A sweet Saturday mystery: Clinton, Obama and Mr. X

What a glorious afternoon for political conspiracy theorists! Not even John LeCarre could unravel this one right away. But we'll give it a try here just for fun now.

It started this morning with the posting of a regular online column by conservative Robert Novak, who's been involved with more than his share of leaked stories, including the notorious Plame affair of recent years. Novak is a curmudgeonly old Washington veteran much courted by GOP sources seeking to reach their base, but not known for his Democratic Party connections. Still, he could be useful to them at times.

Naming no sources, Novak reported this morning in a notebook-style weekly online collection of items that "agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles" that they have scandalous information on Sen. Barack Obama but have decided not to use it against him. The column even got a red-letter mention on the Drudge Report, which guaranteed wide notice in political circles.

How's that for trying to have it both ways--smear a guy while claiming you're so high-minded and aren't really smearing him because you won't release the (no doubt, terrible) details? That's assuming, by the way, that there really are salacious details to be withheld, a large assumption. There's no proof of anything right now. And wasn't it Hillary who was complaining about mud-slinging at the debate the other night?

But, wait. This Novak item serves Obama's purpose too because the Clinton machine is notorious for playing hardball and this is just the kind of thing that team might do. So as a defensive move to minimize the impact of any such release and to cleverly seize the high ground and turn the Novak report back on the Clintons as a reminder of their past sleazy behind-the-scene machinations, the .... 

politics of hope Obama campaign took the unusual step of releasing a statement not from the campaign but directly from the candidate himself, adding visibility. In it Obama said:

"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."

Notice how Obama tries to tie Clinton to the old Washington politics, using the unsourced, unconfirmed innuendoes of a conservative Republican reporter initially aimed at him.

Now, what about the Clinton campaign? In an e-mail to Mike Allen and Ben Smith at Politico.com, Howard Wolfson (note, not Clinton herself) tried to deflect the anti-Clinton accusations toward Republicans and back onto the familiar Obama inexperience argument. He said:

"Once again Sen. Obama is echoing Republican talking points, this time from Bob Novak. This is how Republicans work. A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is.

"Others get distracted and thrown off their games. Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this. There is only one campaign in this race that has actually engaged in the very practice that Sen. Obama is decrying, and it's his. We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally. Instead of pointing fingers at us, Sen. Obama should get back to the issues and focus on what this election is really about."

It's probably no coincidence that this happened on a slow-news Saturday as the primary/caucus campaigns entered their final seven weeks and the races in both parties appeared to be tightening. Someone has started push-polling against Mitt Romney too, as we reported this morning.

Political leaks--or in this case, insinuations of a non-leak--can be tricky things with unintended consequences. Back in 2000, five days before the general election, thinking there would be insufficient time for the Bush-Cheney ticket to recover, someone leaked word to a Maine TV station about a long-ago DUI arrest there of George W. Bush. Democrats often forget it was Carl Cameron of Fox News who made that a national story.

The worried Bush campaign's internal polling showed that his five-point lead in Maine became overnight a five-point deficit there and he lost that state in the Electoral College. Which, of course, is what ended up making Florida's electoral votes so decisive, culminating in the Republicans' Supreme Court victory in part because of an anti-Bush leak in Maine.

Of course, other scenarios are possible in today's nest of potential conspiracies. Who would benefit most right now in the Democratic contest from Obama and Clinton going at each other so badly they hurt each other?

Some may recall the 2004 Iowa caucus contest when Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt assaulted each other so furiously in the closing weeks that Iowans turned to someone else. John Kerry came sneaking right up the middle to win with someone named John Edwards right on his tail.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Chris]

My guess is that JAMES CARVILLE was Novaks source. It was Carville that was on the set of CNN the day Novak lost his job by storming off the set. Carville and Novak also hosted a CNN program together.

[stanley i. langbein]

here's another possibility. maybe obama has something on clinton. maybe everybody knows it, including the media, and both campaigns. maybe novak is protecting a friend of his who is tied up in what obama knows about clinton. so to protect the friend, he claims clinton has something on obama, so, in case there IS something, whether or not clinton knows, obama will be intimidated from using what he has on clinton.

