In the above article, they’ve outdone themselves in twisting the truth around exactly 180 degrees. Hillary has lied and flip-flopped time and time again, beginning with how the Florida/Michigan issue should be resolved. Answer: differently than agreed if it suddenly becomes important to ME WINNING. She does not have enough integrity to become our next president.

Nothing Geoff Garin identifies as a “personal attack” qualifies as one. And I don’t think it’s possible they don’t know what they’re doing when they tell the big lies in an effort to stand reality on its head. Calling Clinton “secretive” is a “striking personal attack in the era of Dick Cheney?” No, it is because we live in the era of Dick Cheney that questions about a politician’s secretiveness are important and relevant.

“…stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a “dressed” Barack Obama….”Wouldn’t we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?” questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.” - You can make the tortured argument that this doesn’t mean the Clinton staffers were the origin of the photo, but it clearly claims they were “pushing” it - “circulating” it and complaining that it should be getting more attention.

Four months ago if you’d asked me whether I would be happy with Clinton getting the nomination, I would have said, “sure.” She wasn’t my first choice, but then neither was Obama. I remember Democrats discussing the Democratic slate and expressing contentment with almost all of the choices. Whoever won, we would be happy and confident going up against the Republicans in the fall.

Now I see Clinton as nothing different than McCain or Bush. She’s just like them, and shares their contempt for the people and their petulant sense of entitlement. Maybe it was always that way or maybe she became what she hated in the 90s, because her and her husband were determined to beat the Republicans at their own game.

Whatever. I’m glad she’s going down and I’m glad Obama and Howard Dean are ushering in a new era in Democratic politics. Good riddance to the Bushes and the Clintons and all the detritus of the Reagan Revolution. It’s time to move on.

2) To say no democratic votes for Obama were changed because of that picture is complete speculation and not backed up by the rising % that believes he’s a muslim. Remember, these are tight contests. 2% or 3% matters.

3) I don’t know how to say this any more clearly, and please don’t take this as me shouting, but for emphasis….WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT, THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AGREED WITH THE SENTIMENT EXPRESSED IN THE EMAIL AND USED THE OCCASIONS TO PUSH THE WEATHERMAN STORY. You still haven’t addressed those two very key points, and I think you’re ignoring them because it completely undermines your “Clinton has nothing to gain” argument.

And by the way, how is Clinton still fighting the damage done from that? It’s Obama who has is consistently asked the Muslim question.

“Yes, Drudge did say Hillary’s camp was pushing that story.” - jg

No, he does not say that. Just read it. Unless you are referring to later in the story when Drudge says this:

“Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of ’shameful offensive fear-mongering’ for circulating the snap.

The only time that Drudge says Cinton’s camp was pushing the story, he is quoting David Plouffe of the Obama campaign as his source.

No, Obama was not damaged by that picture. Any Democrat who would have been influenced by that picture would have already made up their mind, and probably would have believed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” e-mail smear. .Both of which are consistent with continuing smears propagated by Republicans and not Democrats. No Democratic votes for Obama were changed by that picture.

On the other hand, Clinton is still fighting the damage created by Plouffe and those who repeat this, his most effective smear, which has cost Clinton many votes and continues to erode her support. This is reinforced by the simple observation that any time this is mentioned, it is being promoted by Obama supporters with the intent of damaging Clinton. If this was so damaging to Obama, why do Obama supporters keep bringing it up? You never hear Clinton supporters bring this up.

Second, I am using your common sense standard about who benefitted. Hillary’s camp used the opportunity to: a) agree with the sentiment in the email and b) push the Weatherman story. So to suggest that the Clinton camp didn’t benefit from this isn’t even supported by the opportunities they took at the time this was happening.

Also, you don’t think a picture of Obama in Muslim gear has helped spread the notion that Obama is a “Secret Muslim” with lower income, white Dems…who just happen to be one of Hill’s support bases?

Sorry, but Occam’s razor is slicing your argument to shreds.

When you renege on a commitment, how do you have any stature as an attorney? I personally won’t negotiate with someone that commits to a deal and then backs out. Why would you?

