Sorry but that would be so stupid. It means any time McCain's lobbyist friend are brought up you'd have "Even Obama says its a non story!"

And if you think McCain will stick up for Obama when the time comes, you are sorely mistaken.

So you'd have Obama kill off any chance that McCain's favor for lobbyists gets exmained, make enemies of the Times for the praise of no one.

as Rob says, a blanket "voice of support" by Obama takes the troubling aspects here - the lobbyist influence on McCain, both Iseman and those in his campaign. If he's going to knock the press for "invading personal lives" (which, by the way, is what it means to be a public figure), he'll probably have to make clear that fair examinations of McCain's dealings vis-a-vis lobbyisists are a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry. However, I'd also add that the person who ties his star to McCain on this better be awfully clean... or he's also - a la Gary Hart - just inviting scrutiny that may backfire.

This is a weird statement: "And, above all, making the principled case for McCain now would be protective for Obama when the inevitable personal attacks come at him." How so? How would this work? I'm sure that when Obama gets hits for, say, belonging to an Afrocentric black church, McCain and the media will seek to be "protective" of him because he showed such decency during the Iseman controversy."

Unless Obama had sex with the same lobbyist, he should stay out of it.

It's also idiotic in terms of handling the press to do this. It does zero to negatively define McCain, antagonizes the press and belittles a real issue of McCains lobby connections. It also opens door for Obama to be attacked on this issue as not an agent for change.

I guess integrity is really just a word...abstract and without substance. Now I hear that 60 minutes i going to air a segment concerning the Gov. Sigelman affair and his subsequent 7 year sentence for bribery and the connection to Karl Rove.
It all ties together, the corruption, the money. I used to think that McCain at least had integrity and was a straight shooter, but he is not. I don't care of he had sex with this woman, which I do not think he did, but he did use his office to influence the FCC to move on a company, Paxton, that she was representing.
He's no better than Rove, or Bush..etc
And if Clinton or Obama turn out to be the same, then we're done.
It's time for revolution.

That idea sounds like something Chris Matthews would come up woth. Be careful, Ezra, the MSM is converting you!

Obama should obviously stay out of it.

There's a (small) chance that this could destroy McCain's candidacy, and Obama should do nothing about it until that chance has passed.

Once it's passed, Obama has a great angle. He can hit McCain, over and over, for his close ties to lobbyists. He never has to mention Iseman or allude to Iseman, but the affair will nonetheless be brought to mind with every (principled!) attack on McCain for taking money from lobbyists, far having his campaign run by lobbyists, for shifting his positions on key issues (tax cuts, climate change) to help the wealthy clients of lobbyists, and so on. It's awesome. I have no doubt that it's what Obama will do.

The high road is for losers.

Almost right. Obama should defend McCain, but he shouldn't use the "a candidate's personal life is nobody's business" tack. For one, there has been no hint that Obama has Lewinsky-type skeletons in his closet, and thus he has no need to insulate himself against future insinuations that he has been boinking lobbyists or interns.

What Obama should say is, "The Times was irresponsible for reporting this accusation without also reporting evidence tending to confirm it. When someone makes a damaging accusation against a candidate, that is not news in itself, and the news media should not simply pass the accusation along. The media has a duty to either find hard evidence supporting the accusation, or else not report it at all."

Obama does need to insulate himself against the MSM reflexively reporting accusations as if the accusations themselves -- Obama is a muslim, Obama was educated at a madrassa, Obama said he admires terrorists, etc., etc. -- are news.

In short, the problem isn't that the story has to do with the candidate's personal life, it's that the story isn't legitimate news.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Ezra nailed it. The only thing I would do differently would be to more strongly emphasize "If you want to talk about Senator's McCain's [bad points], such as (long, emphatic list), then I'm happy to do so."

Look, Obama isn't going to win this by acting like Hillary!

I don't see this as a good argument in any way, and Jonathan knows it. A few facts he tends to gloss over:

- Lewinsky wasn't just an ADULT, she was an employee, the youngest and most vulnerable employee.

I am pretty sure Ezra that The American Propect couln't care less who your having sex with; unless your having that sex in your office, at work, with a young intern that you get to decide if they get fired or stay at work.

