Which makes Hillary's campaign use of him as a propaganda outlet all the more disturbing. Their campaign has not earned having a benefit of a doubt on this...sorry.

Jerome,  How about some web tools that simply make it impossible to post a link to drudge's site?  Is that feasible, because I agree we would all be better served if we never had to see his BS.

Then why has the Clinton campaign been working with Drudge in the past (if not now)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/pol itics/22drudge.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx =1203951964-dMAs0opE63i43seNuakmjA
    Clinton finds a way to play along with Drudge

   ...Mrs. Clinton's communications team, led by Howard Wolfson, is not leaving Mr. Drudge to the Republicans. Five current and former Democratic officials said Mrs. Clinton has on her side the closest thing her party has ever had to Mr. Rhoades in Tracy Sefl, a former Democratic National Committee official, who has established a friendly working relationship with Mr. Drudge -- and through whom Mrs. Clinton's campaign often worked quietly to open a line of communication...
(via http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/)

The Clinton campaign did not even deny this when asked! So how do YOU know that it is false?

Apart from that, I agree that we should ignore drudge.

If she sent the photos to Drudge, then it is her campaign that you should be complaining about.

This all reminds me of when the Obama campaign gave Drudge a fundraising photo of the Clintons with Rezko.

Yep, if the Clintons did provide this photo (which by the way is a photo that has been around the internets for quite awhile) then it's just using Obama's own game against him.

In addition, it's a photo of HIM.  Do you think the Republicans wouldn't use it against him?  Do you REALLY think that?

If so, you've really bought into the Kumbaya nonsense.  Reality is going to hurt you badly.

I and quite a lot of other Obama supporters said this s well in Turkana's diary at DKos - (which has been on the rec list all day by the way.)

I remember well when Drudge spread a false story about Wes Clark last cycle.  I don't ever accept him as a source - at most I read there to see what the right-wing noise machine is up to.

If members of her campaign were circulating this, honestly her days are numbered.  She's done a terrible job managing her campaign (yes, it's ultimately her fault).  Her consultants ruined a perfectly good candidate.

It is really sad that the Clinton campaign chose to do this.

By the way, Obama now leads in the national Gallup/USA today poll -- 51-39 -
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/02/25/700522.aspx

it would be so terrible if the photo did come from the HRC camp.  I found the "shame on you" a pretty wimpy in response to the BHO camp's Harry and Louise mailer. This is, at least IMO, a more appropriate response. Tit for tat.

Why use Drudge as your transmission vehicle? Well, by now, most of the known universe knows about it.

Both sides are playing campaign hardball, and that's as it should be, considering what we'll be facing in November. But I suppose this'll be yet another thread with both camps (BHO/HRC) tossing bile and accusations at the other for "going over the line" or whatever nonsense from the fainting couch.

I don't see much of a big deal in the photo push, though. More or less it provides yet another immunization of a silly attack the GOP could use against Obama any way.

Just wait until Obama is the nominee and the fire gets aimed full-force at him.

We're already seeing previews from the right.

The Hillaryhaters at Obamakos don't get who or what, just as long as it maligns. Yell and scream now, but don't bother to ask questions.

And this is the band of supporters who are going to be the voice of the left if Obama is the nominee against the Right Wing machine?

What a mess...

I used to believe that, at least, the HRC-BHO debate is nonviolent.  But not any more.

http://cbs3.com/local/Political.Stabbing .montgomery.2.662239.html

for taking what is apparently an unpopular stance now. Whoever you support, you shouldn't need to go to Drudge for information or support.

Interestingly that some people are so far gone that they now accept Drudge's word as fact- read the posts above.

If the Clinton campaign didn't supply the photo to Drudge, they would deny it categorically, or they would say that if they found the staff member who did it he/she would be fired.  There is really no need to play dumb here, the Clinton campaign did this.

