...her campaign did leak that photo, notwithstanding their limp-wristed 'to the best of our knowledge' denials. Obama has said he believes Hillary that she didn't know about the leak, implausible as that is, not that he believes the Clinton campaigns non-denial denials. These are different things.

It bears pointing out that neither any member of the Clinton campaign nor the Senator herself have ever categorically stated that no person in the campaign leaked the photo to the Drudge Report (in fact, the campaign manager even went so far as to defend the tactic, 'photos in traditional garb are not devisive'). After all, as they say, 'it's a 700 some odd person organization so we can't say for sure', blah blah. So you'd have to question his intelligence if he didn't believe it was her campaign, which he clearly does believe. Not that she knew anything about it *wink* *wink*

This is the trap that Obama has set for himself. By running on being "different" and the opposite of "politics as usual", when he responds like this, pretending some surety that the Clinton campaign had anything at all to do with the photo--which is exactly "politics as usual", he opens himself up to the hypocrisy charge. It's a tough corner to have painted himself into and always the problem running on an argument of ethical/moral/political superiority (see Spitzer). And it makes it too easy to mock the irony of ending the typical political charge with "that's not real change". I don't envy him having to walk that very thin tightrope he's crafted for himself (to mix the metaphors).

I do hope he'll show his difference by repudiating the repulsive editorial in the Times (though more subtly than by calling it repulsive I'm sure).

One little nit-pick:

remind me again who Clinton ran against for Senator?? You can't use the argument that Obama ran against fools if Clinton did as well...there's plenty more ammo to use if you want - that one rings really hollow.

p.s. whoever linked that article - interesting piece, don't know if I buy it, but interesting nonetheless. Perhaps minorities are more attuned to subtle messages of racism (much like women are more attuned to subtle sexism)

a widespread, even prevalent latent race-based fears ... in anticipation of the Mississippi primary ... sure, makes sense to me....

I'm still unclear how many people received this photo by e-mail and where/when, etc... but god knows how many complaints I have read over the years about being on some loony friend or relative's e-mail distribution list and getting all sorts of trash long debunked by Snopes, etc.

I'm not condoning circulating such things with "evil intent" but if you don't know "who", guessing at "why" is a pretty BIG stretch, not to mention that the first or early sender cannnot control what subsequent senders do with it. Yes, it probably could have been deliberately circulated by the GOP, the KKK, any number anti-immigrant groups, or some loonie Clinton supporter ... or even some rapid anti-Clinton racist hoping to smear HER.

Yes, any one fearful of furriners or turbaned people probably was not going to be voting for Obama anyway ...

bothered to fact check both letters?

sajwan: "What's this, Obamas version of the flip-flops the lunatic GOPers wore on their lapels during their convention. Will Obama be creating Kitchen sink buttons for his supporters?"

What do you mean? Obama mentions the "kitchen sink" because it's an easy metaphor for Clinton's multi-pronged attack. It's well-documented that Clinton really did adopt an intentional, 5-point attack strategy after being positive didn't work out for her. So your comparison to the Kerry flip-flops doesn't really make sense, and furthermore the problem with the whole Kerry flip-flop issue isn't that Kerry actually flip-flopped on stuff, but that Kerry didn't fight back hard enough. Obama is trying to avoid that mistake.

sajwan: "Personally if Obama mentions "kitchen sink" one more time, I will pray to all the Gods that they they throw all kitchen sinks ever created since the dawn of mankind onto Obamas head."

Uh-huh.

sajwan: "Before I was uneasy with Obama, now I am completely clear that Obama is in fact a liar and a hypocrite. "Leaking photos of me" is a lie and actually if Obama was not a liar, hypocrite, and coward he would challenge any negative perception of the photo."

It isn't clear that he is lying here. It was reported on a well-known website with a well-established connection to Clinton's campaign. Clinton and her campaign have been free to look into it internally and then debunk the entire thing but instead they've only offered vague denials such as "If it happened I was not aware of it." So Obama is well within his right to assume that the campaign was connected somehow, especially considering the context -- which is that Clinton had already attacked him in 3 or 4 other ways during the previous few days.

sajwan: "Clue to Obama campaign - there is nothing wrong with that photo. The people who see something wrong in that photo are what's wrong. What a pathetic set of ethics coming from a campaign allegedly based on ethics."

I agree, Obama should state this, and he probably has. But right now there's no reason for him to say that -- right now he is more concerned with countering the negative approach of the Clinton campaign.

sajwan: "And here's another clue, it is important to know we are electing the person who does have to answer the phone when there is a crisis. Clinton at least has the confidence to come out and say, "I will answer that phone and handle it!" and instead Obama deflects."

This isn't true at all. In a video I saw of Obama speaking at a rally, Obama stated outright something to the effect that he would readily answer the phone. Why wouldn't he? What would he deflect here?

sajwan: "For Christs sake, Obamas two serious opponents in Illinois self-destructed, any imbecile could have won that race. And that was it, his biggest crisis in political life?"

Huh? You're all over the map here. What is your question? Do you want me to provide some links to Obama's many legislative accomplishments or something?

sajwan: "Real change my ass. New lows in being a politician more like it."

Nothing in your post refers to any activity that would qualify as a "new low." Obama speaking to supporters at a rally and responding to attacks on him isn't a new low, it's what people do during campaigns. Did you see the Clinton speech where she sarcastically mocked Obama's speeches? That was pretty low. Did you see the Clinton appearance where she complained about Obama mailers and kept saying "Shame on you!" and such? That was pretty low. Did you see the Clinton debate moment where she said, "That's change you can Xerox!" over a bogus plagiarism charge, and people responded by booing her? (And have you noticed that she hasn't brought it up since?) That was pretty low. Did you see the Clinton technique of trying to imply that voting for Clinton was a 2-for-1 deal because she'd maybe make Obama her VP? That is very low. Are you blind to this stuff or what?