The American Prospect also may be concerned if you then try to get that employee to perjure herself or to sign false documents regarding all the sex you had with her in your office, at work.

- Clinton tried to get Lewinsky to break the law.

- Clinton himself broke the law when he lied under oath.

McCain isn't even accused of having a sexual relationship; he is accused of staffers suspecting he may have a had a 'romantic' relationship of which they have provided absolutely no evidence, not even an utterance from either of them.

Let's be very clear; the word ROMANTIC is not a substitute for sshtupping.

Nowhere does the Times say anything about an affair, or sex, or infidelity, so jonanthan is just making that part up.

And Jonathan may want to ask a few female friends if being sodomized with a cigar, by your boss,in his bathroom, at work would be considered ROMANTIC.

In addition, Jonathan needs to go back and check his facts because Lewisnky was offered ALOT by Clinton, to include a badge giving her direct access to the oval office area, a meeting with Bill Richardson and Vernon Jordan; something I do not believe every intern received.

Something tells me Jonathan will not soon have sex with an intern in his office and provide her special work favors to prove his point that his employer could care less.

Obama shouldn't go near this story with a ten-foot pole.

Why? Because we can reasonably believe that there's more reporting to be done on this, and you don't want to get into the position of having to make new comments on every new bit of reporting.

He can make implicit references to the madrassa/Muslim bullshit by saying that reporting on the campaign needs to be responsible and grounded in facts. But that's all.

Its nice to know Obama opposes a hundred year war against Islamic terrorists. I'd like him to tell us how long he would fight them before he surrenders? We now know it is less then 100 years, so is it 50? 5? a year? Just when does American stop the fight against islamic terrorism?

It would also be nice if he told us if he opposed the 60 years of war against Soviet Communism? Was that too long to fight?

How about the 50 year old war on poverty? Does he want to end that war as well?

Or how about the 60 year war on Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust? Does he believe we should have stopped pursuing them sooner? Let them live in peace and tranquility?

maybe he's just as proud of his country as his wife....

I like both this idea and CN's modification of it. I'd probably modify a bit more, and have him say something like:

"I've been focused on the tough races we've got coming up on March 4th, and so I haven't really been paying attention to stuff like this--but I know John McCain, and I think he's an honorable man and wouldn't be personally unfaithful." Then he can go into the bit about how the press shouldn't just pass on inuendo, etc.

The first line leaves him an opening to take up the corruption angle later, if he wants. The second line lets him take the high road until/unless some actual reporting makes it clear that there was an affair, in which case he gets to be shocked, shocked.

Win/win approach, I think.

Never underestimate the "frat boy" vote, which considers the idea that McCain may have poached a little action with a young hot blonde now and then as a reason to vote for him, indeed, to revere him.

This is probably the reason Clinton's approval ratings suffered little, if at all, from the Lewinsky blow job.

American prudes are vehement, as are the moral narcissists, but they're a minority, it seems.

And then, this fall, some wingnut dope will invent a lurid tale about Obama and John McCain will jump right in and defend him.
And I am the Tsar of all the Russias.

The first line leaves him an opening to take up the corruption angle later, if he wants. The second line lets him take the high road until/unless some actual reporting makes it clear that there was an affair, in which case he gets to be shocked, shocked.

Win/win approach, I think.

I get the part where McCain wins, but where does Obama win? As charles points out, this is Charlie Brown / football stuff. Doing a good deed for John McCain will win you precisely nothing from the Republicans, which is why it's insane to do it.

This is High Broderism, nothing more.

Obama shouldn't say a damn thing.

Come on folks, wake up! This election is a War. And I, for one, am sick to death of being called a 'terrorist' because I'm a Democrat. I don't believe the 'slime' gets worse than that.

Follow Doyle's motto:
"...when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

If there is reasonably reliable information to assert an allegation of an act or event that will help us win without being degrading lies, then it's simple: Jump.To.It. (and Charlie Pierce, above, is exactly right).

"Even if true, it's hardly news if McCain cheats on his wife with a younger blonde -- he's plainly admitted doing so with his wife before Cindy McCain."