[Veritas]

Clinton is ahead folks and pretty far ahead except in Ohio- This whole thing is simply ridiculous-the Clinton campaign has been positive to date- Obama's campaign has thrown the dirt and planted the stories-just as Axelrod did during Obama's Senate campaign-and those are verifiable facts-but who's checking? We're dealing with operatives in all the campaigns that have history-yet only the Clinton campaign is called a "machine"- fair and balanced-yeah right-

[vwcat]

It's said Novack has sources tied with the clintons. He was probably told about it and decided to expose Hillary and her whispering campaign against Obama feeling she had nothing.
This is why Obama came out so quick. he knows she's got nothing and he demanded that she renounce the artlcle about her doing a whispering campaign.
She did not. they just did the usual skimming the edges and not addressing the questions or facts.
It is amazing how this comes out just as Hillary has decided to step it up in Iowa and knows she is having a hard time there. She knows she'd have to spend alot of time there mingling with the little people.
Not her idea of fun. Being in Iowa and having to talk to average folks.
And Iowa has not been lucky for her. This is where she is continuing to get tripped up: like planted questions, set ups in cafes pretending to talk to the voters when it turns out it's all staffers, ect.
Edwards and Obama are very strong there and well liked and most likely will beat her.
How better to take down her rival, Obama, but to plant doubt about him in a whispering campaign about something scandalous.
Novack may be alot of things but, he is not foolish. He would not make it up.
I think he just decided to take the queen of arrogance down a peg and it gave Obama a golden opportunity to show he won't be swiftboarded.

[sonya]

Clinton isn't far head in Iowa, NH and South Carolina. No one in modern day history has ever became president withouth winning two of those states. Clinton knows this and has been already backpedaling information about Obama and Edwards to reporters. I think the Clinton camp is running scare because their air of invisablity has been shattered and now they have to compete in the primary instead of focusing on the general as they have. Plus Clinton has the least amount of support against all the major Republican canidates. She is not electable and is the Republican party wet dream of a canidiate. I don't know who could be the source of these rumours both the Republicans and Clinton fear Obama.

[katharinestavrinou]

Obama is not intimidated. This will end in his favour if Clinton doesn't make a clean break from these rumours. The choice to simply bash Obama for his audicity in responding makes her look bad, again

[Ruth Bethinger]

It is strange that Clinton supporters (above) would accuse Obama of running a negative campaign. This is coming from the Clintons, who are famous for taking out opponents with dirty tactics. If they are referring to the "abandoning the politics of hope" line that I often read, well, they may have their own definition of negativity. My understanding of a presidential election is that you challenge opponents on substantive campaign positions, which is what Obama has done. I understand that has thrown a monkey wrench into the "inevitability" of Clinton, but it is what serves the voters best.

[Larry from Purdue]

Carville probably was the source. If Novak and other right wingers were strategic, they'd support Obama outright, as he's known for giving all sides a fair shake while holding fast to Democratic principles.

They're going to lose next year anyway, so why not push for Obama over Clinton?

[Robin]

Why Obama is being attacked by the Clintons on this, is beyond me...Obama just didn't make up this story. And why Hillary herself did not say anything?

[johnsmart]

What "past sleazy behind-the-scene machinations" from the clintons? Can you site any? OR are you just joining in the smear?
Sometimes things get repeated so often that they SEEM true - and no one bothers to check.
Can you name one moment of "sleazy machination" from Bill or Hillary Clinton that was not created by the GOP to smear them?
You just take the broad media swipe at the Clinton's with no proof or back up.
The fact is without question she is our next President. No GOP can beat her and Obama has done nothing to deserve the job. He is not qualified - end of story. Obama proves this again by being bated by Novak of all people.

[John Carr]

The most likely thing, actually, is that the Republicans see that they are going to have big problems next year, so they plant this supposed non-dirty trick, so that when they start on Clinton next year, they can say that they are just doing what her campaign has done. Remember, their standard retort about this kind of dirty politics is that everybody does it. This is the only way they can affect the race right now, since all their candidates are such snoozers.

[ferplexion]

Novak's source is himself. He made up an allegation in order to make both Obama and Clinton look bad. The only way the eventual Republican nominee can win is if the Democratic nominee's reputation is put in doubt by allegations and dirty tactics.

[Brandon]

Senator Obama was played by Robert Novak. That's pretty sad.

[Jaxon]

Novak is a party hack and will never reveal any source on this because he is the source. In that, the Clinton people are correct. This is such an obvious Republican ploy I'm surprised it's getting any play from anyone in either camp, but reading the comments above I see partisans on both sides are falling for it, even waiting for the "facts" to come out. Wake up! There are no facts. This is pure innuendo.

[Christine Beatty]

What Republican lapdog Novak is doing is trying to set the two Demo frontrunners against each other; Obama is an idiot for taking Novak's bait, forcing HRC to sound off (lest she be accused of not being tough enough for the job). If BO has a brain he'll let it drop before it gets any traction. There's nothing but unsubstantiated innuendo: from Novak, in this blog and these comments. No wonder so many voters are turned off by politics.

[maria]

Anything that comes from Novak is suspect at best. The man is a traitor.

[RuthieM]

Hm, what if Edwards is doing this so that Clinton and Obama can clash as he comes right up the middle to the win? Hm, not a bad theory.

