Several sites have reported that a copy of that photo has apparently been on the web for a long time, on an African news site.

I'm posting in a few forums today about the most likely sources for the timing of this photo. I looked for a more mischievous, well-timed copy of the photo and found one that was scanned on February 23 and posted to a proudly right-wing and very heavily-attended forum of activists, who are prone to mischief with online polls and other PR means. This was posted and commented on, at that popular conservative forum, two days before Drudge reported receiving an email about it.

For details on this (who uploaded the scanned photo two days before Drudge's report and where), see http://andrys1.blogspot.com

Several sites have reported that a copy of that photo has apparently been on the web for a long time, on an African news site.

I'm posting in a few forums today about the most likely sources for the timing of this photo. I looked for a more mischievous, well-timed copy of the photo and found one that was scanned on February 23 and posted to a proudly right-wing and very heavily-attended forum of activists, who are prone to mischief with online polls and other PR means. This was posted and commented on, at that popular conservative forum, two days before Drudge reported receiving an email about it.

For details on this (who uploaded the scanned photo two days before Drudge's report and where), see http://andrys1.blogspot.com

To which I'd reply: I don't see where I've been uncivil. Where did I say what you said I said? I don't think it's 'base' to vote for Obama or McCain either; I like Obama all right (though not as the nominee) and I like McCain as well. I suspect I'm going to be stuck with them as choices, since I will never, ever vote for Nader. They're just not MY first choices.

I DO think it's a irrational for Republicans to hate Hillary so much that they sign up just to vote for Obama on the grounds stated in that flyer. I stand by that.

My post strikes you as uncivi or as too broad brush, I don't know what to say except “I apologize for offending you.” I don't feel I'm being immoderate, but the adulation Obama is receiving in the media and in the blogosphere generally, and the relentless bashing of Hillary strike me as immoderate indeed. I am simply trying to state the alternative view.

A blog is by definition an opinion. In my opinion, it's a FACT that Hillary will be the best CIC. But it's only a fact IN MY OPINION. That's what a blog is.

I DID go back and edit my post to sort of tone down the tone. I hope at least that I've made it clear that I am simply delivering a strongly held opinion.

I view Hillary as a centrist Democrat; therefore an appropriate candidate for a person blogging here to support—-certainly as appropriate as either of the other two. I'm very sorry so many people who post or comment dislike her so intensely, but I can't pretend to agree when in fact, I don't agree.

If this makes too immoderate for this blog, aba23, I don't know what I can do about it. I am doing the best I can to express strong opinions without giving offense. If I didn't succeed, I really am sorry.

As to Green Dreams, thanks for understanding that I wasn't asserting that my opinions are fact.

I'm sure if Obama gets elected—as he very well may—he will surround himself with knowledgeable people. My concerns about him as CIC have partly to do with my sense that his convictions aren't really all that solid and that he would have a hard time making decisions that might be unpopular but necessary. That too is an opinion and a perception.

I remember the freshman Senator saying not that long ago that his position on Iraq wasn't that different from Bush's. His views have not been all that consistent; and I have an increasing perception that at any given time, Obama says whatever he believes will best serve his political ends. Hillary seems much more comfortable being unpopular. Well, she'd have to be to survive.

I don't hate Obama. I always wanted him to be VP now and president later, after a few more years of preparation. The will of slightly more than half my party, and of Obama himself, appears to dictate otherwise.

I'll adjust, and if Obama is the nominee, I'll try to support him, but I'm tired of being on the defensive about preferring Hillary and I'm unwilling to pretend that I don't have an increasingly strong sense that she's the better choice. I have my reasons and they go on looking pretty solid to me. And there are plenty of other Democrats who feel the same.

To which I'd reply: I don't see where I've been uncivil. Where did I say what you said I said? I don't think it's 'base' to vote for Obama or McCain either; I like Obama all right (though not as the nominee) and I like McCain as well. I suspect I'm going to be stuck with them as choices, since I will never, ever vote for Nader. They're just not MY first choices.

I DO think it's a irrational for Republicans to hate Hillary so much that they sign up just to vote for Obama on the grounds stated in that flyer. I stand by that.

My post strikes you as uncivi or as too broad brush, I don't know what to say except “I apologize for offending you.” I don't feel I'm being immoderate, but the adulation Obama is receiving in the media and in the blogosphere generally, and the relentless bashing of Hillary strike me as immoderate indeed. I am simply trying to state the alternative view.

