Remember back in February when an Obama direct mail piece in Ohio claimed that Hillary Clinton had called NAFTA a “boon to the economy,” based on a story printed in Newsday? She went ballistic in a very public way, accusing him of “Karl Rove tactics” and saying:

“So shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you.”

Her beef? While a Newsday story had, in fact, attributed the “boon” comment to Clinton, and the Obama mailer had accurately linked their literature to the reference, Newsday had gone on to note that it had no proof that she’d said it in the first place. So, Obama was playing dirty pool by referencing a juicy quote from a story they knew probably wasn’t true.

Fast forward to today, and two separate events:

1) Clinton gets called out on her Tousla embellishments. One of those call-outs is based on her campaign’s claim that she was the first First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit an active war zone. But it wasn’t true…Pat Nixon visited Vietnam in 1969, and Babs Bush was in the Saudi desert a few months before Desert Storm. So what’s Clinton campaign excuse? They didn’t say Hillary was the first, the Washington Post did in a 1996 story, so don’t blame them if the Post got it wrong.

2) On Tuesday, the Clinton campaign tried to cover the Tousla “misstatements” story by posting a list of what they said were a series of Obama embellishments. Number one on the list: Obama’s claim that he was a law school professor at the University of Chicago.

The Clinton broadside references a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times story in identifying Obama’s official title at the U of C as “Senior Lecturer” and went on to accuse Obama of resume padding.

But today, the University of Chicago issued a press release that clarified the issue, noting that Obama’s position was equivalent to a professorship, and that they had offered him an actual tenure-track faculty position several times over the years (which he had refused). So will the Clinton camp retract the charge? Probably not...no doubt they’ll say they were only quoting the Sun-Times.

It would have only taken a fact-checking phone call for them to find this information out before they made the accusation. But hey, why bother if the answers you get might ruin a perfectly good smear?

This is just the latest in a long string of incidents where the Clinton campaign acts like hypocritical parents….”Do what I say, not what I do.”

I’m tempted to use Senator Clinton’s umbrage against her, and say, “Shame on you Hillary Clinton. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you.”

The only problem? Well, I actually see three problems.

1) There is a rather awful consistency to the Clinton campaign tactics relative to their kitchen sink messages;

2) These tactics are very much what I’ve come to expect from their campaign; and,

3) The Clinton camp appears not to care a wit about shame.