Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove?

If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Hillary Clinton's campaign told him that they had some dirt on Obama, would Obama's staff react as they did to the Robert Novak column of November 17? And yes, I am putting Novak in the same category as the crazy Iranian leader. Novak has damaged U.S. national security as much as Ahmadinejad with his exposure of Valerie Plame and the subsequent destruction of her clandestine intelligence network.

Why has Senator Barack Obama kept the Novak story alive through repeated statements for days? Is he just naïve or is he misinformed? Is he really so unfamiliar with the journalistic incest of Washington and Novak's status as a Republican hit man? Why would Obama focus his campaign on unfounded "smears" circulated by Novak? Why would Obama, the candidate of "hope," pump up the claims of Novak, "the prince of darkness"?

Let's be clear. I am not saying Senator Obama should have ignored the rumors. Hell no. Confronting them head on is appropriate. But you go after the source, in this case Novak, rather than act as if there is substance to the charge that the Clintons are shopping trash to Novak.

The Republican smear masters had already tipped their hand for dealing with Hillary Clinton. Look at Karl Rove's debut column in Newsweek, where he lays out the strategy that Obama appears to be parroting:

And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: 'How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?' Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her.

With Rove's instructions to Republicans in mind, take a new look at Obama's reaction to Novak. Is Obama wearing a wrist bracelet that says, "what would Karl Rove do"?

Robert Novak is a seasoned conservative columnist with a long history of publishing falsehoods, distortions and gossip. And he has been in bed with Karl Rove in running "information ops" against democrats. For decades he has been renowned for inflating shreds of tidbits of rumors into major stories to support various Republican efforts. In 1992, Karl Rove, one of Novak's regular sources, was fired from the campaign of President George H.W. Bush for leaking derogatory information to Novak about Bush's campaign manager and friend, Robert Mosbacher. In 2003, Rove again served as a source to Novak, leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. Even though the CIA warned Novak not to disclose her CIA identity in the interests of national security, he did so, insuring that Rove got a copy of the column before it was published. In 2004, Novak promoted the smear campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Senator John Kerry's heroic Vietnam War record. When it was revealed that Novak's son was the marketing director for the right-wing publisher of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth tract defaming Kerry, Novak expressed disdain about the conflict-of-interest: "I don't think it's relevant."

By his own admission Novak's latest hyped controversy has no basis in fact. On November 17, he wrote, "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it." His sourcing consisted of "word of mouth" and unnamed "experienced Democratic operatives." Two days later, on Fox News, where Novak is a commentator, he confessed that he had heard a rumor from someone who had heard a rumor from someone. In short, he had no facts, perhaps explaining why Novak has been dubbed "No Facts" for years.

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson's categorical statement would seem to have put an end to this pseudo-event: "The Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this item." But it did not end. Instead, it is being kept artificially alive.

As soon as Novak published his rumor, Obama elevated and dignified it as though it had credibility. "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," he declared. Obama turned the alleged smear upside down. Rather than acknowledge that the predictable right-wing smear artist Novak was responsible for the innuendo, Obama accused Senator Clinton of being ultimately to blame. With this extraordinary statement, Obama lashed himself to Novak's credibility as a reliable source on a story that transparently lacked any true source.

Even when the Clinton campaign forthrightly again denied the item was true and that no one involved in the campaign had anything to do with it, Obama's campaign refused to let the matter die. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe once again accused Senator Clinton and her campaign of doing what Novak claimed: "Are 'agents' of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have 'scandalous' information that they are not releasing?"

Once again, the Clinton campaign openly stated it had nothing to do with the story at all. Then, Plouffe made another statement that suggested Obama had somehow wrung a confession out of the Clinton campaign and still implied that it was behind Novak's lie: "The Clinton campaign has admitted that they do not possess the 'scandalous information' in question and we take them at their word. But what we don't accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks."

The following day, November 19, Obama began a new line of attack, picking up a discredited story circulated months ago. "I'm not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me," Obama said. An Obama spokesperson reinforced the point: "Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

But where did this new attack originate? Just as he had used Novak's false story for the previous two days, now he tried to damage Senator Clinton's reputation by using another patently false story. Months ago, Jeff Gerth, the reporter who spent years hyping the Whitewater fables as real, and his co-author Dale Van Natta, attempted to promote their anti-Hillary screed, Her Way, with the supposedly startling revelation that Hillary and planned to run for president 20 years ago. But Gerth and Van Natta had no actual source. And the one source to whom they did attribute the story, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Taylor Branch, was someone they never interviewed and who told the Washington Post, "The story is preposterous. I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president."

