Going negative on drugs – perhaps no longer the easy campaign choice?

There was an interesting little to-do yesterday, with reports that a Clinton staffer had suggested that Obama’s connection with drugs was a liability.

Shaheen said Obama’s candor on the subject would “open the door” to further questions. “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'” Shaheen said. “There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.”

There was also speculation that this was an opening salvo, and that Clinton’s positioning against outright support of retroactivity on the sentencing commission was going to lead to accusing Obama of being soft on drugs (though clearly her position was a political faux pas given the sentencing commission’s ultimate unanimous decision for retroactivity and the Supreme Court’s ruling for judicial departure from sentencing).
But low and behold — there was a lot of disgust with the tactic and the Clinton campaign was quickly put into damage control mode.

Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer, said, ‹These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.Š
….In a statement later, Mr. Shaheen said, ‹I deeply regret the comments I made today, and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way.Š

Good.