Quick, explain the Whitewater Scandal and what the Clintons were supposed to have done wrong. Bet you can’t.

One of the reasons I’m quite upset at the tack the Clinton camp and the press is taking is that they’re spreading baseless smears without any actual evidence or even the appearance of anything wrong. Take the Rezko indictments in Chicago. The name Rezko is mentioned as a potential liability for Obama but with no actual claim of wrongdoing. Anyway, don’t have time to write anything long here, but Glenn Greenwald has a good rundown of the dynamic going on here:

One very simple and self-evidently warranted rule ought to be applied: no reporter should toss around “Rezko” innuendo unless they’re able to explain what it means specifically when assessing Obama’s conduct, what specific allegations of any substance are being made against Obama when the scary specter of “Rezko” is invoked. If they’re incapable of articulating even those basics — and they are — then the whole exercise is just deceitful and worthless.

When the Clintons were facing this sort of attack over Whitewater, it cost the nation $70+ million to investigate with only a perjury accusation over a blowjob to show for it. $70 million. The Clintons should know better than to fan this sort of attack, and it’s disappointing that they keep repeating it.

The other big scandal this weekend that hurt Obama was the Canadian NAFTA conversation. It’s starting to look like the story began with an overture by the Clinton campaign. Somehow it became a story about Obama and AP found the memo. Funny how that happened, huh. (Smear by innuendo, look, it’s EASY!)