Yesterday I posted an entry at PoliticalFleshFeast.com about a paranoid delusional rant by some diarist at you-know-where, in which the writer alleged that video footage of Barack Obama had been tampered with to make him look darker and wider than he really is. Markos Moulitisas then seems to have stolen the pathetic display of insanity, and is now running with it!

Here’s how it appears to have gone down. Yesterday, diarist cartwrightdale posted an entry wondering if an ad by the Clinton campaign that used video portions from the last debate had deliberately altered footage so as to make Barack Obama look “Blacker”. Later in the day, Markos Moulitsas was running the smear against Clinton even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it.

But this sordid mess goes deeper than you might imagine, for it appears that Moultisas didn’t “borrow” cartwrightdale’s diary from yesterday. He instead appears to have lifted it from a diarist by the name of Troutnut, who in turn picked it up from yet another diarist called jthomascronin.

So this is what, third or fourth hand paranoia? From people with nothing better to do than sit around cooking up bizarre conspiracy theories regarding the Clinton campaign. Paul Krugman posted about this phenomenon in one of his columns; he calls them Clinton rules, under which anything the Clintons say or do — no matter how trivial or banal, are inflated into something nefarious.

Fortunately, there seems to be at least one sane person at you-know-where calling bullshit on this.

Did I call this, or what?

Kos says HRC deliberately darkened BHO’s picture.

Yours Truly takes Kos to task, calls the allegation “scurrilous” and “worthy of Limbaugh.”

Guess what’s on Limbaugh’s site today?

I demand a Special Prescience and Insight Nomination (SPIN) for calling this one 24 hours in advance.

I also predict that Kos will line up with Limbaugh on the issue of Vince Foster, but not until May.

Okay, who wants to place bets on what day and time Moulitsas will steal yet another hairbrained conspiracy theory from a diarist that somehow — and “coincidentally” — manages to be mirrored by Rush Limbaugh? Because it’s not a question of if; rather, it is a matter of accurately predicting the particular moment.

Now, I’m not one to enter lightly into conspiracy theories myself. For the record, I do believe there was a White House conspiracy for 9/11/2001, but I favor the theory that it was one of deliberate negligence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the inner circle knew what they were being warned about, but wanting an excuse to invade Iraq and turn America into their own mega-police state, simply sat on their asses and let it happen. I don’t, however, think there was any conspiracy to implement a government attack on our own country; it would simply have been too costly, and too chancy, to actively carry out such a scheme without tipping somebody off who was in a position to blab publicly. And I certainly don’t spend my days trying to cook up excuses for how and why the girders melted in the towers, or why WTC Seven collapsed. I think those who do need to get out more.

Nevertheless, if I were to engage in baseless speculation, I’d ask if maybe some Limbaugh goon planted this idea over at you-know-where for somebody to pick up knowing the site owner would co-opt it and end up looking like just another paranoid delusional, “Democrat” asshole. Hell, if I had the time, money and inclination to screw with some heads over there, I’d do it, just to be able to kick back and laugh my ass off as these idiots further destroy their own credibility.