As an obama supporter, I think this is great.  Let's get as much of this nonsense out now as we can.  As for Clinton:  pathetic.

is the multi-angled Drudge legitimization... Not only do both sides use it to legitimize something about the opponent, both sides even use the converse to accuess the other side of malfeasance.

I'm in 100% agreement.  NO. LINKS. TO. DRUDGE.  For any reason.

Sometimes I feel like one of the last 2-3 people on earth that have never visited Drudge and never plan to... I honestly don't even know what the URL is - and I do not care to find out.

For whatever little my opinion is worth - I'm fine with one warning, then banned for any Drudge linkers.... for ANY purpose... well -- maybe with an exception for Drudge posting something like "I quit".

IGNORE DRUDGE

Oh, yes, she is so smart to NOT DENY that it came from her campaign.  What a brilliant strategy.  No one will think they actually did it, since they'll all know that it so beneath her to deny it.

Except her campaign can't stop responding. Eventually they will get it right....
           "Yes a volunteer staffer sent the picture to Drudge, they have been fired.

Response #1

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed

Response #2

"We have over 700 people on staff. I don't know if someone on our staff sent it out or not,"

Response #3

Wolfson - 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."

Of course, the Obama supporters blame Clinton.

Amazing, they are the new bushies and read just like them. Dittoheads, if you will.

I would call this a RW smear:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/? entry=29048_Farrakhan-Obama_is_Hope_of the_Entire_World#comments

That was snark right?

It's not Drudge's faults, it's the Clinton campaign's fault for using Drudge as an outlet for their propaganda. Notice how the Clinton campaign has NOT denied that they leaked the photo to drudge.

My man Al Giordano at The Field is all over this one.  Check out the photos he found....

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=757

... which is why people are so up in arms that one of the Democratic candidates might have used it in an attempt to smear the other one.

I do agree that a lot of people leapt straight to a conclusion without passing go or collecting any proof. On the other hand, the non-denial by the Clinton campaign is doing her cause no particular good. It just seems like the obvious answer should have been "we don't think anyone on our staff did this but we are checking" followed by either "yep, someone did and now they are gone" or "nope, Drudge did this all by himself to wind everyone up and it worked. Time for decaff."

Everyone here ought to feel the same way on this subject, right? We are all agreed?

Yep. Drudge is just stirring the shit storm and the MSM is in tow. Don't we all have something better to do?

And the Obama campaign somehow feels it's more important to tie Clinton to Drudge than to defend a perfectly harmless photograph.  Oh, well--they're the geniuses, I guess.  But pardon me if I don't feel very good about their chances against world-class Republican thuggery.

If it's true that the Clinton campaign leaked the photo of Obama to Drudge, then it comes down to this--

Apparently the Clinton team believes that the American people are so xenophobic and unsophisticated that after seeing the photo we will jump to the conclusion that Obama is sympathetic to militant Islamic fundamentalism.

It's really about the Clinton's low regard for our judgement.

How could one otherwise know what is up? What the enemy is thinking?

But I will admit I was very surprised by the level of paranoia emanating from the Obama camp. It strikes me that such a seemingly disciplined, "hopeful" campaign would display such visceral, emotive, plaintive finger-pointing among its supporters towards us innocent Clinton supporters.

I don't know for sure if the Clinton people leaked that photo, but if they did, I regard that as encouraging news for Obama.  It's a signal that they have given up on the idea of winning the race on its merits, and are resorting to desperate Rovian tactics.  

It's sad, really.  Hillary is my Senator, and I'd like to see her exit gracefully before she squanders all her poltical capital and diminishes her ability to function effectively in Congress.

This is so frustrating. Every single post has to generate into name calling. Is it possible for most to agree that Drudge is not a credible source? It doesn't matter if one candidate leak to him or the other advertises on the site.

He is not a credible source!!!

And the Obama campaign somehow feels it's more important to tie Clinton to Drudge...