Naive doesn't even begin to describe it. If we're nice to the Republicans, why heck, I'm sure they'll be nice to us.

Wake the fuck up.

Allen K:
You should be clearer. McCain was boinking Cindy when he was still married to his first wife. Which also means that Obama shouldn't say a damn thing about McCain being honorable, because he isn't.

What a stupid idea.

it would work and recommended only in world where everyone was honest and nice to each other, i.e., one where McCain or Republicans would not exist.

The idea that a Democrat can "insulate" him or herself from smears in the future is laughable. Simply laughable.

The democratic comeback will be what, the facts? Yeah, that works.

Steer clear and pounce if necessary, but don't ever forget that no good deeds go unpunished. When your opponent is in trouble either walk away or throw him an anvil.

probably have a salutary impact on how they covered the rest of the race

What planet are you on? The only way to positively affect beltway press coverage without getting too close to them (as McCain has) is to buy them high-octane alcoholic beveragesand feed them lots of (true) dirt on your political enemies.

I don't know what I think of this suggestion in the end. I think it'd be a bad recommendation to Hillary or John Edwards if they were the presumptive nominee. But Obama's whole persona is the new fresh young face who wants to bring people together and do politics a new way, or something like that, and the approach Ezra is suggesting would help him firmly establish that.

And if he could do it in a way that wouldn't actually decrease the amount of Iseman media speculation, or that would focus more attention on less salacious problems with the McCain-lobbyist relationships, there really wouldn't be a cost.

he doesn't have to expoit it, but why should he defend McCain. If the story is true, you really think Obama should defend sending improper letters to an FCC chairman --so improper that a Bush-apppointed chair rebuked McCain? Forget the sex, who cares about the sex. The favoritism that the Times article alleges is sleazy. Why should Obama "defend" that? Because there's some principle in the McCain conduct that's worth "defending?" As an far as the implication that doing so would somehow make Obama less likely to be attacked, well, that proves why policy wonks shouldn't do politics. Policy and politics, they ain't the same. Stick to the former if you think Obama has something to gain by "defending" Mccain.

It's smart for Obama not to offer any comment on what the NYT found. He should, however, stop short of saying "But his personal life is not only none of my business but, frankly, it's none of yours." It's a far better play to simply decline to comment and insist on talking about other issues, rather than to tell the press how to do their job.

Lead by example, not by lecture.

If the story is true, you really think Obama should defend sending improper letters to an FCC chairman --so improper that a Bush-apppointed chair rebuked McCain? Forget the sex, who cares about the sex. The favoritism that the Times article alleges is sleazy.

The real question is what was in the letters. Obama wrote a letter for Rezko. No big deal. Writing a letter is not, prima facie, evidence of impropriety.

There has to be more going on for the Times to bother running with this story.

Look, the point here that is causing trouble for McCain is not the affair-it is the influence and evidence of corruption. McCain has lied about using his stature and position to help a client of this woman, whether she was his girlfriend or not. McCain has lobbyists running his campaign and doing their work right out of the Straight Talk Express. McCain is contradicted directly by his former campaign manager, his own deposition from six years ago, and the man he was trying to help. Paxson. Forget about the affair angle. This is Mr. Reformer showing himself to be sleazily inauthentic.

Obama right now should do nothing. McCain is shooting himself not just in the foot, but everywhere. Tonight I have the sense for the first time that his campaign could actually implode.

And then? Well as in the 2004 senate race, Alan Keyes is available....

"Come on folks, wake up! This election is a War. And I, for one, am sick to death of being called a 'terrorist' because I'm a Democrat. I don't believe the 'slime' gets worse than that."

It only gets worse when it's a fellow Democrat throwing the slime ...

In Case You Missed It

I cannot believe anyone would be so naive to believe Obama can pre-empt vicious Republican attacks on him by standing up against low-brow reporting by NYT. Wow. How would that work? The Repubs led by McCain would say, hey, man, he stood up for our man, we should refrain from throwing the dirt on him! Or, the press would even stop to think that, hey, Obama was right, there's no justifiable reason to report the dirt the Repubs are spreading about him, because the O-Man said a while back that doing so would just not be cool....Can't believe someone would advocate such idiocy. Just lost a lot of respect for Ezra here.

