Robert Novak is the guy dirty politicians go to when they need to throw somebody under a bus. A few years ago, Dick Cheney had him leak the fact that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame (smokin!), was a CIA operative, in retaliation for some shit Joe Wilson had written about there being no WMD in Iraq.

You can imagine my concern then when I read yesterday afternoon, in a Robert Novak column, that Hillary Clinton has got some shit on Barack Obama, but she's not gonna put it out there, because it would be bad for herself and bad for the Democratic party. At the very least, we might be about to learn some hilarious shit about Barack Obama, but who knows what kind of clusterfuck this could turn into?

Here's what Novak had to say specifically:

"Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it."

To which Barack Obama has responded:

"She of all people, having complained so often about 'the politics of personal destruction,' should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics."

To which Hillary responded:

"A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games. We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally."

Hilarious shit.

Which of course begs the question. What exactly does Hillary know about Barack Obama that she's not gonna tell us (at least not now)? My guess is that it could be either one of two things: a) Hillary doesn't have shit on Barack Obama (that we don't already know), she just figured she'd put the doubt in people's minds and let their imagination fill in the blanks; or b) Barack Obama used to fuck other guys.

Of course, for the sake of my own personal amusement, I'm hoping it's the latter. (Nullus.) But as of right now, I'm leaning towards the former as the more reasonable explanation. Hillary probably doesn't have any proof (like pictures of the Senator and Donnie McClurkin bufuing one another) that Barack Obama is a fruit, but she can use this innuendo to float the idea in the minds of caucus goers out in Iowa. Which is a brilliant idea, if you think about. As long as she doesn't get caught.

President Sieg Howdy pulled something similar back in 2000, using a process known as push-polling to suggest to voters in South Carolina that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby. Which worked especially well, since he does have a daughter from Bangladesh, whom, if you didn't know any better, might appear to be the unintended consequence of some fateful campaign stop over in East St. Louis.

If there really was photographic evidence of Obama being a brownie hound, I doubt Hillary would want to run the risk of announcing that she had it beforehand, and then have it turn up at some point between now and election day. One of Karl Rove's haX0rs could get access to it and email it to Robert Novak next fall, thus jeopardizing her relationship with the teh ghey community right before the big election.

But let's say there is no picture of Barack Obama blowing another guy, and Hillary's just pretending there is. Perfect. Now all she's gotta do is play dumb. Meanwhile, the burden is on Barack Obama to prove that he's not teh ghey. He might have to pull one of those moves like when Al Gore was shoving his tongue all down his wife's throat at the Democratic convention. And Hillary Clinton doesn't have to worry about this coming back to bite her in the ass a year from now, since there was never any real scandal in the first place.

What do you 'bags think? Does Hillary Clinton really have dirt on Barack Obama? If so, what do you think it might be?