The American Debate: Scandals sparked by proxies roil the campaign

It's 3 a.m. and the red phone rings. The president lurches from the pillow, poised to command. The breathless aide on the line spells out the crisis:

"Sorry to wake you, sir/madam! I just got word that another friend/fund-raiser/surrogate/hanger-on has said/done something incredibly nutty/disgusting, and this could hurt/humiliate/destroy you. Angry bloggers are massed outside the White House right now, in their bathrobes, thumbing their BlackBerrys. We need to convene the proxy crisis committee and determine whether we should reject/denounce/distance/defend."

Seriously, maybe this is where we're heading. In the midst of great challenges at home and abroad, the '08 campaign seems to be awash in proxy scandals, and it seems that the three finalists are being judged not so much on their own merits - or lack thereof - as on the antics of their entourages. I'll concede that, in our own lives, we often judge people by the company they keep, but what's happening in politics these days is way out of control.

I should stipulate that the proxy problem is not new. Back in 1920, candidate Warren G. Harding had an entourage of crooked cronies, but nobody paid attention until after he was sworn in, whereupon those cronies looted public oil fields in the Teapot Dome scandal. As Harding put it: "I have no trouble with my enemies . . . it's my friends that keep me walking the floors at night."

By contrast, John F. Kennedy carefully policed his Hollywood proxies back in 1960. Frank Sinatra tried to hire a blacklisted writer for a movie project, but Jack's father put a stop to that, fearing Jack would look bad if his pal Frank seemed soft on communism. Another JFK pal, Sammy Davis Jr., was barred from performing at the Democratic convention because he was dating a white woman at the time and the Kennedys didn't want the southern delegates to link Jack to such decadence.

But the current proxy game is unprecedented. Maybe it's because the race is so tight - among all three candidates, in the early general-election matchups - so we're looking for any factor that might be a deal-breaker. Maybe it's because we're less tolerant of the hyperbole once common in politics (Abraham Lincoln was typically reviled as a "baboon"), so we frown on proxies who dredge up Barack Obama's youthful drug use or suggest that John McCain must be hostile to Catholics because a pastor in his entourage has been hostile to Catholics.

Maybe it's because the ubiquitous media, in all their new and old permutations, are poised to pounce on every verbal slip and violation of political correctness. Or - dare we offer some praise? - maybe it's because Obama, McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton are actually candidates with many admirable qualities, so therefore we must focus on the flaws of their associates, particularly the sin of excessive zealotry.

Meanwhile, there are no consensus rules for passing judgment. What constitutes a serious proxy scandal, one that rightfully taints a candidate, and when is a candidate unfairly pilloried on the charge of guilt by association?

Who's worse: the prominent Obama surrogate (a former Iowa party chairman) who needled the Clintons by joking about the infamous stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress, or James Carville, who likened Obama endorser Bill Richardson to the apostle who betrayed Jesus? Did Obama adviser Samantha Power deserve to be banished for calling Hillary a "monster" during a momentary lapse of discretion? Did Hillary overreact last month by severing all ties - I bet you haven't even heard this one - to Chicago fund-raiser Mehmet Celebi, who co-owns a movie company that helped produce an obscure 2006 film that depicts U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi civilians?

And what about those who say nothing at all? For all the attention lavished on Geraldine Ferraro and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, my favorite associate is Charlie Black. You may not have heard of him, probably because he doesn't say anything controversial. He's one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, with a roster of corporate and foreign-government clients. He merely sits on McCain's Straight Talk Express bus - he's one of the top players in the entourage - and does his day job, discreetly dialing his clients and working the kind of inside deals that one day may intersect with McCain's decisions as president. Assuming we would ever find out.

We badly need some judgment criteria, so let's try:

How close are the candidate and the proxy, personally or politically? For how long?

Did the candidate solicit the proxy's support? Is the proxy an active player in the campaign and likely to serve in the candidate's administration? In what kind of role?

Did the proxy say something crazy, racist, sexist, slanderous or un-American? Or do something criminal? Did he or she say or do it once, or frequently?

Did he or she say or do anything that undercuts the candidate's image or agenda?

Did the candidate respond appropriately, by rejecting, denouncing, distancing or defending?

Now we can make a few calls, the easy ones. Mitt Romney did well last year when he dumped aide Jay Garrity, after Garrity was caught impersonating a police officer. He dumped one of his cochairs, Larry Craig, after Craig sat with his wide stance in that airport. McCain enlisted Republican Rep. Rick Renzi as a cochair, but now that Renzi has been indicted on embezzlement charges, he is no longer on the team (although McCain initially insisted that Renzi's indictment "doesn't matter").

Beyond that, it gets murky. McCain actively wooed John Hagee, the evangelical pastor who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore," and McCain has refused to reject, distance or denounce. Yet McCain has paid no price in the polls.

Which naturally brings us to Obama-Wright. According to my criteria, that rates as a serious proxy scandal. Obama is tight with the guy, sat in his church for 20 years and gave $27,500 in deductible donations. And yet, according to the newly released NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, Obama has largely weathered the storm. He narrowly leads McCain in a November matchup, while Clinton narrowly trails - because Obama is still more popular than Clinton among independent voters.

In other words, most people probably put the proxy factor in proper perspective. They generally don't hold candidates accountable for the behavior of friends. Successful politicians, by definition, create vast networks of friends, supporters, surrogates and donors; some of them are bound to embarrass. Those who do, more often than not, will fade from memory. In the end, it is the candidates' own track records, in word and deed, that matter most.