“However, I find it odd that Wolfson would take this opportunity to try and push the idea that the media is treating their campaign unfairly when its Obama who has been smeared today. Curious, no? - jg

Ok. Lets think a little more about which camp was actually damaged by a smear today.

Let’s posit that there are two smears in evidence here.

SMEAR #1
An attempt to smear of the Obama campaign by publishing a picture of Obama in a funny hat, presumably to reinforce the widely distributed but thoroughly discredited and debunked “Obama is a muslim” e-mail.

SMEAR #2
An attempt to smear the slimy sleazy Clinton campaign as deliberately promoting the debunked “Obama is a Muslim” meme in a desperate last ditch attempt to swing the Texas and Ohio primary though typical Clintonian underhanded tactics.

Which smear is more likely? Which smear is more believable? Which smear is more effective? Which smear might actually change votes?

I submit, that smear #1 is transparently stupid if it was trying to reinforce a completely debunked meme to Democratic voters who don’t believe it, and would change exactly ZERO votes.

On the other hand, there are a large group of people who would tend to believe Smear #2, thinking that it reinforces the worst of what people suspect about the Clinton campaign, and some hearing it might even be duped into repeating the smear promoted by a campaign flack verbatim on their blogs. That widely propogated smear could potentially could do real damage to the Clinton campaign.

Now that smear, unlike #1 would be a truly effective smear since it could potentially change many votes.