I’m not naive about the Clinton machine (as ricketty as it seems these days), but I’m hoping you are not being naive about the Illinois democratic political machine that birthed Obama. I’ve not seen a politician come out of there yet that has earned the title “clean.” Obama could be the first I suppose.

I’ll remain wary.

Also, smears are usually true in some respect, but make the candidate look bad. Such is the case with all the smears the Clinton campaign has leveled against Barack. None of them are provably false, but all are petty, mean and dumb.

But let me put this another way Rich, since you think Obama’s drug use is okay to bring up…would it be okay for Obama’s campaign to bring up Bill’s pattern of infidelity? Personally, I don’t think so, and yet I’m sure that could have been argued it shows Hillary doesn’t necessarily have the best judgement. Going further, did they bring up White Water? Kathleen Wiley? Juanita Broaddrick? No, no and no. None of the “dirt” on Clinton has come up from the Obama campaign, and yet the Clinton campaign has continually brought up dirt on Obama. And folks, you can think this stuff isn’t orchestrated if you want, but I would offer that trusting a political machine that’s known for exactly this type of stuff is naive at best.

I rest my case. :-)

I feel I need a lawyer by side here to jump up and say “OBJECTION! HEARSAY! Prior history is not relevant or admissible or prejudicial or ..something.”

But the Clinton campaign has been convicted in the court of public blogospheric opinion. A travesty of justice.

See you at the execution.

One only has to look at elections in which crossovers could occur and in states that vote Republican. Barak Obama has done exceptionally well and the data suggests that he does very well with these so called independent voters whom I suspect are actually Republicans content with ensuring a Hillary defeat and not an Obama victory.

This election season the Republican primary field was full of candidates who did not inspire and coupled with a sense of hopeless certainty that the GOP candidate would be defeated no matter the out come of the Democratic primary process was bound to ensure that the driving principal behind this years election is not who would be the next president but who would not be the next president.

Barak Obama is being driven to the nomination and most likely the White House by Republicans whose entire focus this primary season is to ensure that Clinton be defeated. I think the DNC might take a careful look at their primary process after this primary and decide if they do in fact want Republicans deciding who their candidate is in future elections.

As for the drug use…Obama has admitted that, correct? So, once again, is that an “attack” as such? You may feel it is “beyond the pale” to bring up something like this, and you may feel the person was wrong to attach any political importance to the matter (I’m inclined to agree with you on that point), but it isn’t based upon a outright falsehood.

And I’m not sure what to think about “high level volunteers”. To my mind if you are a “volunteer” you are not “high level” by definition. That would be akin, to my mind, of blaming Obama personally for the Che Guevara flags flown by some Obama volunteers in Texas. Calling those folks “high level volunteers” wouldn’t change that fact either.

IN this case none of us have any information that could positively identify the source of the photo. Any categorical statement about it then becomes a statement about our own prejudices more than anything else.

But you’re right. Email can be spoofed, etc. I just think the pattern of smear from the Clintons is clear so I’m simply done giving them the benefit of the doubt. And I think you know that if they pattern wasn’t there, I never would have written this post.

Fair enough?

How about we walk down the path of slightly more paranoid scenario?

Interesting thread on this topic over at Liberal Avenger.

Commenter Dutch:

“I would caution about biting on this bit. The Drudge report says the photo was Emailed to them. That is not exactly what I would call a secure sourcing of the origin. While I have no doubt that the Drudge Report can produce headers saying the Email came from the Clinton campaign, it is not all that difficult to compose whatever header you want for a plain text Email with a mimed attachment. I used to use plain DOS text for Email and I composed my own headers in a plain text file and they worked just fine. An Email can come from anywhere and purport to be from anywhere else depending on what part of the complete header and routing one publishes. One can even spoof the TCP/IP origin. Most Email readers no longer give complete routing unless one really digs. There is no percentage for the Drudge Report to more than skim those headers. They do not have exactly the best reputation for accuracy there anyway.”

So a mysterious e-mail with what someone thinks is a damaging picture of Obama in a turban (which actually is not damaging with Democratic voters) shows up at Drudge with a header that says it came from the Clinton campaign. Thats all we got. As a result the two Dem campaigns attack each other. Who really gains when the two Democratic campaigns are engaged in a spitfight?

Certainly between the two Dem campaigns, Obama gains much more in this exchange (which BTW you are an accessory to Justin – which is fine if you want to carry their water – at the moment I’m carrying Clinton’s water and I don’t even know why). But a trickster outside of either campaign could not be happier with this result regardless.