The Oregonian reports that Congressman David Wu has admitted to “inexcusable behavior” toward a former girlfriend while he was a student at Stanford University 28 years ago. Mr. Wu was 21 at the time.
If you were the campaign strategist for his opponent, Goli Ameri, what (if anything) would you advise her to say in response?
In her place I would say only, “The issue is between Mr. Wu and the woman involved” and nothing else. If Mr. Wu’s admission is going to affect the race, then it will affect the race regardless of what Ms. Ameri says. And if Ms. Ameri says that Mr. Wu’s conduct 28 years ago is relevant to this race, then what will she say when someone asks if President Bush’s presumed drug use from the same period is relevant to that race?
Comments
4 responses
Sure – she should stay above the fray. But for an ineffective congressman from a marginally democratic district, this has to be the kiss of death. I mean we don’t elect attempted rapists, do we?
Isaac and Rob: Curious what you think of the O’s timing.
I’m neither Isaac or Rob – but I think the timing stinks to high heaven, editor’s letter notwithstanding.
My guess is that the story was a low priority for the Oregonian until the editors realized that election season was upon us, and then it swiftly became more important to publish it. I didn’t get a good sense from the editor’s explanation of when — that is, how long ago — the Oregonian had the basic story and had checked the sources. On my first reading, I got the impression that the Oregonian had done all of its research several months ago and could have run the story 60+ days ago, but I may be wrong.