Yeah, because the Clintons would never commit actual crimes, like perjury or anything. And they would certainly never engage in non-criminal corruption of the process for personal gain, like trading pardons for favors or anything. Never! How could anyone believe that these people would even consider doing such things simply to gain power?

Sheesh, next thing we know the Clinton-bashers will try to deny Hillary credit for passing the Health Security Act and achieving universal health care in 1994.

TPM has Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer adamantly denying the Roger Simon Politico story that

It looks like Jonathan is right.  The Clinton campaign is officially denying the report.

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php

A MESSY win?  You mean, with millions of voters outraged--the entire party split, the likelihood that many Democrats will be so outraged they will throw the election to McCain?  Messy isn't quite the word I'd use.  How about highly destructive?  

Jon -- Couldn't agree more with your conclusion. But I'm not sure what you're saying you don't believe is true here. That Roger Simon is telling the truth when he says, "This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday"? If so, good luck with your "no offense to Roger Simon" caveat! Either a "high-ranking Clinton official" said this to Simon or they did not. And if they didn't, why on earth would they be talking this way to a Politico reporter? Assuming, as I do, that Simon is reporting his conversation accurately, I can only fathom one explanation for what our high-ranking Clinton official told him: The Clinton campaign fully intends to use this lever if they see it as necessary, and they're priming the ground for that now to lessen the shock as and when they start pulling it.

The Clintons aren't doing anything illegal, but in the digital age, anything that seems cunning or rule-bending is going to backfire. I loved playing board games with my son when he was very little, and when he broke the rules it was no big deal, we were just having fun. Then he reached an age where winning the right way matters. The rules do matter. But obviously not to Sen. Schumer, who said on Sunday that both candidates will interpret the rules to their advantage. Sounds like playing Monopoly with a six-year-old.

Which leaves four possibilities:

1. Clinton's people deliberately leaked the story so they could be the first adamantly deny it, and thus claim some moral high ground.

2. That it was a complete knothead at Clinton HQ shooting of his/her mouth with nothing to back it up.

3. There never was a story - just another case of the press trying to make something out of nothing.

4. Someone at Clinton HQ had second thoughts....

Option #5: It was a trial balloon.

Nope, #1.  Not only is Phil Singer denying the report, but "Now it is time for the Obama campaign to make their intentions known".  As if somehow this was all their fault.  Lets see, while we are in the denying all possible nefarious actions, lets call on the campaigns to quit kicking their dogs, beating their spouses, paying for hits on their opponents, etc...maybe we can generate a list for them here!

I go with Option 5 and jj gould.  They wanted both to measure the level of response and to inoculate themselves a bit in case they decide they need to use this tactic.  

Come to think of it, there is an Optiion 6 that is more likely:  they are trying to make winning the nomination with super-delegates, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, seem reasonable and to divert attention from that strategy which is clearly the one upon which they intend to rely.  Either way.  I'm completely finished with the Clintons.  I will never under any circumstances pull a lever for Hillary Clinton and I will vote for McCain, which would be only the second time in nearly 40 years that I have voted for a Republican.

I should have said I will vote McCain if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

J.J. Gould: Politico has a history of distorting the truth.  SImon may not be flat-out lying, but he very easily could be misconstruing, as in, did this unnamed source really say it was a "campaign strategy," or just a likely possibility in a particular circumstance?  Is there any reason to assume that his off-the-record comment has anything to do with official campaign decisions?  Faith in Simon's integrity as an objective journalist?   Oh, yea, I guess there is the Clinton Rule: if a Clinton or Clinton associate said it or did it, it was deviously wicked and orchestrated by the Queen Bitch herself.