One of the reasons complaints about blogger ethics are so stupid is that reporters and campaigns regularly speak in code that voters are not supposed to understand.  It's like there are two languages in politics, one for the regular voter, and one for the elites.  Chris Lehane's career is a perfect example.  Now, we've criticized Carville for going on CNN and giving out pro-Clinton talking points as a generic Democratic analyst, and he hasn't really stopped.  His excuse is that he's not being officially paid by the campaign, as if he wouldn't make millions and garner immense influence with another Clinton in the White House.  Reporters 'get' that Carville isn't a generic analyst and see him through that lens, but viewers just see a trusted figure on CNN, and so they take away a different sense of the information they receive.  Two different contexts, two different languages.

James Carville is the most high profile of these double-agents, but there are others.  One very prominent Clinton surrogate is Chris Lehane, who ran negative campaigns for Gore in 2000 and ran the Clark campaign into the ground in 2004 (after resigning from the Kerry campaign), along with his partner Mark Fabiani.  Lehane, though he doesn't officially work for Clinton, has a long relationship with the Clinton and their machine entourage, even garnering PR business with current Clinton communications director and former Glover Park Partner Howard Wolfsen on Michael Moore's films, which are produced by Clinton ally and supporter Harvey Weinstein (see this clip, where both Weinstein and Moore laud Clinton and discuss Weinstein's relationship with her). Lehane is regularly used by reporters as a quote machine, speaking unofficially for the campaigns in a 'hands-off' manner so Clinton spokespeople don't have to say it.  When Lehane says something, you can pretty much be assured that it's coming from the Clinton campaign.

So you won't be surprised to see this underhanded attack coming from Lehane's mouth on Obama's situation with Tony Rezko, an Obama donor who has just been indicted.  This story is being floated again, probably with the intent of killing Obama's sheen now that he appears to have underperformed a bit in the debates versus Clinton (that's the narrative, whether it's true or not, and frankly, it was all so boring I couldn't pay attention).

First, here's what a normal Democratic strategist says who isn't trying to hurt a candidate and Rezko and Obama.

Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter, who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate, said the situation "may leave voters with the impression Senator Barack Obama is and was indeed a politician, but I'm not sure that's earth-shattering."

And here's what a Clinton surrogate says.

Campaign consultant Chris Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House and for Al Gore in 2000, said it shows voters that Obama "puts his pants on the same way as any other politician" -- something that "undermines the core Obama brand, that he is a different kind of leader."

Note how the reporter, Mike Robinson of the AP, qualified Cutter as 'unaffiliated' while saying that Lehane had worked in the Clinton White House and for Al Gore.  They both read like they are just commenting, but to insiders, it's well-understood to mean that Lehane speaking for Clinton and Cutter is unaffiliated.  Two languages, two contexts.  Very annoying.

Want more proof Lehane is speaking unofficially for Clinton?  Let's look at the spin coming from Lehane, which is almost always pro-Clinton and on-message.  Here's Lehane on Clinton's electability 'problem', before she decided to run.

"Hillary Clinton has a good sense of self," said Chris Lehane, a longtime Democratic strategist who worked in the White House for President Clinton. "I don't think she makes this race unless she thinks she has a pretty good chance of winning the whole thing."

And more?  Here's Lehane spinning on Obama's $25M quarter, a clear victory for Obama.

"Anyone who can put together $25 million in a quarter comes off as a very serious and credible candidate," said Chris Lehane, who was the spokesman for Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. "Enough people have been around the block in the Clinton world that they understand this is a marathon, not a sprint."

That's the Clinton line, straight up, and it's laughable to think that a neutral observer would say this.  And that's the point, the reporter quoted Lehane to get an unofficial Clinton perspective, because the Clinton campaign isn't going to say what Lehane said officially, even though they want this out there.  It's like the Rezko rumor, which the Clinton people want out there, but without their fingerprints. To make this point even more firmly, see what Lehane said only months earlier.

In March, Democratic operative Chris Lehane, who has been a staffer on multiple presidential campaigns, likened this exclusionist fund-raising strategy to that undertaken by George W. Bush during the presidential campaign of 2000.

"He put together a financial infrastructure that laid the foundation for a presidential run and locked down the Who's Who of the Republican fund-raising community," Lehane said. "Hillary Clinton's ability to lock up fund-raisers is not only a positive for her, but also takes away those potential assets for others."

So now the Clinton campaign understands this is a marathon, not a sprint?  The pro-Clinton spin is so thick that Lehane can't resist even when it's about fashion.

For Mr. Obama and other candidates like John Edwards who have gone tieless in public appearances, the look could help convey youthfulness and openness to change, says political consultant Chris Lehane, who advised Bill Clinton. But "the downside is, does it reinforce any issues regarding whether he has enough experience or gravitas to be president?" he adds.

Journalists regularly quote Lehane to speak unofficially for the campaign.  Lehane was even rumored to be working on a California 527 seeking to move up the primary date to benefit Clinton (note that I can only find this sourced on one blog, though Lehane does speak positively of the 527 here in SF Gate). The effort is over, since California moved up its primary.

Lehane knows he'll get paid back by Clinton.

[Lehane] said remembering who your true-blue friends are is a must for a political winner.

"I think history is pretty clear that those folks who are loyal to the Clintons find the loyalty is really reciprocated -- and that is one of the reasons why so many people have stuck with them for so long,'' he said. "They really do respect and appreciate it when someone is loyal, and that manifests itself in many ways ... that is what good politicians do.''

I wonder why he's been saying things like this since 2005?

Three years ahead of the election she dominates the field and "is in the strongest position any non-incumbent presidential candidate has ever been in the modern history of the Democratic party" according to party strategist Chris Lehane.

Now let me note that this is not a knock against Lehane.  I have two basic points here.  One is that I'm really getting tired of political journalists speaking in code to voters such that you have to decipher what they are really trying to say to the people that matter.  Political journalism should not exist in the realm of seventh grade girls who pass secret mean notes to each other in class about the other kids.  And two is that I am really tired of campaigns who engage in this kind of nonsense.  If Clinton wants to draw attention to Tony Rezko's history with Obama, if she and Mark Penn really want to open up that can of worms, they should have enough principles to come out and say it in the open.  It's possibly a legitimate question, frankly.  I'd like to know more about Rezko and the Chicago machine.  But I don't think it's fair to spread rumors like this in print using surrogates who are clearly on your time under the guise that they are unofficial and neutral observers when they are obviously such pushers of pro-Clinton spin.