As for snipergate, she put that story out again AFTER being contradicted. You’d think that folks would be more concerned what comes out of Hillary’s mouth than what comes out of Obama’s pastor’s mouth. Right? The logical inference is that a habitual liar who wants to be President should be the core issue than a pastor who doesn’t even claim to speak for Obama.

That’s like indicting me for my racist Asian immigrant mom who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black. That’s a non-issue compared to the lies that comes out of Hillary’s own mouth.

Hillary’s negative ratings are based on her own lies and her failure to run a campaign. If you can’t operate campaign machinery, how are you suppose to run a Cabinet.?

First, Drudge said that Hillary pushed that story. Obama’s camp repeated it. - jg

This is a false statement. Here is the exact quote from Drudge, which is the ONLY SOURCE for any accusations:

“With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a “dressed” Barack Obama….”Wouldn’t we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?” questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.”

This is a precisely worded statement by wordsmith Drudge, designed to create an impression without saying anything and is particularly notable for what it does not say. It does not say that Hillary pushed the story”. It does not say the clinton campaign pushed the story, nor does he say received it from the Clinton campaign. He said he “obtained it” but does not say from where, which is tantamount to saying he did not get it from the Clinton campaign. He does not mention names. He has never produced the e-mail. the header has never been made available to see if it was spoofed. The accusation that the Clinton campaign gave it to Drudge and promoted the picture was created out of whole cloth by the Obama campaign, specifically to smear the Clinton campaign, with no evidence - not from Drudge - not from anywhere. And you continue to repeat it.

Common sense says to consider who benefited from this. The primary beneficiary are Republicans, who in a single stroke were able to damage Obama with the race and religion baiting Neanderthal wing of their party, and also damage Clinton with the Democratic base. That is why the most likely scenario is that this was a spoofed e-mail sent to Drudge by Republican operatives or tricksters. It was in Drudges interest to not look to closely but just report the superficial and probably spoofed header. By opportunistically jumping all over this and smearing the Clinton campaign without evidence, the Obama campaign was also able to benefit greatly during the primary season by damaging the Clinton reputation among the Democratic base. Damage which continues to be reinforced by posts like this one. The only one who got no benefit from this at all, is the Clinton campaign. Not one vote was switched from Obama to Clinton among the Dem base because he wore a turban.

Second, the Clinton campaign said that they had no knowledge if the email had come from their campaign or not. That was their answer, and they were very careful to say it exactly like that. Why? Because they couldn’t flat out deny it because they never looked into it.

And yet they looked into the other situation in Iowa and fired somebody.

And yet they agreed with the sentiment of the email.

And yet they used the occasion to bring up Obama’s supposed ties to a 70’s era TERRORIST GROUP.

Hmmm…

And I’m sorry, but your claim of zero evidence is false. Drudge is evidence. And the evidence you claim contradicts this does no such thing. The photo popped up on a website a few days before. That’s not evidence, that’s coincidence, and you should know the difference.

If Drudge is revealed to be a liar in this case, I’ll retract everything I’ve said. But I think it’s telling that the Clinton camp never called for Drudge to release the email. Again, I ask why? And considering the pattern of deception and spin that has come from the Clinton campaign, you’d think they would have come out with guns blazing on this, since they’ve done it with EVERYTHING ELSE.

You believe what you want to believe and I’ll believe what I want to believe. But I think we can both agree that Garin’s op-ed is pure spin and nothing else.

…let’s not forget that they still never answered for the Muslim pic on Drudge…- jg

Lets not. Lets not forget that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign flat denied having anything to do with it, which if true, means there is nothing to look into. That does not stop Justin from demanding they look into it anyway. Lets not forget that there was never any evidence that the Clinton campaign was associated with this except a a very general,very oddly worded statement by Drudge about an e-mail that he has never produced. Lets not forget that there was considerable circumstantial evidence that the source of the e-mail was Republican operatives who spoofed the e-mail after finding it circulating on the Freeper site.

Lets not forget that that single most effective and damaging personal attack by either campaign, in terms of actual damage among the Democratic voting base, was the Obama campaign smear of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign accusing them of the being responsible for releasing that picture to Drudge, an accusation that had no supporting evidence (zero, none, nada), but continues to be believed and promoted by gullible Democrats like Justin to this day.