Clinton already is tied to Drudge -- see http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

Oh, well--they're the geniuses, I guess.

Geniuses, no. Winners, yes.

But pardon me if I don't feel very good about their chances against world-class Republican thuggery.

If ya'll haven't figured it out by now, Obama's like Bill -- he's teflon. Neither Hillary Clinton, nor the Republican are capable of taking Obama down. And as someone else noted, Hillary Clinton hasn't beaten the Republican smear machine -- she's lost to it, and has the 48% negatives to prove it.

Drudge sucks but the slowness of the Clinton campaign in issuing a denial for the "Official Campaign" (i.e. they admit it could have been a staffer on their own initiative but they don't know yet) doesn't do wonders for my confidence in her rapid response campaign.

Frankly I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I think Obama looks quite cute in that little toga get-up. Obama should just laugh it off and move on. Everyone who is anyone from the Queen of England to Bill Clinton has had to don global gear to get down with the natives. If we are such a xenophobic nation, that Obama cannot get elected because of this picture, then that is indeed a sad commentary and America is in terrible shape.  

Obama too has to stop being so neurotic. He is turning into the "Catch Me If You Can" candidate. He wears and discards so many identities only when it suits his needs that it is dizzying. One minute he is black the next not, one minute he is touting his "international" credentials, the next he is hiding from them. Who is Mr. Obama really? Until he is comfortable answering this question in an American context he will continue to make stupid Drudge stories somehow creditable and newsworthy. I think the big story here is not Drudge's stupidity but Obama's neurotic response. Unfortunately Drudge will still be in existence in a would be Obama presidency. Drudge is a public nuisance sadly Obama will have to learn to live with him, God knows all of us mere mortals have to deal with Drudge's toxic waste.

this thread is a real winner sarcasm

penn needs to get kicked in the nut sack, fired, spat on and then some. is there a worse man for democrats?

i still like Hillary, and only because I can separate her campaign team from the person.

mydd should stop being a clearinghouse for Hillary and start becoming a critical forum again. This means going after Penn, the DLC and both candidates weaker positions. MyDD used to be my favorite blog, it is the worst one at the moment.

Everyone who is anyone from the Queen of England to Bill Clinton has had to don global gear to get down with the natives.

Get down with the natives ?

So that's what people from Africa are called ?

The natives ?

Keep up the good work.

i've got to say that if this photo did in fact come out of the Hillary campaign it woudln't surprise me.

it would not be the first time in this primary that some type of overt discriminatory angle has been taking.

YES - ABSOLUTELY!

"Everyone here ought to feel the same way on this subject, right? We are all agreed?"

Howard Wolfson:  I have not previously seen this photograph.  I'm not aware that anyone in this campaign circulated it. I don't imagine that you have any independent reporting to suggest that we did."

Gov. Janet Napolitano:  ...I think it's irrelevant to the issues of the campaign. I know there's some back and forth today; the Clinton campaign says they have nothing to do with it. I take them at their word. We need to move on. The people of the United States, the people out in Arizona aren't interested in a photo. What they're interested in is a president who will lead; who will help them deal with the economy, with health care, with foreign policy, and by the way with a new vision for the war in Iraq.

Why should the Clinton campaign have to deny anything when her name isn't tied to anything?

The decision to link or not to link should be based on who we might affect, i.e., the liberal blog audience. We are the smart liberal guys and gals at parties, not a voter with latent racism that happened upon a Drudge link on day. We need to know what goes on on Drudge, so that we can fight it in those arguments with that guy (with the latent racism) at a party.

You're right, and campaigns shouldn't legitimize Drudge by leaking, say, fundraising numbers to Drudge so he gets the scoop.

Right?

Of course not.

I guess I'll get inappropriately troll-rated now for pointing out the obvious.

you leading "liberal" bloggers might want to police the right side of your webpages a bit better to as Drudge-esque stories constantly pop up there about the Democratic candidates.