A blog is by definition an opinion. In my opinion, it's a FACT that Hillary will be the best CIC. But it's only a fact IN MY OPINION. That's what a blog is.

I DID go back and edit my post to sort of tone down the tone. I hope at least that I've made it clear that I am simply delivering a strongly held opinion.

I view Hillary as a centrist Democrat; therefore an appropriate candidate for a person blogging here to support—-certainly as appropriate as either of the other two. I'm very sorry so many people who post or comment dislike her so intensely, but I can't pretend to agree when in fact, I don't agree.

If this makes too immoderate for this blog, aba23, I don't know what I can do about it. I am doing the best I can to express strong opinions without giving offense. If I didn't succeed, I really am sorry.

As to Green Dreams, thanks for understanding that I wasn't asserting that my opinions are fact.

I'm sure if Obama gets elected—as he very well may—he will surround himself with knowledgeable people. My concerns about him as CIC have partly to do with my sense that his convictions aren't really all that solid and that he would have a hard time making decisions that might be unpopular but necessary. That too is an opinion and a perception.

I remember the freshman Senator saying not that long ago that his position on Iraq wasn't that different from Bush's. His views have not been all that consistent; and I have an increasing perception that at any given time, Obama says whatever he believes will best serve his political ends. Hillary seems much more comfortable being unpopular. Well, she'd have to be to survive.

I don't hate Obama. I always wanted him to be VP now and president later, after a few more years of preparation. The will of slightly more than half my party, and of Obama himself, appears to dictate otherwise.

I'll adjust, and if Obama is the nominee, I'll try to support him, but I'm tired of being on the defensive about preferring Hillary and I'm unwilling to pretend that I don't have an increasingly strong sense that she's the better choice. I have my reasons and they go on looking pretty solid to me. And there are plenty of other Democrats who feel the same.

The endorsement of men in uniform is not compelling to me. Both Hillary and Obama have endorsements. So what? Taguba may side with the candidate who is more likely to support a more aggressive policy, meaning more money for the military. Hillary went along with the fearmongering of the GOP on Iraq, Iran, wiretapping and torture (Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act). Now she's trying to rewrite that history. Not very encouraging for a CIC.

And sorry, but I do dispute claims that Clinton would be a better CIC or that Larry's posts are in any way persuasive. But let's air out the record, OK?

The claim that he should have held more hearings (“aggressive oversight”) as chair of the European subcommittee is scuttled by the lack of anything useful coming out of hearings that were held. The Administration simply refuses to provide information or witnesses, even to the point of inviting contempt charges. Obama can be excused for not wasting his Committee's time. What have Clinton's hearings produced?

I apologize for the lengthy post, but you've called the question. Anyone here is welcome to post about Hillary's foreign policy accomplishments.

Obama pushed through legislation that condemned violence by the Zimbabwe government, for example. He helped raise awareness about Darfur and called on the administration to do more to reduce global poverty.

In 2005, he traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to Russian nuclear sites. In 2006, he visited the Middle East and Africa, where he and his wife publicly took HIV tests in Kenya to encourage citizens there to do the same.

The young senator's approach to issues attracted the attention of Lugar, the committee's senior Republican. After their visit to former Soviet states, the two co-sponsored legislation aimed at making it easier to detect and destroy weapons stockpiles. More recently, Lugar signed on as co-sponsor of Obama's anti-poverty proposal.

Obama's aides say it's not unusual for a Senate subcommittee to hold few hearings, with the majority of work being done by the full committee. They also defend Obama's work on the committee as extremely successful.

“While his efforts on the committee don't always get headlines, he's worked across the aisle on critical issues like nuclear nonproliferation, pressing (then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay) Khalilzad for a commitment for no permanent bases in Iraq, stopping the genocide in Darfur, and bringing war criminals to justice,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Confronting claims he's light on foreign policy experience, the senator has surrounded himself with well-known foreign policy advisers, including several who served in the Clinton administration: former national security adviser Tony Lake, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig and Susan Rice, who was assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

Obama's chief foreign policy adviser on the campaign is Denis McDonough, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. McDonough took the job after Mark Lippert, a Navy reservist, was called to serve in Iraq.

When not campaigning, the senator often used full committee hearings to express his opposition to the Iraq war or his concern about the Bush administration's policy toward Iran.

