When they don't categorically deny, when they 've been guilty of doing stuff like this before, when they are otherwise acting in such a desperate and lurching manner as a campaign, flinging stuff every which way to see what might stick, then they are a logical candidate for this kind of muck

No one's applauding. I think everyone thinks that this story is a example of shoddy reportage on MSM blogs like this and MSM "news" sites/channels. Ya'll all like this he said/she said crap, but it would be nice if you focused on actually getting useful info to voters.

I agree that the larger context is fair game. But nonetheless, the thing that is disturbing is that there was no specific allegation made in the first place. what does it mean to say that staffers "circulated" this?

this could mean that one staffer sent it to another and griped about coverage. point is, nothing specific was alleged here.

Have you guys met or seen Drudge's face? He looks like a pig (seriously) and acts like one. He a is really ugly looking fellow, without any doubts, he has inferiority complexes about his looks.

Janet Napolitano says she takes them at their word, and good for her for taking the high road. That said, nobody with a functioning brain really thinks Clinton had nothing to do with this. As I've said elsewhere, after some of the other stunts they've pulled, it's not unreasonable to assume guilt until they've proven their innocence. Hers is that kind of campaign.

She says she'll take them at their word - that's not the same as thinking they had nothing to do with it. And Wolfson's denial, as others have said, was a denial that Wolfson knew anything about it, not that the campaign was involved somehow.

You people need hobbies or something.

I understand how easy it is to get fired up about this sort of crap, but give the TPM staff a break, huh?

How often is your EVERY WORD scrutinized for evidence of bias?

How often do you have to balance that unrealistic burden with the constant demand for fresh content?

Your beef is not with this blog, your beef is with Drudge. If you want to vent, find his contact and berate. But please, put yourself in Greg's shoes for just a few seconds before you call him an "ignorant slut" or some other low-brow crap.

Or you could take a cue from Napolitano and be big enough to LET IT SLIDE OFF!

Here's the end result of this Greg:

This is NOT what the Clinton campaign wanted to be talking about on the day of their "major foreign policy address"

Seems to me she's responsible for her campaign, including stuff that's not authorized by her. Just like Obama took the hit for the D-Punjab memo, she should take the hit for this.

OK, this will be my last post on the subject (and I bet a lot of people here are glad about that as well!) :)

Even if the Clinton camp had nothing at all to do with this (and I'm still not convinced given Wolfson's non-denial denial), the fact is, as I posted early this morning, that the photo is now plastered all over the network and cable channels and it is being talked about. Obama has no recourse but to address this, to put it in context, and I'm sure he will do so in his elegant and understated way. The fact still remains that if the Clinton camp had come out this morning, issued a statement denying that the staff had anything to do with it, and left it at that, there would have been a LOT less suspicion on people's parts. They wanted to have it both ways, and I think our outrage is justified given their tactics over the past couple of months.

Having said all that, I agree that it is definitely time to move on. I for one am looking forward to tomorrow night's debate and next week's primaries.

By the way, I don't know if this was covered, but did you see that Bill C. is now dismissing the Texas primaries - evidently they don't count now because they are a hybrid primary/caucus and that's unfair to the "regular" voters. Pretty funny stuff! What's he going to do when Obama starts leading in Ohio?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/25/texas-doesn-t-count.aspx

Come on, guys! Anyone who has even peripherally been around a national campaign knows that SOME staffer - or VOLUNTEER - SOMEwhere is going to forward SOME stupid, negative e-mail. (Or, in the past: a fax, a rumor, a carved stone, whatever.) You CAN'T lock down everyone connected with a campaign - and campaigns attract some people with, shall we say, "issues" of their own.

Isn't it very likely that someone sent it to Drudge, and that the Clinton campaign didn't immediately deny it because they wanted to try to figure out who/where/what/etc before saying something that would look far worse if/when Drudge released the e-mail? Isn't it better that they allow that someone connected with the campaign might have sent it to the Drudgery site?

IF there is ANY evidence proving this was a decision made by the higher-ups in her campaign, I will denounce it as being low bullcrap that will prompt me to call on her to withdraw from the campaign. (I'm an acknowledged supporter.)

In any event, I applaud MY Governor for making that comment, EVEN IF she said it with that "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" tone in her voice (that she is SO good at).

The Hillary campaign most certainly did circulate this photo, and their non-denial denial proves it.

Hillary staffers regularly cooperate with Drudge: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama/2

I think it's irrelevant to the issues of the campaign... The people of the United States, the people out in Arizona aren't interested in a photo.

Well said. Have I mentioned how much I admire Gov Napolitano. I dare say that I could be quite happy to vote for her for President in the next go around.

It's true that we've seen no proof that the Clinton campaign was behind Drudge's scoop. But the New York Time has documented the chumminess between her people and Drudge:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/politics/22drudge.html?pagewanted=print

The report says he wore tribal dress (including turban) while visiting a village in Sudan with a congressional delegation. So presumably many others were dressed as he was, no? Where are THEIR pictures?

ABC News has a statement from Sen. Clinton herself in which, by coincidence, she fails to completely deny her campaign's involvement in getting the photo to Drudge and, also by coincidence, uses the issue as emblematic of the flagrantly 'negative' campaign of Sen. Obama.

All a coincidence, I'm sure

Yes! I knew you'd understand!

My problem with the HRC campaign was their willingness to leap on board the slime wagon. That showed to me they were ready to run with this stuff, so it wasn't much of a stretch to assume they started it, too. If they just wallowed in someone elses' filth, I guess that makes them a little better.

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Jacqueline Klingebiel Report: During a Monday interview with ABC's Dallas affiliate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., did not flatly deny the DrudgeReport's charge that her campaign leaked a photo of rival Barack Obama in traditional African dress.

