Off The Record

But why, inquiring minds want to know, do campaigns release opposition research "not for attribution?" Ana Marie Cox has some discussion but I think it can actually be boiled down pretty simply. Roughly speaking, "Hillary Clinton Sucks" is a good story for Barack Obama whereas "Obama: Clinton Sucks" is a good story for John Edwards.

Negative campaigning is difficult in the context of a primary campaign, since your only rivals dangerous enough to be worth attacking are people who are generally well-liked by the target audience of the electorate. You want negative stories about your rivals to get written, but you don't want stories to be written about your negative attacks on your rivals.

Comments

You've expressed this in a pithy way but it seems a lot like stating the obvious. Is there anyone on the street who can't answer the question, "Why does a politician want to remain anonymous when they smear another politician?" The only people who would be baffled by this question are those prone to overanalysis, which is to say, bloggy types.

Posted by Steve | June 20, 2007 2:47 PM

Sure, but sending it out by bulk fax/e-mail and expecting it to remain "confidential"? Even above and beyond the ethics of journalists getting their hard-won 'facts' straight off the fax machine. Seems to me those much-maligned bloggers could do the same thing if they were on the candidates' fax lists.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 20, 2007 2:47 PM

> Is there anyone on the street who can't answer
> the question, "Why does a politician want to
> remain anonymous when they smear another
> politician?"

Sure, but the underlying question is "Why do 'real journalists' use such material?"

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 20, 2007 2:49 PM

Speaking of news gathering minutiae, how does Drudge get the TBA straw poll results before anyone in the lefty blogosphere?

Posted by Petey | June 20, 2007 3:02 PM

"Speaking of news gathering minutiae, how does Drudge get the TBA straw poll results before anyone in the lefty blogosphere?"

Good results. Obama packed the hall with pre-paid tickets, but Edwards still fought him to a draw in the straw poll.

Posted by Petey | June 20, 2007 3:09 PM

Some of the question is "how does this happen?"

If you send me something and write in big letters on top "Not for attribution," then I hate to say it, but it IS for attribution. I didn't ask you to send it. I never agreed to follow your instructions.

So some one has to call and say "Hey, I wrote two memos about how bad Hillary is and if you promise not to identify me, I'll show them to you." To which a journalist should respond, "Grow a spine. If you have something negative to say about your opponent, say it."

Posted by Mike M. | June 20, 2007 3:36 PM

> To which a journalist should respond, "Grow a
> spine. If you have something negative to say
> about your opponent, say it."

Mike M.,
I fully agree with your entire post, but if you read the linked Time Swampland entry by AMC and the linked entries that proceeded that one, you will find that "real journalists" don't think that way. They consider this "source" material and they play the game as requested by the campaign - while not telling their readers.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 20, 2007 3:40 PM

Everybody here is forgetting one thing: Edwards can't attack Hillary 'cause she's a woman and a southern male with a history of sexism can't attack her without looking odd. Same for Obama, Edwards can't attack him without people using words like lynching. So Edwards has to stay in the background and hope that the two will destroy each other and relegate themselves to running-matehood, like Geraldine Ferraro. Joe Biden can afford to be a bigot, but Edwards can't.

Posted by Franky | June 20, 2007 3:54 PM

"Hillary Clinton Sucks" is a good story for Barack Obama whereas "Obama: Clinton Sucks" is a good story for John Edwards.

Good summary. But how about "Obama: Giuliani Sucks"? I realize this is a primary, but couldn't the Dems try to differentiate themselves by the ferocity or effectiveness of their attacks on Republicans? Sure looks like that's how the GOP is playing it.

Posted by Glenn | June 20, 2007 4:02 PM

Petey,
Drudge has the TFA results, because someone was dumb enough to let the Politico run the poll.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 20, 2007 4:07 PM

and a southern male with a history of sexism can't attack her without looking odd

What is his history of sexism?

Posted by blah | June 20, 2007 4:18 PM

I know of nothing in John Edwards' past that would even SEEM like sexism. You can accuse him of any number of things, but I don't think that's one of them.

Posted by David | June 20, 2007 4:22 PM

Negative research on people running for President is a public good. Putting it out anonymously can be a necessity on politically incorrect topics, such as Hillary's connection to Indian financing, which Obama leaked. Good for Obama.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 20, 2007 6:31 PM