In January 2007, he sharply questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on why the U.S. wouldn't consider a drawing down U.S. troops if inaction by the Iraqi government continued. Later that month, he voted for a committee proposal to condemn President Bush's plans to increase troops strength in Iraq as “not in the national interest.”

“We are past the point where we can simply take it on good faith from the president that this will work,” he said of the president's troop buildup.

He proposed separate legislation that would have required troop withdrawals to begin that spring. Later that year, he introduced a measure intended to prevent a potential conflict with Iran. But like many of the anti-war proposals on Capitol Hill, neither measure received a vote.

In another committee hearing, Obama voiced skepticism about Biden's suggestion that the Baghdad government could achieve peace by giving more autonomy to its provinces, which are divided along sectarian lines.

Not bad at all for a freshman Senator. And that list of advisors (whom Hillary knows well) is a pretty good roster of endorsements in itself. They haven't just said “we're for him”. They've signed on to be with him when he's Commander in Chief.

The endorsement of men in uniform is not compelling to me. Both Hillary and Obama have endorsements. So what? Taguba may side with the candidate who is more likely to support a more aggressive policy, meaning more money for the military. Hillary went along with the fearmongering of the GOP on Iraq, Iran, wiretapping and torture (Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act). Now she's trying to rewrite that history. Not very encouraging for a CIC.

And sorry, but I do dispute claims that Clinton would be a better CIC or that Larry's posts are in any way persuasive. But let's air out the record, OK?

The claim that he should have held more hearings (“aggressive oversight”) as chair of the European subcommittee is scuttled by the lack of anything useful coming out of hearings that were held. The Administration simply refuses to provide information or witnesses, even to the point of inviting contempt charges. Obama can be excused for not wasting his Committee's time. What have Clinton's hearings produced?

I apologize for the lengthy post, but you've called the question. Anyone here is welcome to post about Hillary's foreign policy accomplishments.

Obama pushed through legislation that condemned violence by the Zimbabwe government, for example. He helped raise awareness about Darfur and called on the administration to do more to reduce global poverty.

In 2005, he traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to Russian nuclear sites. In 2006, he visited the Middle East and Africa, where he and his wife publicly took HIV tests in Kenya to encourage citizens there to do the same.

The young senator's approach to issues attracted the attention of Lugar, the committee's senior Republican. After their visit to former Soviet states, the two co-sponsored legislation aimed at making it easier to detect and destroy weapons stockpiles. More recently, Lugar signed on as co-sponsor of Obama's anti-poverty proposal.

Obama's aides say it's not unusual for a Senate subcommittee to hold few hearings, with the majority of work being done by the full committee. They also defend Obama's work on the committee as extremely successful.

“While his efforts on the committee don't always get headlines, he's worked across the aisle on critical issues like nuclear nonproliferation, pressing (then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay) Khalilzad for a commitment for no permanent bases in Iraq, stopping the genocide in Darfur, and bringing war criminals to justice,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Confronting claims he's light on foreign policy experience, the senator has surrounded himself with well-known foreign policy advisers, including several who served in the Clinton administration: former national security adviser Tony Lake, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig and Susan Rice, who was assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

Obama's chief foreign policy adviser on the campaign is Denis McDonough, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. McDonough took the job after Mark Lippert, a Navy reservist, was called to serve in Iraq.

When not campaigning, the senator often used full committee hearings to express his opposition to the Iraq war or his concern about the Bush administration's policy toward Iran.

In January 2007, he sharply questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on why the U.S. wouldn't consider a drawing down U.S. troops if inaction by the Iraqi government continued. Later that month, he voted for a committee proposal to condemn President Bush's plans to increase troops strength in Iraq as “not in the national interest.”

“We are past the point where we can simply take it on good faith from the president that this will work,” he said of the president's troop buildup.

He proposed separate legislation that would have required troop withdrawals to begin that spring. Later that year, he introduced a measure intended to prevent a potential conflict with Iran. But like many of the anti-war proposals on Capitol Hill, neither measure received a vote.

In another committee hearing, Obama voiced skepticism about Biden's suggestion that the Baghdad government could achieve peace by giving more autonomy to its provinces, which are divided along sectarian lines.