She then turned the tables on her Democratic rival and accused him of using the controversy surrounding the alleged leaking of the photo to distract the public's attention from deficiencies in his platform and experience.

"I know nothing about it," Clinton told ABC affiliate WFAA. "This is in the public domain. But let's just stop and ask yourself: 'Why are you -- why is anybody concerned about this?'"

Clinton said that she found questions about whether her campaign leaked the photo to be "really laughable."

"This is one more attempt by my opponent's campaign to change the subject," said Clinton, "From his health-care plan that won't cover everybody, from an economic plan that won't produce jobs, and from a record that is pretty thin when it comes to national security and standing up for our country around the world."

The former first lady argued that there are photos of her from around the world wearing "the costume of the country" she was visiting.

"Every time I traveled to foreign countries, I wore the costume of the country. You can find dozen of pictures of me in different parts of the world," said Clinton. "You can find me wearing African outfits, Latin American outfits, Asian outfits, when you travel to foreign countries, it’s a sign of respect. What does that have to do with anything?"

During a Monday conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said that the former first lady's campaign "did not sanction" the leaking of the photo. But he stopped short of denying whether a Clinton aide may have passed it to the DrudgeReport.

"I'm not in a position to ask 700 people to come in," said Wolfson.

Back in October, The New York Times identified Tracy Sefl as the Clinton campaign's conduit to the DrudgeReport.

Asked by ABC News on Monday if she gave the photo to the DrudgeReport, Sefl, who is vice president at the Glover Park Group, said, "no."

Like Wolfson, she could not speak for all Clinton campaign associates.

Asked if she has contacted the DrudgeReport to seek a correction to its claim that the Clinton campaign is the source of the photo, she said, "No comment."

has anyone read what eric kleefeld posted on Election Central:

"The Republican Party has gotten around to confronting a new challenge this cycle will present — how to deal effectively with either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton without appearing racist or sexist. The party has commissioned polling and focus groups designed to test how far they can go with an attack, and where the line is between an effective attack versus one that alienates voters."

the republican strategists must be having a good laugh right about now...

That's right. Republicans always knew what sleazebags the Clintons were. Takes one to know one, and all that. What's amazing is how many Democrats are still so deluded.

hmmm "I take them at their word." It simply means I am not going to challenge their varacity. If the governor wanted to say "I believe the Clinton campaign," seems like she would of said exactly that. And she didn't. It's kinda like the difference in being found "not guilty" and being innocent. There is a difference.

The Governor was simply trying to be a peacemaker and get the campaigns focused on the issues. Something Clinton can't do, because she will lose.

OK, Now here is where the shit really will hit the fans for the Clintons. These tapes contain Bill and Gennifer having very explict phone sex conversations.

http://www.lvrj.com/columnists/normclarke/breaking_news/15949272.html?normBN=true

Gennifer Flowers is putting the tapes of her recorded conversations with Bill Clinton during their 12-year affair on the auction block, Vegas Confidential learned Monday.

Flowers, who came forward during Clinton's 1992 Presidential election campaign with details of the relationship, said she decided to part with the tapes after renewed interest surfaced. She was offered $5 million by a Japanese collector in the 1990s, she said.

Asked about the timing of her announcement coming out as Hillary Clinton continues to slide in her presidential bid, “I don’t need to hurt Hillary. She is doing a fine job of that herself, along with her idiot husband. Karma is an interesting thing. If these two don’t get elected, and they are a team, it will be karma coming back to visit them. It's about time."

When President Clinton denied the relationship during his presidential campaign, Flowers called a press conference played what she said were secretly recorded phone conversations.

"These are the tapes I brought forth as proof," she said.

Flowers, who lives in Las Vegas, sued Hillary Rodham Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, James Carville and other, accusing them of orchestrating a campaign to discredit her. Carville and Stephanopolous claimed Flowers doctored the tapes.

Flowers, 58, said she has kept the tapes "very safe all these years and I just recently received more interest and I said 'why not?'

"I certainly would enjoy the money for my future security. I don’t have any guarantee what might be coming," she said.

Flowers is also exploring a new book with "explosive story additions to the Clinton affair," her publicist Bruce Merrin said in a release. The book "ill contain a special item which must remain a protected secret until the book is published."

— NORM CLARKE, Vegas Confidential

A little off topic, but this piece makes a ton of sense. I wish he would have done this before the primaries started. The dem primary might be over by now.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/115015

I loathe almost everything about Bill Clinton, but that's really old news . . . and agressively irrelevant.

Who gives a shit? I think the bigger news would be Hillary's mocking blowup yesterday, or today's news that she tried to brand Obama as an anti-Semite.

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27246179

Wow - i never expected him to be Willie Hortonized so soon!
Hillary's ambition is rearing it's ugly head - personal ambition - before the needs of her party, her country.

Carol, my post above was directed at JTHB not you, in case that wasn't obvious from the flow.

From

Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist is Mark Penn, and Charlie Black, John McCain’s top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller — of which Mark Penn is CEO.

Yes, this is the same lobbyist Barack Obama was referring to when he criticized John McCain for allowing lobbyists to conduct their business on board his bus.

BKSH is a bipartisan lobbying firm. Black, the chairman is the top Republican. The top Democrat is R. Scott Pastrick, who like Penn, supports Hillary Clinton.

Mark Penn’s personal interests would clearly be best served by a Hillary Clinton victory.

A McCain presidency wouldn’t be a bad consolation prize, however. It would be far better to have the head of his lobbying be tight with the president than to have a president like Obama who sought to impose new restrictions on his lobbyist operation.

For more detailed account on this subject, read: http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mark-penns-tangled-corporate-web.html

It's very telling when you see how an unsourced post on Drudge can require assembling an Obama circle jerk among The Faithful.