"The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning." -Adlai E. Stevenson

"In an ideal world, I wish we could conduct our campaigns on questions of policy and policy differentiation. We've learned that campaigns are about much more than that."
- Howard Wolfson (Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman)

BAGHDAD-- On the heels of a recent candidate forum in Albany that featured the seven Democrats that seek to succeed Congressman Michael McNulty, it was reported that allegedly over-enthusiastic supporters of candidate Lester Freeman pasted over a campaign lawn sign of candidate Phil Steck with one of Freeman. To their credit, each candidate responded to this isolated incident quickly and appropriately; Freeman disavowed the action and asserted that such behavior has no place on his team; Steck did not overreact to the affront, and acknowledged that his campaign sign should not have been posted at that location in Albany so early in the race. Though a minor affair for sure, one nevertheless hopes that it does not serve as a harbinger of a long and nasty democratic primary fight.

But then again, this was not the first such incident.

Earlier this year, in February, it was revealed that a media consulting firm associated with the Tracey Brooks for Congress campaign registered internet site domain names that might have been used by Mr. Steck and Paul Tonko; announced and - at the time - potential opponents respectively.

Contrary to the claim of Brooks spokesman Kyle Kotary, this was very much a "big deal." Kotary suggested that "all consultants do it." That is not the case. Candidates occasionally, as a defensive measure, register variations of their campaign domains to prevent the nefarious use of those sites by opposition dirty tricksters. What the Brooks campaign engaged in however, is predatory and offensive in nature. And though apparently legal, it stinks. The inexplicable failure of the Brooks campaign to acknowledge they made a mistake only compounds what heretofore was a troubling lapse in judgment. Most informed and fair-minded voters consider a candidate's judgment an important factor in determining his or her fitness for elective office. It is unlikely that such voters will dismiss this affair as typical political campaign static.

Though internet domains may seem a trivial matter, the fact is they are not. I know this from personal experience. In the aftermath of my congressional campaign two years ago, political insiders and media experts questioned the rather lumpy domain name I chose for my campaign website (Raleigh12Sep06.com). "Tom," they said, "ya gotta have a domain name that is short and easily remembered. Yours fails on both counts. What were you thinking?" (In the background of these discussions, Sean, my brother and campaign manager, could be seen doing his spirited version of the "I-told-you-so-dance.")

The right domain name can translate into big bucks. In an era when the internet plays a huge role in fundraising and transmitting one's message, the cynical manipulation of campaign cyberspace clearly falls under the rubric of "dirty tricks:" a high-tech equivalent of destroying an opponent's lawn signs. It is conduct that undermines our political processes, period.

It is difficult to imagine that Ms. Brooks did not have prior knowledge of this maneuver. She is clearly tech-savvy, as evidenced by her campaign website that features a YouTube video and sister sites on ActBlue, MySpace and Facebook.

If Ms. Brooks had a role in purchasing the domains in question (PhilSteck.com and PaulTonko.com among them), it casts doubt on her judgment and sense of fair play. On the other hand, if she did not have prior knowledge, she remains at least indirectly responsible: She clearly failed to articulate to her staff the ethical standards to which the campaign will abide. There is no mention of ethics or clean campaigning on Ms. Brooks' campaign website.

In the security realm, the surge worked. Aided by a cease-fire imposed in August by Muqtada al-Sadr on his Madhi militia, coalition forces have made considerable progress since January 2007 in reducing the violence and transferring provincial security duties to Iraqi security forces.

U.S. commanders, contrary to the opinion of some, are hardly "slow rolling" troop reductions to pre-surge levels. Withdrawing 4,000-member brigade combat teams and reassigning thousands of kilometers of battle space is an extraordinarily complex endeavor; you don't just pack up your stuff and "head to the barn." One can expect that Gen. David Petraeus will explain this to Congress next month, and reiterate the need to reset American and Iraqi forces before making further troop reductions.

On the political front, Congress - a body not particularly known for its agility, decisiveness or productivity - criticizes the Iraqi Parliament for failing to pass critical reconciliation measures. Condescendingly characterizing the recent passing of a de-Baathification law, and a budget agreement, as welcome but insufficient progress, the Congress, I suggest, ought to instead embrace some strategic patience.

The Iraqi economy continues to show slow but steady growth. Oil production has modestly increased, as has electricity output. There has been some progress in other areas, rule of law among them, but medical care and most municipal services remain abysmal.

We need a Congress that will stand up for what’s right: ending this war and bringing the international criminal Osama bin Laden, and his organization, to justice.