Not bad at all for a freshman Senator. And that list of advisors (whom Hillary knows well) is a pretty good roster of endorsements in itself. They haven't just said “we're for him”. They've signed on to be with him when he's Commander in Chief.

I'm sorry I have no credibility, but I am linking to the informed opinion of a blogger whose views I respect. That blogger is partisan precisely BECAUSE.he has personal information/experience leading to the view that Hillary would be immeasurably better. His opinions are backed by his own experience in the intelligence community. I find him credible.

Partisan is not a synonym for 'wrong.' Taylor Marsh, Larry C. Johnson, and your humble correspondent all have grave reservations about Obama as president (and commander in chief). We are therefore partisan; we like her and we don't like him (at least not for president). It's silly to say 'Taylor Marsh' as though she were anything but a highly intelligent person who has an opinion that differs from your own.

I am not sure what reliable 'non partisan source' I could link to that would support my point about her superior qualifications to be C-in-Chief..

How about her endorsement by Taguba and other military officials? Or are they being partisan too?

And our general view has been, that the internet is very difficult, because it is very low cost, it can just be churned out and you can’t trace it back to where it’s coming from. What we have tried to do is just make sure that we are flooding the internet with the accurate information and pushing back as much as possible. I don’t think that we are in an era anymore where you can just ignore these things and not dignify them. There was a time when they would be amplified as consequence of you calling attention to it. I don’t think that’s the case any more because of our media age. You know we saw what happened with the swiftboat situation back in 2004. All you have to do is run the ad once and then it gets repeated. And so what we’ve done is try to lift it up and actively debunk it and encourage stories about it.

It's a shame that Hillary got stuck in the muck, but why was her team so slow to react? Should Obama's team have let that sit on Drudge all day until late afternoon when HRC's camp finally roused itself to say a few sentences.

Also, I know that campaigning and governing are two different things, but the HRC's campaign (which represents the largest organization she's ever managed) is horribly run. Some executive experience there…

On a similar note, look at how McCain responded today when someone speaking at one of his events said some things about “Barack Hussein Obama” that went way over the line; the Clinton camp could learn something from this: “I regret any comments that may be made about these two individuals who are honorable Americans, we just have strong philosophical differences, so I want to disassociate myself from any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them,” he said, adding later that “I absolutely repudiate such comments, and again I will take responsibility it will never happen again. It will never happen again.”

Larry Johnson?!!! Why not link to Taylor Marsh or to Hillary's official website?

I wonder how anyone could know before hand who the better C-i-C would be or will be. If THAT is the issue, doesn't Senator McCain have the edge?

Please let me squeeze in one more observation. If Maggie Williams says: “We condemn any attempt to smear any candidate, especially on a day when Senator Clinton is making a Major Foreign Policy Speech. If this silly, non-issue came from us, we will fire the person just for taking the emphasis off the area where it should be: whose ideas are better articulated and thought out,” is there an issue?

Why cannot Hillary's campaign take the high road and stay on it?

But instead, the two non-denial denials repeated the talking point in the email: that Clinton would be treated worse than Obama if a similar photo of hers was released to the media. And that's nonsense. Clinton takes a lot of undeserved crap, based on both sexism and Billary disdain, but this specific issue — the scary coloured man/stealth Muslim issue — is Obama's area of vulnerability.

The campaign response was self-pitying and inept in the way it stumbled badly on dealing with this huge, obvious difference in how the candidates are perceived. It was lousy spin. If Williams, Wolfram, and Penn himself (who somehow has kept his mouth shut throughout this mini-scandal, and that's probably a good thing for Clinton) are the representative of the kind of people Clinton hires and manages, it doesn't increase my confidence in her general judgment one bit.

As for Republicans choosing the Democratic nominee, when one points out this fact/trend/influence, one should also mention the large string of caucuses in particular, often restricted to Democrats only, that have voted rather convincingly for one of the candidates. It's certainly not as if Dem-only votes all swing to Clinton and Dem+Indy votes all go to Obama. As much as each candidate's supporters hate to admit it, many honest to good Democrats support Clinton and many honest to goodness Democrats support Obama. Many support both.

As far as who would make a better Commander-In-Chief, I would since my BBQ is so good that I could bring about World Peace with it!

Seriously, I think both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would do well. But the more I think about it and the more the silly season rolls on, I think Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton is the way to go. For a gaggle of reasons. One being to heal the damage caused by the “The Great Supporter Wars”.