[Ann]

Unidentified sources from Novak and Drudge? Sorry, Andrew, but you have been had big time. There is no reason on earth the Clinton campaign would do this and unfortunately, Obama should have let it go too. You, of course, should have passed it by as well. But, sadly, no.

[P.F. Stone]

I have noticed media reporting on random "symbolic hate crime incidents"
assuming to target african-americans has been on the increase.

Whether or not the frequency of such "symbolic hate crime incidents" has
increased, I am not able to say.
I claim only that media attention to such incidents and national media coverage
of otherwise local incidents has recently increased.

If I were the demographically average Democrat african-american participating voter (probably age 54 and female - I guess) who was trying to decide between Clinton or Obama in the state primary then -
the media focus on "symbolic hate crime incidents" becomes a net minus for Obama in deciding my vote.
Why?
-because I fear that Obama's success might provoke and instigate the "haters" even more. and I dont want anything to disrupt or destroy social harmony and stability between racial groups. Also, I too am still scarred by the national tragedies perpetrated against us in April and June 1968 when MLK, Jr.
and RFK were taken out. I don't want to risk a repeat of the pain caused when hope is invested and then stolen.
But I'm not an african-american Democrat.
I'm a 45 year old white Republican voter.
Who hasn't forgotten an epidemic of reports on incidents of "black church burnings" in the rural south in months preceding the choice to reelect B. Clinton
(known for his ablilities to communicate to AA community and improve race relations) or B. Dole or R. Perot ( who both score low on ablilty to communicate
with african-american groups).

But the "black church burnings" fizzled out and seems long forgotten.
Just as "noose sightings" will soon lose their trendiness and fade away.

Because the real America has so long ago left behind that kind of shameful and useless thinking to the few "fringe retards" without job skills or life skills or a spit of creativity. And some demogogue opportunists who pander the fear of an eroding interacial stability to "goose up" the donation plate.

I know only 2 things for sure.

One is that black americans are supposed to vote for H. Clinton.
At least those black americans who believe in following orders from Quincy Jones and dozens of other leaders of the black establishment who have corralled money and support behind the Hillary Clinton train.

Second - is that no matter who is elected to be our next President.
AS long as the name of our First Lady Is Michelle Obama-
then at last we can really start livin'.

[tony sacco]

I agree with ruthieM, Edwards is making his move and a bold one at that. If Edwards takes Iowa, and it is a 3 way race Hillary and Obama, Ewards eats them up.
I would pay $50.00 to see on TV Edwards & President Clinton In a debate.

[Jonathan]

So what was Obama supposed to do - ignore the words of a national columnist, words that would have without a doubt been believed by some and hurt him?

I still talk to people - even Democrats - who believe that Barack Obama is Muslim and went to school at a madrassa. Rumors will get believed and hurt candidates, especially when such a high-profile person is putting out the rumors.

So Obama had to respond. And he gave Clinton an easy way out:

"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."

She had a choice - either stand by what had been done, or renounce it. He left the options open - it may have been her or other Democrats, Republicans, or some other group.

But instead of just saying, "I renounce those tactics, the accusations are false, and Novak is a jerk for trying to hurt both mine and Obama's campaigns with such information", she tries to spin the story to attack Obama and gain more political advantage.

Very typical.

[Max]

Wake up people! Niether Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama have a snowball in Phoenix's chance of winning the presidential election of 2008. As the previous poster said, Hillary is a republican wet dream of an opposition canidate, and, honestly, how many swing-state middle americans are going to vote for a canidate whose name sounds like he is a close relative of Osama Bin Laden! Come on! How can these two possibly be the best canidates the democratic party has to offer? It almost seems as though they want to lose...

[stan harhut]

Robert Nowak was played by mr Obama in order to distract mr Obama's devasting loss during the debate in Las Vegas as being a straight shooter. mr. OBAMA preaches new politics for every one but himself. SHAME,shame on you , mr Obama

[Dave]

Mystery solved:
just think of fifth grade... a note filled with fabricated nonsense about one of the boys is circulating in the schoolyard.... those of the click are giggling about the rumor created... while most of the kids are trying to mind their own business... miss popularity feels threatened and attempts to spread a false rumor...etc.

[Navin]

Actually David Axelrod, Obama's Campaign Manager and Bob Novak were seen at the Billy Goat tavern two weeks ago. What were they talking about?

[Phil]

Clinton should just deny it, as Obama demanded. She could throw in a statement to the effect of "Although we are competing vigorously for the Democratic nomination, I stand with Barack against this scurrilous and no doubt Republican charge. I have no such information, and Mr. Novak and his source are incorrect."

The bottom line is to elect a Democrat. Blame it on the Republicans.