Yes Ezra, he should defend McCain. Right thing to do and all that. The question is when should he do so.

My take is that McCain got himself some rope and is looping it around his neck and tying it to a tree. Obama should just let what happens happen, and give a poignant eulogy.

If McCain survives this just fine, Obama should applaud and mention that he always had faith that the American people would see right through the Politics of Personal Destruction. Right John?

Although I did use the word "laughable" in my previous post, I don't think Ezra is being an idiot on this point. And I don't think he is being naive.

I do think that any initial bounce or positive feelings that might result from his plan of action will be forgotten over the next months as the national press corps gets bored (they already are) and just look for any random shit they can find.

Obama bought Nikes despite knowing of slave-labor situations in Malaysia.

Obama failed to make Senate vote praising firefighter.

Etc. This petty shit will drive the narrative, and unless the Dems can say or whisper "lobbyists" in their response, well, we are just even more in the whole.

Yes, I bought Nikes, but remember, I don't have lobbyists from Nike on my campaign stuff, unlike Sen. McCain.

You get my point. Don't throw away the ammo before the shooting is done.

"""And I, for one, am sick to death of being called a 'terrorist' because I'm a Democrat. """

I think Republicans will actually paint the Democrats as soft on terrists; not actually being terrorists.

And if you don't want to be labelled soft on terrroism, quit giving the Republicans so much ammunition.

Why does Obama meet with terrorists who bombed their own country? Why does he call himself 'friend' to people who terrorized the nation?

In 1995, Barack Obama,met with two well known terrorists of the local left in Chicago: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

These were the first terrorists that had the idea to blow up the Pentagon.

Their actions caused the deaths of several people, and the terrorizing of millions, why does Barack feel the need to go meet with this kind of terorrist scum?

Why does Barack insist on meeting with Raul Castro and not the thousands of his tortured victims?

It says alot about a person when we see who they want to reach out to, who they want to elevate. raul has absolutely no right, nor any valid claim to be the leader of Cuba, yet Barack wants to elevate him.

Why does Obama say he will meet with the head of State Security, Raul Castro "without preconditions".

Which means Raul gets to keep the human rights workers, the journalists, the political prisoners in their torture cells while being toasted by our new President.

Cuba has the most jounalists jailed for crimes against the Revolution of any country except China, does Barack even know this?

Would Barack meet with Dr Megele and not the Holocaust survivors?

Would a journalist bother to ask him, why he would meet with unrepentent Weather Underground bombers and not the familes of the State Police officers that died due to their actions?

And let's get this straight about what Clinton did. He did favors (in the form of making available advanced US defence technology in particular missile guidance systems) to the Chinese regime, certainly an adversary, if not now labelled an enemy, in return for MONEY, not sex. That's worse than doing some kind of domestic policy favor for sex, I would say. Why was there such an endless parade of donors from, or linked to, the communist chinese? DO you think they were getting nothing for their money? And also don't forget the sale of pardons. Clinton's sex life acted as a damn good cover for his financial corruption.

Certainly Obama himself should not touch the sex part of the story. Although if McCain ever later tries to paint himself as the true champion of "family values" then all bets are off. But the lobbyist part goes directly to the central premise of Obama's campaign, so there's no way he should declare that off limits.

Ezra, you should really look at how Barack Obama handled the Illinois Senate race in 2004, where not one but two explosive scandals destroyed the candidacies of his primary and (initial) general election opponents. Both of them involved divorce records. Blair Hull was accused of domestic abuse. Jack Ryan took his wife (actress Jeri Ryan) to public sex clubs.

In both cases, Obama stayed out of the story. It was the smart move then. It's the smart move now.

He shouldn't go near the sex angle. Eventually, he can start hammering John McCain for his ties to lobbyists.

Funny thing about the Times story, though, is that it kind of screamed out: "SEX! Okay, now that we've got your attention, John McCain has some really shady ties to lobbyists."

