just generally reflect poorly on all Democrats to smear him; c) a way to creat havoc and ill-feeling among Democrats, fray friendship, strain cooperation; d) just part of their general strategy because conservative politics is more or less anti-black politics and Barack is a black leader with a good image who may be giving blacks self-esteem now (just a way to lash out at blacks or their public image). There may be one or two other possibilities I’ve forgotten.

  • Novak got what he wanted, didn’t he? I agree the column should have been addressed but not at the expense of giving any credence to it by saying “if it is true then…” or “it isn’t true, but you should…” Both campaigns should have taken the high road on the other’s campaign and joined together to just say Novak isn’t credible as a journalist and his article, intent on causing mischief, is ludicrous and devoid of truth. He should stick to outing CIA agents and being a lackey for the Bush administration.

    This was kind of like the old high school tactic to start a fight…”My buddy says you called me an ass”. “I didn’t call you an ass.” “Oh yeah. You calling my buddy a liar?”.

  • He missed on a great opportunity to prove one of the highlights of his foreign policy- talking to enemies and adversaries of rouge states- directly. As Clinton happens to be his adversary now in the political fight to get nomination he should have directly called Clinton and get the answer directly from her.

    Well, I don’t think Iran for example is someone you’re every day competing against for a single slice of pie that only one of us can have, like you are with an opponent in a presidential campaign. And Obama didn’t just want an answer on the phone from her, since it’s really more suitable to get her to issue a public statement. Something could go wrong or they could be talking to some fool from her operation on the phone, and Obama’s people could get want they want to hear over the phone– but then after Obama’s people put out a statement saying that, they could find Clinton’s campaign publicly saying “that’s not what we said to them.” You just can’t count on people not dicking you like that when you’re competing against them for something in a fierce competition like a presidential campaign or a litigation.

    I don’t think an Obama-Clinton ticket is dead and I think all predictions like that about running mates are premature. Tell me what the polls are going to say is expedient for the parties’ nominees when next November is a few months closer, and then I’ll tell you whether your predictions are realistic or not.

  • Yesterday I argued that Rove was the likely person behind the Novak column. Today Digby has a post which reminds us that Rove was stirring the pot last week.

    Karl Rove is smiling this morning. Wolf Blitzer just used a clip from Rove’s appearance on C-SPAN last week in which he said that Barack Obama looked weak because he failed to confront Hillary Clinton on the fact that she and her husband could release all their records with a phone call and they refuse.

    Last week Rove was, in effect, taunting Obama to attack Hillary. You could almost hear him calling Obama a pussy for not standing up to the bitch. In retrospect it appears that the C-Span comment was designed so that when the Novak column appeared the Obama camp would be primed to attack.

  • I don’t think an Obama-Clinton ticket is dead and I think all predictions like that about running mates are premature. Tell me what the polls are going to say is expedient for the parties’ nominees when next November is a few months closer, and then I’ll tell you whether your predictions are realistic or not.

    Or I guess I should say, ‘Tell me, when the parties are ready to nominate their presidential candidates, what the polls say a winning or a losing ticket would be for the nominees, and then I’ll tell you whether your predictions are realistic or not.’

  • Most successful politicians are indeed masters at rebuilding alliances. (Nonetheless, Swan, please, think twice, and type once.)

  • “Around the same time, the Clinton campaign noted that Obama’s campaign has been engaged in opposition-research attacks, including pushing the Norman Hsu story, and “digging for damaging facts” at the Clinton presidential library.”

    How very accommodating of Obama’s campaign to provide Clinton the opportunity to neutralize his own oppo’ research. You don’t suppose… nah, nobody’s that good. Not even she could hit a bank shot off that many rails.

    “Third, any talk about a Clinton-Obama ticket seems quite silly in light of recent events. One gets the sense that the two campaigns genuinely dislike one another.”

    Well, it is that time of year. Primary races do have a way of getting a little silly in the home stretch.

    But I’d also seriously doubt that Barck Obama would make Clinton’s short list for VP slot, even if they remain the best of pals when all is said and done. Clinton may be a lot of things — possibly as many as half of the things she’s accused of being — but she is rarely accused of being stupid or politically inept. I can’t picture her picking another blue-state liberal senator with no executive or military experience for the VP slot. She would want someone for that job who could balance the ticket and help buff up her centrist cred.

