Up until now, you could say that New York Senator Hillary Clinton has run a remarkably smart campaign: she has stayed on-message (straying only a few times), carefully positioned herself, and avoided the kind of dumb, tin-eared political stumbles that candidates make when they’re either overconfident or have lousy advisers.

Until now:

Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Clinton has now issued a denial — of sorts. But it sounds like one with a loophole.

The Examiner again:

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

And you can see why. But they eventually will have to — yes or no.

This isn’t just giving her opponents inside the Democratic Party and her foes in the Republican Party ammunition.

If true, it’s as if Ms. Clinton loaded up a rifle and handed it to Vice President Dick Cheney and asked him to take her hunting.

With a target on her back.

Without witnesses.

Meanwhile, USA Today (perhaps America’s most underrated and liveliest newspaper) has Clinton’s denial — which seems less than ironclad:

At the end of an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a short while ago, USA TODAY’s Susan Page inquired about reports that former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger is advising her.

Susan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?

“He has no official role in my campaign. He’s been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn’t have any official role,” Clinton said.

But he’s an unofficial adviser, Susan asked?

“I have thousands of unofficial advisers,” said Clinton, “and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign.”

As you might recall and as the D.C. Examiner wrote today, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation and stripped of his security clearance for three years after admitting he took classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 as he prepared to meet with the 9/11 Commission. The news of what he had done led to his departure from the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

Clinton needs to put herself light years away from Berger who will help her foes argue that a Clinton “restoration” will restore far more than what Hillary and Bill Clinton hope Americans want restored. And the fact that Berger’s name has come up now in association with Clinton ensures Rush Limbaugh now has a whole week of programming made easy for him…

SOME OTHER WEBLOG OPINION:

–Ed Morrissey:

This association carries much more liability than Hillary’s work with convicted fraudster Norman Hsu. It goes to the heart of national security, and it reveals Hillary’s priorities on that subject. She considers cronyism more important than protecting this nation’s classified material, and shows her contempt for the latter by placing a convicted lawbreaker on her national security advisory panel. She and her husband have made excuses for Berger ever since his criminal activity took place, and now she wants to reintroduce him to sensitive material all over again.

–Red State:

Of course, why would Hillary want to be advised by a man who illegally stole and destroyed national security secrets unless, of course, the secrets he stole were designed to hide her husband’s mistakes? Quite a reward for loyal service.

–Betsy Newmark:

–Prairie Pundit:

This will be an issue. Berger never was required to testify under oath about what he took and why. This will lead to more suspicion about him and his activities and whether he was doing it to cover for the Clintons. Normally they are smarter than this.

And more reactions are coming in as you read this…

The Clinton campaign may be downplaying his role, but they’re not denying that he has an advisory role. Let’s see if her Democratic opponents are willing to take on a former Democratic National Security Advisor and question Hillary’s judgment in choosing him today to help her campaign.