Stories like this one, published by the ethically-challenged Robert Novak, these are really annoying.
Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.
This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s now discarded plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
Really, what’s the point a report like this? Novak claims that Clinton “agents” aren’t spreading Obama rumors — they’re spreading rumors about rumors. They have “scandalous information,” which they won’t use, but which nevertheless “makes Obama look vulnerable.”
Please. What could possibly make Novak publish an item like this? Clinton supporters (who he will not name) are allegedly spreading rumors (which he cannot identify) about an Obama scandal (which may or may not exist). It’s journalism at its most hacktacular.
It makes Clinton’s campaign look bad, for allegedly engaging in a nasty whisper campaign, and it puts the Obama campaign in an impossible position of having to defend itself from rumors that haven’t even been articulated.
For what it’s worth, the Obama campaign issued a statement in response to Novak’s piece, which I received via email.
“During our debate in Las Vegas on Thursday, we heard Senator Clinton rail against the politics of ‘throwing mud.’
“At the very same time, in Washington, Robert Novak was publishing a column in which he reported the following: ‘Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama…’
“The item did not identify these ‘agents,’ nor did it reveal the nature of the charge. It was devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we’ve become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades. If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.
“But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.
“She of all people, having complained so often about ‘the politics of personal destruction,’ should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics.
“I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it’s deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party.
“The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old ‘Swift boat’ politics. The cause of moving America forward demands that we defeat it.”
Notice that the campaign took a derisive tone towards Novak, which was the right call. Jumping on the report as if it were true would be to give Novak the benefit of the doubt, which he definitely doesn’t deserve.
No word from the Clinton campaign on all of this, though I suspect if Novak’s piece starts getting picked up, the campaign will have to say something. Stay tuned.