Barack managed to buy his house because Rezko's wife bought the adjoining property which was what Baracks seller required to sell the house.

So Barack LITERALLY lives in a glass house if he starts throwing stones. Baracks children would not have that glass roof over their heads but for a lobbyist shelling our real money.

When it comes to doing favors for lobbyists and having that lobbyist literally put a roof over your head, Barack is nothing less then BONEHEADED!

That's right, I said it, he's BONEHEADED.

Meaning, a stupid person; a dunce.

i agree on that..Obama is overwhelming with power and influence right now, strike while it's still hot, like they say

Ezra is essentially suggesting that Obama help McCain make this all about sex, and hell him cover up the very obvious ethical problems with his actions by screaming that the press is a bunch of perverts.

No thanks. If Ezra really thinks this is going to turn against the Democrats somehow, he's been spending too much time in Washington. In the real world, this is playing very badly for McCain.

LoL anonymous, nobody listens to concern trolls. Especially not ones who've spent the last two weeks screaming about how evil and racist/sexist/murderous all Democrats are.

i feel assured that barack obama will take high ground on this and handle it correctly.
wise and coolheaded.

be the change you wish to see.

www.barackobama.com

Yet more conduct that, apparrently, Obama should "defend": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Because, hey, we all know that when the Dems go soft and defend the "personal conduct" (strange definition of personal conduct, there, Ezra, but whatever), the Right respects that takes the high-road. Worked for President Kerry, right?

Wow, I am so impressed by the contrarian anti-Obama arguments being courageously and forthrightly raised in this thread by . . . Anonymous.

I think Ezra noticed that David Broder is getting on in years, and is looking to inherit the mantle.

Just like Obama's taken a principled stand against the sexism unleashed against his Democratic opponent?

Great idea, Ezra.

anonymous

barack obama has treated hillary clinton with the utmost respect in this campaign, as witnessed in the most recent debate.
and hillary clinton acknowledged that.
in this respect, he leads by example.

The most laughable thing about these accusations of sexism is how detached they are from reality. 'code words' aren't made up on the spot, they have historical and cultural significance. 'Periodically' has no such history, it has simply never been used as a code word before. 'Felling down' is simply the midwestern way of saying 'Felling Blue', and is simply a generic expression indicating sadness and depression. It is used by, and for, both males and females.

And 'The claws come out' is also a gender neutral way to indicate a sudden expression of hostility, usually viewed as unwarranted. It is a direct reference of FELINE behavior, not supposedly feminine behavior. If you're going to claim that claws are considered to be a universally female trait in our culture, you will have to explain why the most manly and popular comic book character among young men and boys is a dude with claws that come out of the back of his hands.

Clinton has obviously been the victim of sexism to some extent in this campaign, but has never been utilized by the Obama campaign as a strategy.

There's an idea in Ezra's post somewhere, but I don't think he's hitting it. The story McCain story really isn't about a Senator tagging a female out of wedlock, it's about McCain's problem with telling the truth, his close relations with lobbyists, and his casually giving the appearance of a conflict of interest. So if pressed for a comment on the subject, he'd at very least have to say that he's not answering any questions about someone else's marriage. And he might also say that he's not responding to a story in which facts have not been established and documented. But there's no reason why he couldn't indicate that a U.S. Senator would do well to remember depositions he gives, because every statement a politician makes might be viewed as a deposition to the American People. (You guys work on the particulars; I'm just a simple country editor....)

I respectfully disagree with you, Soullite, and you, jacqueline.

I also think it's not whether Obama treated HRC well, though we could debate that, but that he's said nothing about the misogyny that has played to his favor in this campaign. It'd be offensive to me to have him now come out and defend slander v. McCain when he did no such thing vs. his primary candidate and fellow Party member!

[Sorry; I'm reposting to correct inexcusable editorial errors in my previous comment. Simple country editor, indeed.]

