Spin Cycle

The Clinton campaign, which last week was focused on Obama not being tough enough because he was complaining, today takes to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post to argue that Hillary is being unfairly subjected to a double-standard in coverage.

You can read the piece, by strategist Geoff Garin, here. It's also become part of a fundraising appeal. We were struck by the opening passage, in which Garin argues that an ad put up on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary was unfairly characterized as negative:

"What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad."

Here's the problem: That sanitized version leaves out the fact that the ad in question included imagery of Osama bin Laden, which was the single most-criticized aspect of it. And it ignores the history -- the fact that Hillary, in a big well-covered speech, said very explicitly that she and John McCain were ready for the White House, but she couldn't speak for Obama.

The question of what is fair and what is negative and what is more negative is a complicated one. It involves both imagery and history. Once you succeed in injecting a question about your opponent into the bloodstream of the campaign through a personal attack, you can subsequently reference it without being as explicit. You've established a code. It's like a stupid pet trick for experienced operatives.

Reasonable people can differ about who has been more negative in different phases of the Democratic primary. But does the Clinton campaign really think it makes a persuasive plea for balance by starting out with a misleading description of an ad that feigns innocence of a well-known personal attack?

If Hillary wants to attack Obama as unready, voters can judge both the tactic and the substance. But why does she pretend she's not doing it, when she is?