I guess Obama's okay unless he's been plagiarizing Neil Kinnock.

Why do journalists care if "they" don't want to be identified?  They're leaking something self serving to themselves to you: Source-Reporter confidentiality shouldn't matter one whit here, because they're essentially dumping their own dirt they found on someone else to the media to make it look third party and credible.  If candidates want to have oppo-researchers mudsling, they should have the cojones to stand up and say they did it.  Reporters shouldn't take their dirty work and do it for them, especially since this is pseudo important Political Journalist BS.  Where are your ethics?

Wait...what about Alan Keyes?

Curse you, Mike Huckabee!!

Crock is right. Unless a vital national interest is at stake, "not for attribution" status simply should not be granted. There is no excuse for it in this, or indeed in nearly all, cases. If you want to attack your opponent, great. It's called politics, and everybody understands that it's a contact sport. In a case like this, not-for-attribution is nothing more than a license to lie without accountability. No public interest can possibly be served by granting campaign staffers, or even candidates, the privilege of press anonymity.

Of course the press should protect their sources, reporting requires trust.