At TPM, Marshall's original editorilizing stands without an update or correction. You have to search his busy page to find any further clarification on the matter.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179989.php

I've been working in journalism for 15 years.
Stephen Colbert was dead on at the annual press dinner.  (I believe his performance can still be found on YouTube.)

Essentially, you gotta do your own reporting for this election.

And I must add that if you read the complete transcipt of Maggie William's statement, in my opinion it was not a non-denial denial.

On the Republican side, a generation of campaign consultants has grown up learning to play in Mr. Drudge's influential but rarefied world. They have spent years studying his tastes and moods while carefully building close relationships with him that are now benefiting some Republican presidential campaigns -- and that others are scrambling to match.

The early advantage on their side, in the view of several Republicans, seems to have gone to Mitt Romney, who hired the former Bush political aide who had been the central party's prime point of contact with Mr. Drudge, Matthew Rhoades. His status was solidified after the 2004 election at a steakhouse dinner in Miami with Mr. Drudge, who for all his renown in politics is a somewhat spectral presence who rarely agrees to meet with political operatives or journalists and who did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.

So important was the Romney camp's perceived advantage in the eyes of aides to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that at one point this year they even considered sending an emissary to Miami to build their own relationship with him, two former McCain campaign officials said. (Mr. Drudge ignored the invitation, one of the officials said.)

But, typical of a campaign with a reputation for exploiting every advantage and trying to neutralize every disadvantage, Mrs. Clinton's communications team, led by Howard Wolfson, is not leaving Mr. Drudge to the Republicans. Five current and former Democratic officials said Mrs. Clinton has on her side the closest thing her party has ever had to Mr. Rhoades in Tracy Sefl, a former Democratic National Committee official, who has established a friendly working relationship with Mr. Drudge -- and through whom Mrs. Clinton's campaign often worked quietly to open a line of communication.

That effort has helped to mix some positive stories in with the negative fare about Mrs. Clinton that Mr. Drudge still serves up regularly, they said, though Ms. Sefl's fingerprints are usually impossible to spot.

In April, Mr. Drudge scored exclusive access to a first round of Clinton fund-raising figures. In later months, he highlighted a campaign strategist's prediction that Mrs. Clinton would win over even some Republican voters, polls showing her lead widening and articles chronicling her success in winning over previously skeptical voters.

http://www.geeskaafrika.com/ethiopia_31aug06.htm

Hasn't anyone thought about this for a second?  Clinton accuses Obama of Rovian tactics and calls shame...a few days later, a photograph that I saw months ago is "leaked" to a questionable blogger and promoted as being obtained from the Clinton campaign and now Obama accuses Clinton of Rovian tactics and calls shame...

1. The only person who claimed that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with this is Drudge. Other people, such as Josh Marshall (now there's an unbiased source) concluded that they must be responsible because they didn't explicitly deny it. By that measure, I'm pretty sure the Clinton campaign shot JFK, too.

2. What's the big deal anyway? So someone is sending around a picture of Obama that was taken by the Associated Press. I can't think of anything even the slightest bit wrong with it. He's showing respect for local customs.

3. Someone called this race-baiting. That's absurd. Previous photographic evidence has already revealed that Obama is (half-)black.

4. Hillary Clinton has worn traditional clothing on many of her international visits, including a head scarf.

Used to be only the Rightwingnuts went ballistic about such drivel. Remember the Wingers having a hissy fit because Nancy Pelosi was photographed wearing a (gasp) Burka? Poor Pathetic Pelosi was excoriated for days, Rush leading the lynch mob, although there were pictures of Laura Bush & Condi Rice wearing exactly the same kind of head gear. Which was not a Burka but a scarf.(It's an insidious Islamofacist plot my friends; photographing our womenfolk in scarves!) Oh my what a tempest in a chamber pot. Nonsense posing as an issue while real issues are ignored.

With all the problems with which this country abounds do we, as liberal/Democrats need to emulate the Wingers in our outrage?

So Drudge puts it on his web site.  NOW it's news.  Now it's worth getting into a lather over, and now the the campaigns are trading accusations, and the blogosphere is going to argue about it all day long.  

Candy Crowley comments on negative politics and (quel surprise) skews the criticism Hillary-ward.

1. The willingness of the Obama campaign to milk storied pushed by rightwingers to the max (e.g. first Novak and now this). They have done so very effectively.

2. The weakness of the Clinton rapid response team. Yes, you want to turn it around and counter-attack, but if you do so, including a clear denial straight away helps a lot. They screwed up by not doing that.

3. The eagerness of the media to jump down Clinton's throat. If the Obama campaign cries foul, the media has his back immediately.
   

Is this our president for the next four years? Inflamming racial tensions without first checking what was this Hillary staffer's name? And by the way - it's a real photo and I have nothing to hide.

I hope HRC is prepared to set the truth out tomorrow night--the undeniable truth.  I mean, do we have to start protest rallies or something to wake everyone up?  

If there's a negative story about Obama, you are inclined, with or without proof, to blame the Clinton campaign more directly.

There is no rule that says they need to let the Obama campaign dictate the contents of the news cycle any time they feel like it, just by accusing Clinton of something with no evidence whatsoever.

I knew it was going to get ugly, I knew after what happened in South Carolina, and the Muslim e-mails that the Clintons would do anything to win, and this is yet more evidence.

It's good because by the time we get to the general election, the Republicans won't have anything left, the Clintons will have played all their cards.

Wolfson answered "No, not that I am aware of."

(Subject title: The man who will UNIFY us gets punk'd by Drudge.)

Riiiiiiiiiighhhhhht.

I believe less and less that he can do this "unity" thing, and more and more that he'll fold like a cheap accordion when the Drudge / Cheney panzer division shoots at him full force. ("Total" Dick's already straddling the Rethuggernaut and aiming his big blunderbuss faceward. Obama crossing the aisle just saves them the trip.)

Lock and load, ready aim fire: CLICK CLICK BOOM (to quote Saliva, the laff-inducing hard rock vomit band I had on my personal audio for two weeks.)

How can Team Obama have missed the pattern? Have they been snoozing the past, gosh, decade and a half? Drudge "creates" the facts for higher media to "report", then higher echelon demons from the RNC feed them to Press the Meat and other media to make them spore on the airwaves.

To that last paragraph, I'd add LW blogs.

Also, (OT but a bandwidth saving alert for local FISA bill and 4th amendment wizards:)

Meanwhile, 4th amendment (warrants) and FISA related is this SCOTUS development:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has agreed to decide when police without a warrant can search the vehicle of a person who is under arrest.

Rodney Joseph Gant was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car.

A sharply divided Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The state is asking the U.S. high court to overturn that ruling. [...] (Guardian Feb 25, 2008)

I don't recall the issue, but clearly it was Novak just causing trouble, but BO fell for it.  I think this shows his political naiveté--which HRC should highlight as she continues to emphasize the experience factor.