If Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants to clear up the appearance that it acquired information about Sen. Barrack Obama’s travel history through mercenary cyberthieves, now the focus of a cyberstalking investigation in which his passport data was breached by State Department functionaries, it is going to have to explain how it was able to claim it knew that Obama had only gone to one NATO country and never traveled to Latin America in its campaign literature this month.

Right now, Hillary Clinton, America needs to believe one of its leading presidential candidates isn’t capable of this kind of perfidy.

If you aren’t. Or if, perhaps, you’ve been compromised - by a third-party data broker in the employ of the RNC - by accepting data of tainted provenance to scandalize the Obama campaign, only to have yours come into the crossfire when the ‘news’ breaks.

Conspiracy theories, denials, cover stories and bland half-true lies flew thick last night and this morning as the Senatory Barrack Obama came face to face with a probable cyber-stalking campaign directed at him and his presidential bid. In the furor, one telling observation rang through the maddening din, proffered by legendary Cynics’ Party commentator SanFranLefty.

SanFranLefty made the sumurai correlation this morning between the timeframe in which the Obama data was breached and a statement made by the Clinton Campaign about Obama’s overseas experience and travel.

As recorded here in this March 12 entry in Marc Ambinder’s The Atlantic Web log, the Clinton campaign let loose with a raging broadside that asked, “As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it’s legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?”

The key in this campaign literature is that the Clinton Campaign could assert with apparent confidence that Senator Obama had “never” traveled to Latin America. There is only one data resource that could have given them the confidence to make that kind of unequivocal statement and it’s located at the State Department.

Thinking people whose words are recorded never say never because they know how difficult if not impossible it is to prove that an event has not ever or will never transpire. Unless, of course, they have irrefutable proof - or access to a data resource of unique authority.

Senator, you have a couple of questions for Hillary at your next whistlestop, ones maybe you can have your own contract investigators ask her campaign managers. We wouldn’t place a lot of faith in the Bush Justice Department to make any headway on this aspect of your cyberstalking case, as Hilbot is publicly endorsing Bush’s pet goat, Psychogeezer McCain.