John Fund Identifies The Obama "Rumor"

Why does it seem that Republican columnists have better sources among Democrats than everyone else?

Here's John Fund, writing in today's OpinionJournal.com:

The murmured charge is that as an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama engaged in a real estate deal that benefited him in exchange for legislative favors. In short, what might pass for standard operating procedure in the Illinois legislature could nonetheless prove embarrassing to someone campaigning as a paragon of political virtue for president. So far, however, no proof of the allegation has been presented.

Pretty thin stuff. And haven't we heard the Tony Rezko tale already?

For the record, the Obama and Clinton campaigns try to plant negative stories about each other all the time. Felonious fundraisers, issue positions, legislative records, the occasional guilt-by-association catches -- those are fair game.

Other stuff seems to be off-limits.

Earlier this year, Obama donor David Geffen mouthed off to Maureen Dowd about the verbotten subject of the Clintons' private life, triggering an intense bout of jockeying between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Then -- silence.

Except for the isolated occurrance -- an Obama aide plopped down next to me at a campaign event and wondered when reporters would begin to look into Clinton's postpresidential sex life - not a single rumor about the subject has eminated from the Obama world.

Some aides been gotten dressed down for talking about the subject, even in private, with other campaign staffers.

Likewise, no one in the Clinton universe has ever tried to convince me to look into something scandalous about Obama's past -- all the bad stuff -- cocaine use, hard-knuckle Chicago political tactics -- is out there already.

One caveat: "The Clinton Universe" is so big that there are bound to be free agents operating without sanction. When one of those advisers, for example, made fun of John McCain's experience in a Vietnamese prison cell last year, Hillary Clinton, and not McCain, was embarassed and forced to apologize on behalf of someone who claimed to be close to her.

Past scandals have been generated by campaigns. Who tipped off reporters to allegations of Gary Hart's indelity? To Joe Biden's plagiarism of a British politician's speech?

But these days, with the profusion of voices and outlets, rumors don't need official channels to spread, and often, campaigns caught spreading them risk the ultimate penalty.

So if campaigns don't traffic in these rumors, who does?

Supporters do -- it's true that reporters in Iowa and New Hampshire are accosted by Democrats who don't like Hillary Clinton and wonder why the press doesn't ask her about her husband's fidelity.

Donors do -- think of Gossip Girl set in a Georgetown salon.

Opposition parties do -- everyone tends to assume that negative stuff against Hillary Clinton is being sent around by her Democratic opponents. Not always true.

And reporters do -- we can't help it.

Comments

I find the Obama situation is very interesting, to take a stand on campaign issues, visit www.mitchellinteractive.com its a great site!

Posted by Fred Corrigan | November 19, 2007 2:32 PM

"Occurrance," "verbotten," and "eminated" That's three misspellings in the span of two paragraphs. Proof that bloggers can't think as fast as they write.

Posted by R. Laing | November 19, 2007 2:54 PM

In defense of John Fund (I can't believe I actually typed that), the Rezko 'tale' is threatening to bring down the Governor of Illinois, among others. At the very least, Obama can be justifiably accused of conveniently "seeing no evil" despite it being right in front of him, when it played to his political advantage.

Posted by dry_fish | November 19, 2007 3:09 PM

Oh my goodness. This old, beaten down Rezko story? The Clintons must be very, very desperate.

Posted by Marvin Schwartz | November 19, 2007 3:28 PM

"the Rezko 'tale' is threatening to bring down the Governor of Illinois, among others"

Um, what relevance does this have to Barack?? His connection to Rezko has been out in the open for years. And he just talked about it on MTP. His relationship to him has yielded no scandal. This is the best anyone can do against Barack.

And Hillary would be a fool to start this type of war. She's got dirt in her past for days...

Posted by Uzoma | November 19, 2007 3:39 PM

Hey Marvin -- Do you even bother reading the part in which Marc says no one on the Clinton campaign has ever pushed anti-Obama stuff at him?

Try not to let your Hillary hate get in the way of facts.