There's an idea in Ezra's post somewhere, but I don't think he's hitting it. The McCain story really isn't about a U.S. Senator tagging a female out of wedlock, it's about McCain's problem with telling the truth, his close relations with lobbyists, and his casually giving the appearance of a conflict of interest. So if pressed for a comment on the subject, Obama would at very least have to say that he's not answering any questions about someone else's marriage. And he might also say that he's not responding to a story in which facts have not been established and documented. But there's no reason why he couldn't point out that a U.S. Senator would do well to remember depositions he gives, because every statement a politician makes might be viewed as a deposition to the American People. (You guys work on the particulars; I'm just a simple country editor....)

Don't feed the troll.

Lol, 'don't feed the troll' really only applies to forums with more than 10 regulars. If we don't feed the trolls here, we end up on turning on one another.

Besides, everyone knows there's a one troll rule. You can feed a single troll, it's only when their troll friends show up that it's time to swing the ban hammer or give them the cold shoulder.

"misogyny has played to his favor in this campaign."

i dont think much played to his favor in this campaign. i think barack obama and his organizers have earned and worked for every last vote in this campaign. the odds were completely stacked against him, especially in the beginning. that is, in part, what makes his campaign so inspiring.
....much of what you refer to as misogyny, i think, had more to do with the candidate. it is not clear to me that if someone else like sebelius (sp) was running, you would have seen the same intensity. the clintons were touchstones for controversy, and i think that is part of what happened.

jacqueline, I'm very patient with the fact that you are a devoted Obama supporter who can't see a wrong in him and can't, particularly, see a right in Hillary Clinton; that's certainly your perogative. However, blanket dismissals of sexism, including the absurd construction of "it's not because she's a woman, it's because she's her" just don't make any sense. Obama's been subject, even I'll admit, to highly prejudiced attacks based on his race. Clinton has endured, not just now, but throughout her career, outrageous charges that have everything to do not with her personally, but simply her gender (the "cackle"; the implications of lesbianism thrown at many powerful, successful women; the suggestions that she's power hungry, and a bitch, and scheming and cold)... there's plenty there, and while I think the Obama campaign has tried to not cross a line, that's not to say they're not playing hard and using things to their advantage, including negative perceptions of her that come from her gender (and from the parts that are, in fact, simply about her). You do a disservice to Obama casting him as this sainted figure who does no wrong, or who is not in a political contest as a political figure. He may well win and we may well get an exciting, positive set of results. But don't overstate it. Please.

Slamming the media would generate enormous media coverage?

Huh.

while I think the Obama campaign has tried to not cross a line, that's not to say they're not playing hard and using things to their advantage, including negative perceptions of her that come from her gender (and from the parts that are, in fact, simply about her).

This is the kind of thing that needs substantiation.

Ezra is right. Its a great idea. Obama can do the right thing, project his 'new politics' approach, and get a real shot at setting the context for the General Election out of this.

Those arguing that 'this is war, if we fight nice and they fight dirty, we lose' miss the point. That can not be an option for Obama: it would be inauthentic given his core campaign message. So he must fight the General Election saying: there is a deep clash of different visions for America, of different policies and politics, but I respect my opponent and do not need to question his integrity to disagree fundamentally about these issues.

Defending McCain on this would establish that, and so raise the bar for McCain when there are attempts to swift boat Obama. If McCain follows suit, Obama has framed the campaign (and the Republican right may be disappointed at their man not fighting a Rove/Bush style campaign).

But if McCain fights dirty, he would have the authenticity problem, given his 'straight talk' persona.

A longer response
http://worldafterbush.blogspot.com/2008/02/should-barack-obama-defend-john-mccain.html