Despite this story's exposure as false for months, Obama eagerly exploited it to try to portray Senator Clinton as Lady Macbeth. First using Novak and then Gerth for his materials, he painted her as a dirty trickster, dishonest and recklessly ambitious.

But why does Obama do this? Once Novak's story was exposed as a smear itself, why didn't he stop? Why did he keep it going? And why did he revive the Gerth falsehood to tarnish Senator Clinton's character?

Obama's tactics appear in sync with Rove's script. His feigned victimhood is a negative attack on Senator Clinton's character to drive the numbers, which in turn Obama hopes will determine the nomination. While posing above the fray, but executing Rove's strategy and exploiting Novak's innuendo, Obama has embraced the audacity of hype.

Comments

[Qbear]

Novack being called No facts is probably the nicest thing ever said about him. I prefer Jon Stewart's line

Novack = douche bag of Liberty

[BARBLS]

It is amazing how the Obama people who commented to this article just cannot stand the heat. They are so used to having the same rhetoric stated over an over without anyone fighting back. There are many people who respect and admire Hillary Clinton, and have not been brain washed by the media to distrust or think negatively about her. When will the Democrats learn. Stop attacking a democratic Candidate. If you prefer one candidate over the other that is your right, but stop the I hate Hillary, and buying into the media trying to shape this primary season. Obama might be the darling of the media now, but they will do the same thing they did to Gore, and chop him at the knees in the general election. Hillary knows how to fight back, Obama does not. Just imagine a debate between Giuliani and Obama in the general election. Beware of what you wish for.

[boohall]

Another point, Obama keeps talking about getting along with the GOP. Now that really makes me laugh. They will eat him alive..

[boohall]

Obama is green. He thinks he is gaining against Hillary taking Novak's side of the story. But he is mostly just a dirty fighter. We use to call Obama "Big O", we knew he had a bright future, but no longer do we respect him. So sad......

[RuthieM]

"Why has Senator Barack Obama kept the Novak story alive through repeated statements for days? Is he just naïve or is he misinformed?"

I disagree with you totally here. It is not Obama that has kept the Novak story alive, it is columnists like you and Clinton and her campaign who have kept it alive. Had you not written this article, like all the other articles written on the subject minute by minute, it would not be alive, would it? I don't see Obama talking about this half as much as you folks. Also, I APPLAUD OBAMA for responding, and responding quickly, and the context of his response. Also, I don't think it was or is him who should've gone after Novak, IT IS CLINTON who should've gone after Novak immediately, since it was supposedly her campaign who gave Novak this information. If their hands were as clean as they screamed they were, Clinton and her campaign should've shot right back at Novak and said what the hell is this you're saying I have?? So again, another unjustified Obama bash and another head-in-the-sand for lying Clinton, as she continues to sling her mud on Obama.

[Janelynne]

Obama is naive. The Democrats are naive. Bashing Hillary is sewn and grown propaganda, and many Democrats are falling for it and jumping on the bandwagon. Do you think Hillary will be a bad president? As opposed to whom, Bush, Guiliani, Romney? Does any realistic person believe that Obama will possibly be up to defending himself in the DC cess pool with his leave it to beaver ideas of how he is going to clean up politics? When the Clintons tried that 16 years ago it led to their being dogged and hunted like prey, to this very day. Obama is a politician with training wheels. He has his highs and lows and now is riding the crest of the Hillary pandemonium brought to us by the MSM and right-wing think tanks. Hillary is ground zero. If she gets knocked out, Obama will fall like a feather.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Oh hell, MORE man-dates? I thought all these
guys were supposed to be straight-shooting
family men...? ROTF

Actually, the reason that they're cooperating
is because it's the only way to keep on keepin
on with the nazi-gold-tooth war profit oil
empire...do your homework on these clowns...

[Janco54]

Is everyone naive enough to think the Clinton campaign just isn't capable of pulling a stunt of some kind to put a bad light on an opponent? Please.
This woman is going to stop at nothing to be elected.
These idiot articles (this one really takes the cake with its insidious title) about what Obama should have done and when are insulting.
YOu want someone to fight against the bullshit other candidates have endured and the minute someone does - they're in bed with Karl Rove.
Ridiculous - stupid - insane.

