What do you think? Are the Clintons fighting dirty? Or do you believe their denials?
Shouldn’t we be including the Washington Times in the discussion of credibility and fighting dirty?
So you don’t think the Clinton campaign fed them the information? That the Times just flat-out lied on this point?
I think it’s a real possibility, for the Moonie paper. They’re as viscerally Clinton-hating as any Scaife rag, remember?
Why should we think that?
No doubt, but I suspect they draw the line at flat-out libel.
Because it was reported thus?
[narrator] And so it begins [/narrator]
Even if libel can’t be proven, even if Clinton were to make the political mistake of suing? Sure they would.
Here’s the source material. Notice the extensive use of weaselwording and anonymous attributions. FTR, Obama lived in Jakarta, when the “sources” say he was indoctrinated, from the ages of 6 to 10. 
Really, read it for yourself. Just the same sort of crap they were peddling throughout the last administration.
Your sources are The Washington Times and Insight? One is a Clinton-hating Moonie rag and the other proudly displays “Voted hottest Conservative News Site!” on it’s home page. That’s like Rush Limbaugh using Sean Hannity as a source.
Juicy speculation.
At this point I’m left with weighing who benefits the most here - Hillary’s camp, with a chance to anonymously take a whack at Obama with a story that apparently is untrue…or Insight, with an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone (catching Hillary’s minions in a smear, and Obama for a taint of extremism in the past).
I’ll await the smoking gun.
Dirty tricks season has just started.
Sounds positively Rovian; “let’s you and him fight!”
I’d say “middle-school lunchroom”.
“Did you *hear * what she *said * about you? Omigod! You can’t just ignore that!”
If the Usual Gang Of Idiots come up with the same story over the next two or three days, it pretty much guarantees where the story came from. If they had any sense they would space out their talking points over two or three weeks to make the story seem legit, but everyone wants to be the first.
By the Washington Times, which has about as much credibility as Fox News, Lyndon LaRouche, or Jeanne Dixon.
(bolding mine)
No, I’m pretty sure Jeanne Dixon was right at least once or twice. She wins. 
If there’s any “source,” it’s Obama’s own book. He wrote himself that he attended both Muslim and Christian schools in Indonesia because it was the best his (atheist) mother could afford for private schools. The suggestion that he has “concealed” anything is patent bullshit. The insinuations that any of this came from HRC smacks of an attempt to simultaneously smear Obama while blaming Hillary. We already know that facts have no relevance to the right wing smear machine. If anything, this is the kind of tactic that has Karl Rove’s cloven hoofprints all over it.
If you really want to screw with the Dems what better way to do it than leak a nasty rumor/lie about one of the primary candidates and then blame the leak on the other. Its hardly above the Repbulicans to try such things. Dirty campaigning is their forte.
Indeed, You’ll note that it nowhere actually says that Clinton’s group gave this information. It talks about her, but then in the next paragraph switches to “Democrats.”
It would be hard to sue for libel since it doesn’t say anything beyond that she is “questioning the muslim background of her opponent.” That can be attributed to speculation on the part of author, even.
Every piece of political junk is blamed on someone in another campaign. Rudy Giuliani’s people insisted someone from another campaign “stole” the dossier that was leaked to the press last month. I feel pretty confident this really came from the paper.
Here’s the REAL story. BTW, you sort of “forgot” to mention that the Washington Times and Insight are owned by the same company.