Great Diary. Rec for you,too!

Your attempt to restore sanity to this site by attacking the real enemy ends my evening on a far more pleasant note.

Is there a left-wing equivalent of Swift Boating? I've tried to be as non partisan as possible when it comes to the left-right divide. I'm a liberal, but I have attempted to find a common ground with conservatives whenever possible. A major draw of Obama for me is his stated desire to end partisan politics as usual. But I digress...

So is there a liberal swiftboat committee? I know liberal partisans are not above manipulation, gotcha politics, quotes out of context and other typical political hijinx. But what I haven't seen in the past 6 years that I've been interested in politics is the flat-out lying that some on the right engage in.

-Swift Boats
-The Madrassa muslim lies
-The lies outlined above
-Birth certificate lies

...and the list goes on. I don't think liberals are inherently better (more honest, moral, etc) than conservatives on the whole and I've disagreed with the attacks on McCain regarding his comments on social security or misstatements re: geography. But its this f'ing flat out lying that drives me nuts. Do we have a whisper campaign going against McCain that I'm unaware of? Am I not on the email spam list which suggests that McCain is a closet gay muslim atheist creationist baby killing right-to-lifer?

Don't get me wrong. If the liberal partisan warriors don't engage in those type of right wing smear campaigns I'm perfectly happy. But sometimes--if even for a brief moment--I would love to hit these f'ers back 10-fold. Just once I'd love for Obama to look McCain and some of these right-wingers in the eye and call him/them despicable liar(s). As an aside, what's the deal with politicians and their reluctance to call someone a liar or a statement a "lie". They'll say how something doesn't track with the facts, or inaccurate, or some other lawyer speak, but won't call a lie a lie or a liar a liar.

That's about all I have to say about this. I'm glad Obama is running a positive campaign. But that promise to run an honorable campaign handcuffs him and his supporters sometimes in our response to the liars. So I guess I'll have to settle and say, "McCain is an honorable man who is increasingly taking the low road and making statements that don't hold up in light of the available evidence." Sigh.

...these folks merely provide the content for the paid media folks. The money behind this and the media buys is what counts. The content's all bullshit, just like it was in '04; but there's even more money behind it this time.

If what I saw this evening with Hannity is any indication of what's ahead (he kept ranting about it, long after the segment aired), '04's going to be a day at the beach compared to the next 14 weeks.

I truly hope team Obama is better prepared for it than the comeback I saw tonight. Hannity was loaded for bear. And, unfortunately, there are far too many idiots watching that network to dismiss it, shrug it off, or otherwise act as if it's not going to be an issue.

The point of reference that many people have--and even the "boundaries pressed" from '04--will pale in comparison compared to where these desperate assholes are going to try to take the dialogue this year.

If there are two overriding matters that may trump this, IMHO, I believe they're as follows:

1.) The Rethugs are starting off in a much worse place than they were four years ago. They've screwed the pooch so badly, the most heinous of false charges (no matter how untrue) don't even hold a candle to the travesty of the place where their so-called government management skills have brought all of us today.

2.) There's an old meme in my profession (advertising and p.r./communications): If a claim is made about a product or brand that appears too outrageous or unbelievable--regardless of whether it's negative or positive and regardless of whether it's coming from you or your competition--chances are that it just won't flush. The public won't buy into it, simply because it crosses a line of outrageousness, as it were. And, IMHO, that's what could very well happen with the absurd Rethug crap this cycle, if tonight's travesty of an example of what I watched on Hannity is an indication of what lies ahead.

committee of smear merchants. MoveOn.org was the first major coordinated attempt by liberal Progressives to aggressively defend our politicians and philosophies  against the extreme rightwing agenda and attacks.

But this does not mean we have to stoop as low as these rightwing rascals..

...if the Rethugs are going down the 'older, wiser more experienced' route (i.e.: questioning Obama's ability to lead, etc.), which appears to be where they're going with their first barrage of early, negative media, then the concept of an 'older, wiser' V.P. candidate helps counterbalance that type of b.s. (i.e.: Biden, Graham, Clark, etc.), taking some steam out of that crap.

...and it's something I may have heard when I was younger, but I've kind of turned it into my own little meme:

In politics, if you're playing defense, you're either acting like you're losing, or, you are losing; either way the perception is, you're losing.

That's the thing about this Swiftboat shit...essentially, as much as most people aren't going to want to hear this...the best way to handle it is to get on the offensive so heavily, that you're making more noise than they other side is, so they have to defend more vociferously.

The media wants a horse race. That's their best programming. A blowout doesn't do that for them.

The Republicans will always try to win by playing the I'm more patriotic than you/nativism card.  This is their issue.  The way the Dems get back at them is by playing the you're a bunch of selfish and incompetent bastards card.  That's our issue.  

I am getting a bit worried that Obama might be falling into the standard trap which ensnares Democratic presidential candidates.  The way to counter this Republican attack is not to engage them on their ground.  It's to launch a more devastating attack which compels them to fight on yours.

If the words "McCain" and "incompetent" don't flow together naturally by late October, think there's a real chance the Dems could lose this thing.  Obama doesn't have to win this debate, just put it out there so indies will think the choice is "risky" vs. "incompetent".  Risky wins.

McCain hired the swiftboat team many many months ago.  I don't think this stuff will hurt Barrack, for one thing this is the sort of thing people are truly sick of, and they oversell it. I just 'tried' watching a video sent to me by an old high school friend, who's pug and it had some real gaffs that weren't bad, only gaffs, that everyone makes and big deal, but it also contained some nasty stuff, that is mainly off-putting.  I don't think hate sells these days, and they'll sink themselves by going too far.  

I think the response should be with substance, with a direct comparison between what McCain says about the economy and what Barrrack says, not the sound bites, the most substantive each is.  

I don't think scaring back is the way to go, no one wants to hear the old guy get beat up anymore than the younger guy.  People want to hear explanations of how we got into this financial mess and what steps need to be taken to get out of it. And they want some humor and optimism that the problems can be solved and here's how.  

It's time to end the tit for tat and whining, I think John McCain can be rightly ignored, people think they know him anyway and they're unlikely to change their opinions, although they could get defensive if their well-loved opinions are dismissed.  It's time for the substance.

A few weeks ago there was a front page story on the NYT about Barack's 300 foreign policy advisors, with some bio's.  I'd like to see some of his advisors doing tutorials for all of us. They could be short videos and could be included in diaries, like here.  Then the comments could be about the issues, we could start to discuss issues among ourselves.

On domestic issues, I'd like his advisor on inner-city problems to give a a tutorial. I'd like it to include why banks don't make business loans in so-called 'dangerous' communities.  I know you guys don't like me touting Hillary on issues, but she thinks the reasons has nothing to do with profits, profits are at least as available in communities that have few shops and businesses, the reasons have to do with the prejudices of bankers, they look down on poor communities and don't want to invest there, for so called 'moral' reasons.  

Does anyone know who his inner-city advisors on economics and banking practices is?  Maybe we can invite that person to do a diary with substance, with a bibliography and if possible a short video?  We can help drive the debate if we ask for information on the issues we think are going to be important in electing Barrack.  

Are they the ones trying to claim that Hillary doesn't want to have a roll call vote or be nominated VP?

too late for your protection efforts: regardless of swiftboaters we already know who obama is.