1. Who cares?

2. How do you know when wolfson is lying? When he opens his mouth.

Try number three and they finally made a denial. We'll see.

btw -- the cables have not yet run with this story, I guess except for Fox (which I won't turn on). I can't imagine Blitzer and Matthews are really going to pass this over, though. I hope they have the good sense to show Bush and former President Clinton in ethnic clothing as well.

commenters, please stop ignoring this quote from Wolfson:

"We've been very clear that we're not aware of it," he added. "Obviously the campaign didn't sanction it, and don't know anything about it."

"the campaign didn't sanction it, and don't know anything about it." that is a clear denial that the campaign had an official role pushing the photo. end of story.

I agree with those who say that these shenanigans benefit Obama so long as he continues to receive them with the dignity that seems to be his set idiom.

But that does not remove the stain that Hillary's side intends them to do harm. They are meant to benefit neither Obama nor the level of debate in the campaign. They are meant as cheap, Rovian dirty-tricks.

The well-fed Clinton strategists and/or the tone-deaf candidate herself presumably have something up their sleeves for tomorrow night that is intended to deliver a knockout punch in the debate. It will presumably be some sleazy tactic that can be handled by Obama with dignified astonishment -- with perhaps a touch of disdain -- in which case he'll just look better than ever.

On the other hand, if it's something more complex and surprising -- something that needs to be defended against but for which he can't possibly have the appropriate material at hand -- there is still fortunately a whole week before the next vote. That will give him time not only to marshal the necessary rebuttal but will give Clinton time to have a few more meltdowns in public, handily alienating supporters in droves.

No, not to my knowledge...I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone else here has. I'm not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail.

This is not a strong denial, this is feigning IGNORANCE.

Right, Greg. The campaign didn't sanction it, just like it didn't sanction Shaheen's comments, the two staffers forwarding around the Muslim smear e-mails, Bob Johnson's comments, or the memo about how Obama's support for Israel is suspect (though, it appears someone on the Clinton campaign is again floating a similar/the same memo). It is unclear whether the campaign sanctioned Bill's comments comparing Obama's South Carolina wins to Jesse Jackson's.

Oh, and if we look at each one of these instances individually, without any context whatsoever, they mean nothing! And anyone who dares to put them all together and suggest a pattern is playing the race card.

Of course they won't take credit for the photo since the result has been so negative! Another failed smear attempt by the Clinton campaign.

the real question is: does the Clinton campaign really really have anything to lose by being caught in a lie?

its not like she's going to be afraid of throwing every rationally cumbersome, trivial kitchen sink at him when her house is burning down anyway.

Greg:

Your colleague, Josh Marshall, just posted this on the front page:

On a conference call, Howard Wolfson just made pretty much the kind of 'loosely categorical' statement about the Obama picture that I said in the post below that we were surprised not to have heard. Here's our report on the conference call.

Sleazy, dirty politics.

I'm sending in a contribution to Obama. I hope others do the same.

He only needs a few thousand more to hit one million donors, and they're asking for as little as $5, so let's try to get him to an even million before the end of the month!

Refresh my memory please: Just what was it that Hillary Clinton apologized for in New Orleans on Saturday, when said " If it was meant or not".

The Clintons must be so angry. Apparently, they are no longer able to lead Democratic voters around by the nose.

NAFTA, Iraq, the pardons, the ridiculous and self-indulgent Clinton personal dramas that characterized that Presidency, still, Democrats stuck with them.

It will be interesting to see whether loyal Democratic voters can finally shake them loose.

I doubt it. Old, destructive habits die hard.

We've been very clear that we're not aware of it," he added. "Obviously the campaign didn't sanction it, and don't know anything about it."

Have to disagree Greg.

1. The only thing that is clear is that they don't KNOW if someone from their shop pushed this out (which is consistent with their earlier non-denial).

2. The second sentence, like much from the Clinton campaign rhetoric, is self-serving and conclusory. It's not OBVIOUS they didn't sanction the email, because they don't say that once. The only thing that is obvious is that they are claiming ignorance.

3. Look at the statement again. Howard is only talking about HIS personal knowledge of what may or may not be going on internally. He then concludes, based on his ignorance, that obviously the campaign had nothing to do with it.

Sorry, viewed in context, this is still a non-denial.

Yep, the Clinton campaign waited so see what the reaction was before they decided to deny circulating the photo.

I think we're all kidding ourselves if we accept this denial as truth. HRC is using Bush-Rove tactics to try to win an election, why should we assume she's above lying like Bush-Rove?

Sorry, but I'm calling BS here. If they had not engaged in this type of tactic before I could believe their denial. But they've repeatedly pushed this garbage. I think we're officially to the point where the Clinton campaign has to be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Greg, have you ever watched the Sopranos? Doesn't this sound like plausible deniability to you? Send someone (an underling, a staffer) to do your dirty work (you yourself don't even have to know about it), and then you can stand there with a straight face and say that you are "not aware" of anyone on your staff doing this. Maybe he isn't aware, personally. However, it took them 3 tries to finally give some half-hearted denial about the picture. They may very well have nothing to do with this, but many people will not believe them (myself included).

I guess the Republican dirty tricksters, like David Bossie, went out of business and all the slime against Obama now comes from Hillary's camp; after all, Drudge broke the story.

There's no real way for the Clinton campaign to know that some low-level workers in TX, OH or PA didn't do this, so I guess we just have take Wolfson at his word that none of the higher-ups were involved.

Here's something else for Howard to ponder about media treatment, though: hands down, no other candidate would have been given as many chances to come back as Hillary Clinton has. Worst case scenario, she was supposed to at least come close in either Maine, Virginia or Wisconsin. Instead, she got trounced. Anyone else would have been laughed out of the building at that point.

This is all bull, folks. The media are covering the ridiculous photo story INSTEAD of her foreign policy speech. Do you actually think that's what the Clinton campaign wanted?

Boy, you Obama people are really a paranoid lot. The whole photo thing was probably manufactured by Drudge. Are you sure the Obama campaign could handle the Republican attack machine in a GE?

While I am an Obama supporter, this exchange of comments illustrates the difficulty HRC has in that she simply cannot win with voters. She's either slimy for getting the picture out or lying that she didn't. There is no wiggle room for her.

Her campaign denied it officially. I think they are telling the truth. I do think that someone inside the campaign, without higher ups knowledge likely planted the picture, but can we blame the candidate for her lackey's failings?