Someone who is a little overzealous or a little dense who happens to be a volunteer or a supporter could have, I suppose.  Does that mean it was directed by the main campaign?

An Obama precinct captain in Nevada sent out flyers encouraging Clinton hating Republicans to vote for Obama in the Democratic primary as a way of hurting Hillary.  The Obama campaign claims they had nothing to do with this initiative.  I believe them.

When asked about the photo,  (from MSNBC)

"The Clinton campaign did not comment on the distribution of the photo, but campaign manager Maggie Williams said the Obama campaign's reaction was inflaming passions and distracting voters."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337141/

Got to hand it to Clinton for pulling a solid Republican trick, too bad it was against a fellow Dem.

Legitimizing Drudge in the name of winning a primary is just a terrible idea long term.

It's a wonder that Hillary gets smeared with the "she'll do anything to win" label, rather than her opponent who legitimizes Matt Freakin' Drudge.  

Supposedly this cutsie photo has been public domain for a couple of years and floating around the blogs for some months. So then, how could the Hillary campaign provide it to Drudge? I mean it's pretty fantastic and hilarious the uproar over it.

What about the picture of Obama with that Kenyan leader/ cousin whose followers are hacking up their own peeps? Now that's a picture to be ashamed of.

Why is the picture bad? You do know, everyone, don't you that you don't get to whine about it (or anything similar) in November?  The picture is the picture. It isn't going away; and, it has been out there for awhile now.  Are we so stupid that we can't see that it has nothing to do with how it got out there.  This is a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing."  Think.  I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but if I thought for a moment that she would be subject to a lot of new/surprise/devastating attacks, I would reconsider.  Think about your man--leave the obstinancy and see where this is going in November.

Honestly?  I read Drudge all the damn time now that the primary got as dramatic as it did.  That's exactly what Drudge is good for - newsertainment.  Whenever I feel like I'm overdoing it, I shoot right back over to the Huffington Post to counteract whatever bad karma I picked up.

Also, I eat Chick-fil-A ALL the time and that money just goes to the GOP.

But, I don't use Netflix, that money goes to the right wing too.  Those envelopes aren't just red for no reason.

I think Obama released the photo to Drudge.  Here's why:  He was quick to play victim and without any evidence, shamelessly accuse Hillary of divisiveness. What is divisive about a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing unless you frame the discussion of the photo as divisive?  He would have been more believable had he said, "So what, no big deal, Hillary and many other politicians have worn the traditional clothing of countries they visited." Instead he whines, as usual, and Obama lovers everywhere feel sorry for him and send him money to get even with that mean old Hillary.  Meanwhile, the media stops giving Hillary headlines for handing Obama's ass to him the last few days. Bitch is the new Black.  You go girl!

Remember the good old days when Democrats despised Drudge? It seems like just yesterday, when I was still at DU before it turned into Democratic Cage-Fighting Underground, we would chastise other members for linking to Drudge. It was a sin equal to posting things from the Freepers.  

Now.. today.. because it's politically useful for some Democrats, he is linked and discussed as though he's credible (because it serves their purpose today.) Someone posted that Obama actually purchased ads on Drudge Report. That would be a deep disappointment if it were true.

Folks.. before you start trying to legitimize Drudge, remember that HE and HE ALONE began the first smear against John Kerry in the last election.  Remember that? The young woman he was supposedly involved with, which turned out to be a complete and total lie that hurt a lot of people.

So Drudge is who the Democrats are now relying on for info?  How low some people have sunk to advance their own interests.  

Perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to believe Drudge if Clinton didn't surround herself with lethally stupid people such as Stephanie Tubbs Jones:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/02/in-his-native-c.htm l

Check the date (2/23):

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/197 5275/posts?page=168

and a comment: "Good Job, it needs to get to Drudge,M.Malkin,Debbie Schussel etc....I want to see his explanation on this."

and then boom it appears on Drudge but attributed to Clinton?