Conduct Unbecoming

Between challenging legitimate, DNC-approved processes for the Nevada caucus, outwardly attempting to discourage the student vote in Iowa, and serious allegations about voter suppression in New Hampshire, I think it's fair to say that there's a pattern here with the lengths to which the Clinton campaign will go to win. I'd be just as appalled by these kind of tactics from any Democrat, so if Barack Obama's campaign is somehow equally culpable, bring on the evidence. But you really have to ask yourself "at what price victory?" Some would say that, as long as the Clinton campaign is following the law, no matter how much they walk right up to the line, then they're justified and they prove by their efforts what a formidable opponent they would be in November. I don't agree; I think how you campaign and how you govern are at least tangentially linked, and I prefer honesty.

For example, a beloved former President hacking off the second half of a quote in order to make a politically favorable point is not my idea of a fun next four years.

Yesterday, as part of his racial damage control tour, Bill Clinton took a shot at Obama that he's frequently taken during the campaign, charging that the Illinois Senator's criticism of Hillary's support of the war is disingenuous in light of something Obama said back in 2004.

Bill pointed out that at the time, Obama said that he could not say how he would have voted on the war had he been in the Senate himself in the run-up to the invasion. Bill has repeatedly pointed to this quote to cast doubt on Obama's anti-war bona fides, and it's become part of the conversation of Campaign 2008.

Obama defended himself against this criticism a few days ago, recalling that at the time he didn't want to criticize the war votes of John Kerry and John Edwards in the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign. Obama accused the former president of cherry picking from his past quote:

He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war...obviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, 'Well, I don’t know what -- you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.' He always leaves that out.

That is in fact the quote, and Clinton knows it. It's really unprecedented for a former President to be used to deliver opposition research in the first place (though I'm sure the sitting President will oblige in the fall).

I'm not Barack Obama's biggest fan; I think he hasn't shown enough of a willingness to actually lead, and he's attacked his rivals from the right repeatedly in the campaign. Furthermore, he hasn't distinguished himself meaningfully from Clinton, or at least he hasn't highlighted those distinctions, so we get a race disturbingly based on identity politics. But these Clinton tactics are troubling. They inform how her Administration should govern. And I believe they should be rejected.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, and she voted for the war. As Matt Taibbi said last night on Bill Maher, "The country is 70% for leaving Iraq, and we could end up with two pro-war candidates. If that doesn't tell you that the system is fucked up, I don't know what does."