[moonjumper]

Wait a second, I thought people liked Hillary because she's "tough" and can "stand up to attacks?" Hasn't she been saying all along she'd be willing to go toe-to-toe with Republicans and their Rovian tactics? Hasn't she been implying she wouldn't fold like Kerry or some other wimp? I must have missed something, because I always assumed that meant she was willing to throw a punch as well. I didn't realize her strategy was to send out surrogates to cry foul.

This piece is just like the Rod McCullom one from the other day - so obviously one-sided you have to wonder whether they're on the Clinton payroll. Nice job parroting team Clinton's talking points.

[Pdubya]

maybe they're related too?

[DasBoot]

I consider this post a pro-Hillary hack job. So Obama should not defend himself against insinuations? Have we not learned that ANY and EVERY charge, no matter how ridiculous on its face, can and will be used against you by the right wing smear machine? Look at what happened to Al Gore and John Kerry. You simply cannot rely on the MSM to check out the facts. The only way to survive is to come out swinging hard and quickly. That's what he did. Well done Barack.

[TheRealFish]

DancinDoug: "Obama is the last chance for America!!!"

Well, not having another Neocon president is the last chance for America. Obama qualifies. Clinton [begrudgingly] qualifies. Almost anyone but the current crop of Republican choices qualify. I totally agree that we are on the lip of the precipice.

Nonamnesiac: "...this post by Larry Johnson is a bridge too far, way to far."

No. He's right.

In fact, what makes most Democratic candidates susceptible to losing this fight: Their campaigns are mostly reactionary. Always playing defense, always being the counter-puncher, rarely wins the fight.

It's how the Neocon media control works. They throw whatever chum they can in the water, and the swarms react. Agreeing with Johnson, the best reaction is to bite the hand of the chummer, not other members of the swarm.

bjneider: "Shouldn't the media be more responsible to investigate the sources of these stories before they also jump on the band wagon?"

Um, yeah. Wouldn't that be nice. Things have drastically changed in the media over the past 30 years, since the rise of the Neocon revolution/insurrection.

Case-in-point: Former Bush II mouthpiece McLellan now says everybody above him lied, willingly or not, about outing a covert operative. The Washington Post, once considered a fair publication, stuck this story of treason committed by the top of the Executive Branch on PAGE 15. Outing a covert operative is, by law, treasonous.

Back in the day, I would have thought treason committed by the Pres, VP, and their close minions, would be page one news in SHOUTING HEADLINES.

Not so anymore.

Yes, we are on the lip of losing the Constitution, our rights, our liberties, our pursuit of happiness. Though all flawed, in a flawed system, we must put one of those Democratic candidates into office -- and vote-in more congressional Democrats to assure actual power in that branch.

We can not allow Neocons to continue in power. Period. Their quiet civil war is nearly won. Sadly, we are playing defense, but must do so by attacking the chummers, not the swarm.

[blaze]

Right On Larry!
Obama has been abetting dirty tricks for his entire campaign. Just like Rove, he pretends that free-agents produce the dirt and he remains clean, but any part of a presidential campaign belongs to the campaigner and Obama owns his disingenuousness completely.
Jeff Gerth, Bob Novak, Karl Rove... Interesting company Barack. Sometimes "hardball" doesn't show "Democratic pushback"... sometimes it simply shows bullshit, black-op politics.

[JoAnnCr]

Kerry was criticized for not going after the swiftboaters. Now Obama is criticized for going after another kind of swiftboating. Will you guys ever get your priorities straight?

I would never vote for Clinton.

I do not want to stay in Iraq. I do not want to support Bush on Iran. I do not want a president takes money from the lobbyists representing drug, insurance and defense companies. I do not want a president who's policies are hazy. I do not want a president who yells "victim" to those who distinguish their policies and practices with hers. I do not want a president who needs her husband/columnists/supporters to explain or defend her when the going gets tough. I do not want to continue the Bush/Clinton dynasties.

Choices to get things done:

1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Anybody but Clinton.

[DancinDoug]

You have got to be kidding me!!!! Get off the kool aid poppy. OBAMA is the last chance for America!!!
Obama 08!!!!