Several factual errors.

Assertion: The Clinton campaign has not denied being the source of the whole thing.

FALSE. Clinton Spokesman Howard Wolfson denied yesterday that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with publicizing the photo. He said he could not honestly deny that the photo did not come from a campaign staffer acting on their own because he had no way of knowing that, but he categorically and clearly denied any involvement by the campaign itself.

Assertion: Most people believe this attack was perpertrated by the Clinton campaign.

A MATTER OF OPINION. Certainly, some people believe it. In saying "most" people believe it, however, you are trying to lend credibility to an assertion that does not have a shred of evidence behind it. Perhaps if you defined your terms better. What, exactly, do you mean when you say people? If you are referring to those person who have any knowledge about the incident beyond the superficial, then I would brand this FALSE. Most persons who are aware of Wolfson's comments and Drudge's "reputation" for accuracy do not believe the Clinton campaign is behind this, or at least there is no evidence that most do.

Question for the Clinton campaign: What's th big deal about Obama wearing this garb?

ASKED AND ANSWERED. The clinton campaign has clearly and unequivocally said there is nothing wrong with Obama wearing the dress of a culture he is visiting. The campaign didn't need to use Pres. GW Bush as an example, AS IT POINTED OUT THAT HILLARY CLINTON HERSELF HAS FREQUENTLY DONE SO.

Please stop the attacks.

come from, then?

it was in an e-mail from a Clinton staffer. He doesn't even say the staffer leaked to him -- perhaps a third party leaked the e-mail. I have no idea where Drudge gets his material.

I guess when Drudge reports something that advances your positions, we should just take him at his word. We can call it "situational credibility."

Like what the meaning of the word "is" is depending on context? Ha. :)

Wolfson's conference call statement was the Clinton campaign's third statement on the matter. The first two, rather than denouncing the picture, emphasized the points that Obama should be ashamed for attacking the picture's publication, and that it would be a big news story if it were a picture of Hillary.

If there is misinformation out there about this, it is the Clinton campaign's own doing.

this morning that "the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a "kitchen sink" fusillade against Mr. Obama."  

It clearly suggests that the Clinton campaign is behind the photo, but cites not a shred of evidence, other than the aforementioned Matt Drudge.

Pretty poor editing, if you ask me.

In fact, if you read all TPM wrote on the subject, they seem to attribute the numerous statements, ultimately, to incompetence by the campaign.

The issue here is the assertion in the diary that the Clinton campaign is behind this (although I suppose one could parse the words in the diary to assert it doesn't actually make that assertion, but we all know what it says), which so far lacks any evidence.

Call me old-fashioned. I think if you are going to accuse a person of something, you should have at least some credible evidence.

You're defending Clinton's campaign at their word.  Some others here arre defending Drudge at his own.  Here's an interesting argument: I don't think the up-tops at the Clinton Campaign would be dumb enough to shop around this video.  Perhaps a rogue staffer, fearful for his job and worried that Clinton is going under, sent this out as a last ditch effort?  It's certainly possible that both sides are telling the truth.

Courtesy of the BBC:

Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 February 2008, 14:50 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
The meaning of Obama's robes
Barack Obama with Mohammed Hassan
The photo has sparked a storm over who released the image
A photo of US presidential candidate Barack Obama wearing Somali clothing is causing a storm after it got released to the Drudge Report website.

Yusuf Garaad Omar, head of the BBC's Somali Service, explains the meaning of the robes.

These are the normal clothes that nomadic people wear.

The head turban is especially used by elderly people as a suggestion of respect. It is something that has no meaning whatsoever in Somalia culture.

If you see someone dressed like that in Somalia, you think it is a nomadic person - that is all.

There is no religious significance to it whatsoever. It is mainly the nomadic people who use it. Some of them are religious, some are not.

It is simply a tradition of the place where they are from.

Showing respect for other cultures -- what a concept! :)

P.S. Obama looks a lot better in that photo than Bush does in this one! Ha.

That is a distinct possibility.

But that is also an important distinction. This diary clearly says the "Clinton campaign" did this for some strategic purpose and castigates them for it.

For all I know, they did, and Wolfson is either out of the loop or lying through his teeth.

All I am saying is there is not a shred of credible evidence that the Clinton campaign is behind this.

And I'm not quite defending the Clinton camp at their word. What I am saying that the burden is on the accuser to come up with something to affirmatively support their allegation.

Now, maybe the word of Matt Drudge alone suffices for you, Elaine and Lowell. But you can't have it both ways -- he can't be credible when he publishes something you like, and a liar when he publishes something you don't. If that's the case, then credibility becomes a meaningless term.

I believed Matt Drudge as far as I could throw him?  I'm thinking more along the lines of who had the means and the motive to put out a photo like this right now.  I'm also reading about how the Clinton campaign is throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama, seeing that their top staffers are completely in denial, and how we get an explanation (and a mood change) a minute from this campaign in meltdown mode. Finally, I'm looking at a campaign that can, with a straight face, deny that Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA (one of the Clinton administration's major accomplishments), yet simultaneously claim that she was integral to everything that happened during those two terms.  In short, I don't believe a word the Clinton campaign has to say at this point. And remember, I started 2007 as a Clinton supporter and came very close to endorsing her as late as November 2007.  So please spare me how I'm so biased against her/them. The reason I turned to Obama and away from Clinton had everything to do with the campaigns they ran, nothing more and nothing less.

you said Matt Drudge has any credibility?

How could I level such a scurrilous charge without any direct evidence?

Almost every spam email I get has a fake header.  Obviously it is not hard to spoof an email.  Does Drudge really care about the authenticity of an email, when he can use it and try to make both Obama and Clinton look bad, and create bad feelings and distrust within the ranks of the Democratic party?  To ask the question is to answer it.

The best approach on this type of thing is not to take the bait.

Where's the outrage against the McCain campaign?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...