Posted by Teresa | November 19, 2007 3:42 PM

Uzoma --

From Obama's website:

"Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in the fight for open and honest government."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/corruption/

So, sure the press knows the basic outlines of the Rezko issue, but do Iowans know? And while there certainly isn't anything out there that would imply that Obama engaged in quid-pro-quo, will Iowans hold against him his mere association with Rezko (remember, they are literally next door neighbors) given his waving of the ethics reform flag? Obama set his own bar and standard of evaluation on this. It's a gimme for a rival campaign to point out the contrast.

Posted by dry_fish | November 19, 2007 3:58 PM

Teresa, you must be living in a cocoon to not know the Clintonites are pushing dirt on not just Obama, but Edwards, Dodd etc. They have perfected the slime art.

Posted by Marvin Schwartz | November 19, 2007 4:02 PM

"Why does it seem that Republican columnists have better sources among Democrats than everyone else?"

Perhaps it's possible the democrats haven't been. Who gains from this? Hillary? Obama? Neither!

Digby has more.

Posted by Joe Student | November 19, 2007 4:27 PM

Oh my goodness. This old, beaten down Rezko story? The Clintons must be very, very desperate.

Yeah, if that's the rumor in question it seems to hurt the credibility of Novak's column. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but she seems a little too savvy to think that something that's already been splashed all over the front pages of Chicago newspapers constitutes super-secret dirt on Obama.

Posted by JB | November 19, 2007 4:34 PM

Marvin -- If it is true that Clinton is pushing this story, why has no other journalist come forward to say, "Hey, I heard that too from her camp." Not a single one. This was a pure ploy by Bob Novak to make mischief and gullible people fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

Posted by Teresa | November 19, 2007 4:55 PM

"So, sure the press knows the basic outlines of the Rezko issue, but do Iowans know? And while there certainly isn't anything out there that would imply that Obama engaged in quid-pro-quo, will Iowans hold against him his mere association with Rezko (remember, they are literally next door neighbors) given his waving of the ethics reform flag? Obama set his own bar and standard of evaluation on this. It's a gimme for a rival campaign to point out the contrast."

Dry fish,

Of course, it takes a lot of chutzpah for the Clinton campaign to point out this contrast, when Hilary Clinton has a financial scandal of her own in her past (Whitewater) that dwarfs anything allegedly perpetuated by Obama. It takes even more chutzpah when one realizes that some of Clinton's close political associates in Illinois (such as Congressman Rahm Emmanuel, who was elected to Rod Blagojevich's seat after Blago became Governor of Illinois) have far closer ties to Tony Rezko than Obama ever did

Posted by eltoro | November 19, 2007 5:13 PM

That's the rumor? Good grief, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that months ago. Egads.

Posted by Elderta | November 19, 2007 7:06 PM

"when Hilary Clinton has a financial scandal of her own in her past (Whitewater)"

Really?

Is that the one the press, GOP congressional committees and partisan prosecutors spent 6 years and $100 million investigating in a massive witchunt and came up empty handed?

Posted by DonB | November 19, 2007 7:56 PM

I think it is hilarious that the Clintons would think they could bring Obama down on scandal. I mean, seriously, who is going to choose the Clintons over Obama because of ethics and morality? Unless Obama gets caught in the Senate Cloakroom with Larry Craig, I really don't this is a fruitful path for the Clintonites to pursue.

Posted by RKA | November 19, 2007 8:29 PM

It doesn't really matter if the rumor is the same old Rezko business or something new. Obama is a politician from Chicago. I don't think many people who don't live here knows quite what that means. No one comes into politics clean in this city, it just isn't possible. Sure, he might be marginally better than Clinton, but no one should fool themselves into thinking that there won't be mounds of dirt once the digging starts.

Posted by William | November 19, 2007 10:39 PM

No - Iowans don't know about Obama and Rezko - and few even know that corporate lobbyists have funded Obama's political career.
That is - until 2007 - when he entered the presidential race claiming to "change Washington."
Much deception from Obama.

Posted by Charlotte | November 20, 2007 11:45 AM

Sure, John Fund has this story, but what does Morgan Pillsbury have to say about it?

Posted by MikeJ | November 20, 2007 1:18 PM

"Reporters do -- we can't help it."

This would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that it reveals the moral abdication at the center of today's media culture, abdication which has led us into the present crisis.

Posted by Ben Cronin | November 20, 2007 6:57 PM