weboy

i do admire the courage and tenacity of hillary clinton.
but i also believe that if katherine sibelius were running for president, we would not be seeing the vituperative attacks and mockery that happens with hillary clinton.
when barack obama said in the debate, that all of the people who voted for him have not been duped, the look that hillary cast at him, was a look of such arrogance.....and when she insulted him at such close range, with the xerox statement....actually face to face.....these register as truly unkind acts to another person. after these caustic insults, she reached over to touch him and says it is an honor to be with him.
this kind of behavior is very hard to understand, hard to trust.
what does one make out of this?
how would anyone in a workplace react to this kind of extreme, labile behavior?
i really believe that barack obama has used extraordinary restraint in being as gentlemanly as he is to her.
i believe that people, both men and women respond to these unkindnesses .one reaps what they sow.
it is difficult to feel sympathy for people that are ruthless and unkind to others, even if one is symapthetic to their neuroses.
i think these criticisms are more about the essence of the clinton character than they are gender related.would you call me a misogynist for my views of hillary? i dont think so. but perhaps if i were a man, you might say that they were.
there are females that engender enormous respect in global politics, in the corporate world, in research and academia, in the arts and humanities..and while i dont believe it is an easy walk at all for women, i still believe that hillary clinton and her intertwined life with bill clinton cause much of what is mistaken for misogynistic thinking.
....weboy, dont these things disturb you and dont you feel that many of the attacks against her are rooted in some of this sort of controversy, rather than because she is a woman?
i know you admire her commanding intelligence and policies, but arent you disturbed by these other qualities, as well? dont they make you uneasy, especially when bill clinton, as he presents himself now, is the other half of the equation?

also...you have been very patient.

This sounds right to me:

What Obama should say is, "The Times was irresponsible for reporting this accusation without also reporting evidence tending to confirm it. When someone makes a damaging accusation against a candidate, that is not news in itself, and the news media should not simply pass the accusation along. The media has a duty to either find hard evidence supporting the accusation, or else not report it at all."

It puts him on a higher level and reminds people that innuendo is not fact, slander is not fact. facts are facts and its the job of responsible media to report them as such, or not at all.

this has the advantage of subtly slapping down all the slanderous things that are said about Obama, both in the MSM and underground.

And it has the added benefit - though this is much lower in terms of cost/benefit - of showing himself to be a unifier; someone who can reach out across party lines.

but now its too late since the story is dead. opportunity missed by his campaign. just like in NH, when i was hoping that he would have defended Clinton when she teared up, saying: "well, i have not seen the incident to which you're referring, but I do know this, very few people understand the emotional and physical rigors of the campaign trail. its an exhaustive experience, so before people try to read into this, I would caution them to keep this in mind."

His campaign, while run pretty well, has missed some big opportunities to evidence his "unity" ethic which he talks about so much.

weboy....

after today, it is starting to look like hillary clinton is at a breaking point of emotional, physical and mental exhaustion.
.....i would imagine that those around her are more concerned about her health and strength at this point, than about the presidential campaign.

It's not worth arguing with people who claim that if you criticize Hillary you are a misogynist. They are not speaking in good faith. They know that plenty of women in politics would not evoke the kind of reaction she does. Labile is the word for her alright. She knew about these fliers for a couple of weeks, yet is howling about them today, and waving them toward the microphone. She gets inconsistent advice from handlers and veers in one direction, then another. "Those around her are concerned about her health and strength.." They are probably more concerned about their own futures. The blame for her loss will be harsh and long lasting. It will fall on many people, but she and her husband will be exempt. They always are.

Defending McCain on this would establish that, and so raise the bar for McCain when there are attempts to swift boat Obama. If McCain follows suit, Obama has framed the campaign (and the Republican right may be disappointed at their man not fighting a Rove/Bush style campaign).

Obama does not have to defend McCain to accomplish this; he only has to decline to be baited into offering commentary. So long as he insists on addressing substantive issues he fulfills his obligation towards reshaping politics.

The only thing he will accomplish by chastising the media is to piss them off and extending the Republican narrative that the media are biased against conservatives.

"And, above all, making the principled case for McCain now would be protective for Obama when the inevitable personal attacks come at him."

Give me a break. Do you think the 527's the Swift Boaters are going to be sending at Obama will be impressed at all?

Wow, I am so impressed by the contrarian anti-Obama arguments being courageously and forthrightly raised in this thread by . . . Anonymous.

Posted by: Karl Weber | February 23, 2008 10:35 AM

Fred simply ran out of fake names.

Obama would do best to simply leave this alone and let the rot set in on McBush's campaign all by itself. When Drudge wrote up the very same story about McBush back in December, nobody bothered to mention it much, even republican McCain haters, but it has come back and it will come back some more as more details emerge about the sweet deals lobbyists get from the crooked talk express.