Even though Republicans are using superPACs, they're still outraged that President Obama will use superPACs, too. I think it had to happen—pundits have said that if the Obama campaign didn't allow superPACs, they'd be "bringing a knife to a gun fight." But really, it'd be more like bringing a gun to a nuclear war; all the Obama campaign's funds would be spent on trying to undo the damage done by the Republican superPACs. It's not pretty, but it is pragmatic. And all kinds of noisy Democrats, especially progressive bloggers, hate pragmatism.
Unfortunately, when David Axelrod claims that President Obama will continue to fight superPACs after the election, it sounds terrible. This is the sound of capitulation, of losing the high ground: "The president is going to continue to fight for ways to reform this system, in the future, but that's not going to happen in this campaign." But it was a decision that had to be made, like the 2008 decision to opt out of public funds.
The campaign was smart, at least, to make the decision earlier, during a relatively strong week for the president. If this news dropped in June, it would be terrible for the campaign's image. They're hoping that the issue will be talked-out by the time general election voters start paying attention. But Mitt Romney is just the kind of candidate to hit his opponent for using superPACs even while his own campaign uses superPACs. He's done this over and over again, nailing Gingrich and Obama for things that he himself has done. Thing is, sometimes that strategy works. This decision was a calculated risk for the Obama campaign. There's a very small chance it'll backfire, but there was practically no way to win this election without accepting help from superPACs.