  • One has to wonder about the ability of either candidate, given that they responded to anything written by Bob Novak. I believe a majority of Americans will be happy when the current occupant of the Oval Office disappears into a dust storm in Texas. But, with all there is to criticize about this administration, do we really want the replacement to be someone who focuses on the muddled musings from the mixed-up mind that is Novak. Shame on the two.

  • bedgars said:

    “One has to wonder about the ability of either candidate, given that they responded to anything written by Bob Novak.

    Well actually, Obama responded to Novak (by attacking Clinton). Clinton then responded to Obama and the rest you know.

    I’ve observed that Obama doesn’t always do the most exceptional job of picking his battles and often doesn’t seem to know when to let a tempest die a natural death before spilling out of the teapot and onto the front pages for another day or week. But I also haven’t seen him make a lot of the same mistakes twice, so we’ll see how long he wants to keep this one going.

  • Bob Novak is a proven traitor and he should have been hung for his treason. And that is all Barack should have said about this matter. “Why would I give any credence at all to anything a traitor says?”

    This was purelya Rovian and Novackulan smear tactic. Both Clinton and Obama should have immediately discounted it.

    And Mr Novak and Mr Rove? When law and order are finally restored in this country, I will personally volunteer to build the gallows for your hangings. And I’m against the death penalty on principle.

  • Obama’s campaign made a serious tactical error here, and the Clinton campaign took the opportunity to both belt Novak and point out something crucial – the tactical error Obama made was to reply to Novak the way he did.

    This was an unforced error, so to speak. The Obama campaign could have chosen to blast the h*ll out of Novak and then give the Clinton campaign a polite “And you *will* confirm this is all so much BS, won’t you?”, which would have very effectively put the Clinton campaign on the spot. Instead, they turned the bulk of their fire against HRC and did not call into question Novak’s veracity.

    Paul Krugman is right. Barack Obama is a sucker for the right.

  • Ditto, frecryinoutloud.

    This is SO amateur hour. Clinton missed an opportunity to play the hero, too.

    Winner? Edwards.
    I’m glad it’s only the primary. Pulling this junk for the general could get dangerous.

    Why such an overreaction? IS there dirt to be had? Shouldn’t dirty laundry be aired early?

    Howard Dean flubbed when he didn’t reveal Canadian interview footage where he criticized fellow democrats. The coverup was worse than the crime for a guy professing to be a different kind of politician. I hope Obama knows to come clean on his own terms, if there’s anything there there.

  • Why would ANY DEM care to to ANYTHING other tell the American people that these people are traitors that deserve to be in JAIL for crimes against the American people?

    Libby – Traitor!
    Rove – Traitor!
    Novak – Traitor!

    Never forget!

    The further the Dem candidates go in naming names – the more votes they’re going to get in the elections – it really is just that simple.

  • Most successful politicians are indeed masters at rebuilding alliances. (Nonetheless, Swan, please, think twice, and type once.)

    You should watch your mouth- kinda rude, dude. There is an infinite amount of space for comments here. I promise not to scold you when you clarify a comment so you don’t leave the original looking inadequate.

  • None of the campaigns like each other right now.

    But we need them all, either way, to win in the end.

    Like Edwards said: Whoever is the eventual nominee, I’ll support them.

    Until them, let them play in the mud, it’s the only way to learn.

  • Both campaigns start to sound like kids picking at each other. Who is their right mind is going to believe Novak when the article was so “lean” on any facts. It is Rove just trying to make trouble like always and Obama fell for it.

  • “Second, I guess Obama’s rapid-response operation is finally up and running.”

    The problem is that the response has to be good, not just fast. Obama comes off as pissy instead of tough.

  • Fucking tools fell right into Novak’s trap. He’s exploiting their paranoia: something that Repugs have made their entire policy since… well since Joe McCarthy at least, probably earlier.

    Fuck Novak. Clinton’s right in this case: Obama’s people need to ignore that asshole.

  • I tend to think that Obama wouldn’t have released such an aggressive response — directly from Obama — unless they were pretty damn sure that “agents” of the Clinton campaign were indeed spreading this rumor.

    The only alternative is that it’s a Hail Mary pass from the Obama campaign, hoping to cloud the water with another charge to put Hillary on the defensive.

    I’ll wait a few days to see how this plays out…

  • Bob Novak is a proven traitor and he should have been hung for his treason. And that is all Barack should have said about this matter. “Why would I give any credence at all to anything a traitor says?”

    Absolutely on the money!! Obama needs an advisor like you.

    • Comments are closed.