<p>Come now, anyone looking at this latest move by the Clinton campaign with eyes and even half a brain cell has to ask, if they weren’t trying to cast doubt or imply something negative about Obama by circulating that photo, why the heck DID they send it out? Aside from that, it appears that the new attack word from the Clinton camp is, “shame”—as in “shame on you, Barack Obama!”, and “they should be ashamed”. </p>
<p>But it’s pretty clear who really should be ashamed, isn’t it?..:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I’m watching Lou Dobbs right now, and they are saying that the Clinton campaign denies circulating that photo. Where does the claim that they unabashedly admit to sending out the photo come from?</p>
<p>^^^ earlier today they ‘wouldn’t comment’ which to many people means they did it, and don’t want to lie about it by denying it.</p>
<p>Truly, the ‘shaming’ as a parent does to a small child is out of place here. But I’m not quite so sure that this photo necessarily came from the Clinton camp.</p>
<p>Doesn’t look like they are going to give up easy. Anticipating a crushing defeat in the caucus component in Texas on Tuesday, they are already talking about challenging the rules:</p>
<p>Yes, but this time, the caucuses might not favor this Clinton, which is why Billary and Co. must now muddy the waters. This way, if Obama eeks out a victory in Texas, they can wrap their dispute of that win in a thick gauze of legalese, and limp with it all the way to the convention. That’s the contingency plan.</p>
<p>But, if Hillary emerges the clear winner out of Texas, you’ll never hear another word from her campaign about that state’s caucus rules.</p>