I must be insane to read the poster's comments because there is little objectivity in most of the posts only disdain for one candidate or the other based on emotions mostly with very little factual back up.

Rocky: "The Republicans play for keeps while the Democrats have been playing a maddeningly namby-pamby game. I've been hoping/praying for years that the Democrats would start busting chops."

So doesn't it bother you that Clinton has been more positive about McCain than she's been about Obama, whom she apparently wants to float as a possible VP choice? Also, have you failed to notice Obama campaigning hard against the misdeeds of the Republicans, calling them out for their corruption and ineptitude? How is that not "busting chops"?

Rocky: "I'd feel a lot better about Obama's likely nomination if he'd demonstrate some internal fortitude rather than whining about "the same old politics" that has been the same old politics for a lot longer than the United States has been around."

So wait -- if you want him to demonstrate "internal fortitude," then what's wrong with him responding to attacks? Why is it whining if he does respond?

It sounds like you'd prefer your politicians to run on a platform of "Nothing will ever change, so why bother trying."

Taliesan: "We are presented with two contradictory memos from two candidates and has anyone checked to see who is telling the truth?"

As far as I know, reporters have done little to follow up on this. The Clinton campaign issued a set of inconclusive denials, the Drudge Report has been mum as far as I know, and it has been left at that. Why? I dunno. Maybe Alex Koppelman can shed some light on this issue.

I said that if you don't know who sent it, it's hard to know why ... and that the sender has no control of what the recipient does with it.

If you have read other "letters" ... apparently the photo WAS e-mailed from one staffer to another and somehow this was leaked to Drudge ... it is also earlier reported that the photo was publicly posted on two right wing websites even earlier ...

Quite simply I don't know ... but neither does anyone not directly involved ...

Am I to understand that there was no mass e-mailing of this photo? From the hubbub, I thought substantial numbers of Texans somehow were targeted recipients.

I'm glad this is all cleared up now

thanks for that classic "Even on the tax records stuff you will notice he isn't making charges; he's just asking questions." Of course Clinton is never only "just asking questions" but instead attacking...

and also- thanks for illustrating my point. I mean if that list is all you can come up with, clearly the "kitchen sink" metaphor is a bit off.

I mean this is the same person who had to endure national press insinuating she and her husband killed someone as a cover up to their financial mis-dealings... If Obama calls these jabs from the Clinton campaign the "kitchen sink" he's toast when the GOP gets a hold of him.

Some corrections though: Drudge Report claims the photo was attached (see link), and they have the mail. But it just stays extremely vague about recipients, so this looks like campaign smalltalk that leaked. Big deal.

Actually it's a two-pronged smear attack.

The smear is on Clinton, because there are no informations or promised follow-ups, to clear up who sent what to whom. So it is impossible to defend directly against it. (Compare the NAFTA leak - naming Obama's advisor made it at least possible to classify the meeting). If there were more to it than campaign smalltalk then Drudge would have published this by now.

The second part is the Obama smear. For one thing Obama doesn't look presidential on the photo, but close to uncomfortable. Compare his body language to the photos supplied at the bottom of the Drudge page. All these people look like having fun. He doesn't. And there were links all over to the crude youtube Obama /Muslim pamphlets that now got a lot more hits by the "Clinton" reference. Chance? Hardly.

And Obama went for it, implying this is just to be expected from Hillary's campaign - instead of telling Drudge to put up or shut up.

Obama has been officially pandering to the Clinton haters for a long time now. He has to, because he needs their votes to get the nomination. The funny thing is that press and pundits have only spin-analysed Billary to death. Whenever Obama made one of his direct character defaming remarks about Hillary, pundits were nodding in agreement, or quoting his "we don't go negative" stance from Iowa as prove that he is the nice guy.

Mr Axelrodt had been a "West Wing" advisor who mentioned he has been thinking for years how to make a winning campaign for an outsider (see economist website). Ted Kennedy dramatically endorsing Obama after SC - but he had been a crucial advisor for Obama to run at all. Obama's numerous remarks are no chance but calculation.

This is a Democrats' faction fight, with Obama the front man for the left, who still want to settle accounts with the Clintons for Bill's perceivedly right leaning presidency. So don't expect a combined ticket, either - this would just be a fragile truce without settling the underlying issues.

Would've could've should've. If we place the burden of proof on campaign tactics at criminal rather than civil levels, then of course no one can say anything about anything. For example, we can't say anything about the Bush Administration Justice Department's proclivity of investigating Democrats around election time. After all, despite the revealing corroborating evidence, we don't really know for sure, do we? It's the beauty of plausible deniability- it doesn't need to be all that plausible.

Who wins when the burden of proof is that high? The falsely accused despite being very unlikely innocent and of course those who excel at dirty tricks of the kind that play on our worst instincts. Little wonder then that the Clinton supporters advocate such a hurdle before they shrug. Indeed, glad we've cleared all that up now.