"At the end of the day, every individual has a right to participate in the political process whether John McCain likes it or not. It's their constitutional right."

How dare you infringe on their right to slander, Mr. McCain!

>>Hmmm -- "attack Obama viciously," huh? Don't say you weren't warned.

If the Democratic nominee were Zombie Reagan, he would be attacked viciously as well. I really don't get the handwringing over whom they wingnuts are going to attack. If Clinton had been the nominee, we would have seen ads claiming that she murdered Vince Foster at a lesbian orgy.

Well, let's just hope they are as effective as the NRCC's negative tactics in Mississippi.

So, the Republican self-identified 'vicious' attackers have embraced a terrorist mindset........ hmmm.

Hmmm -- "attack Obama viciously," huh? Don't say you weren't warned.

Greg, I'm not clear on exactly what you mean to imply with that line. That you expect the Swift Boaters would treat Hillary with less viciousness that they would Obama? That you think anyone, Obama supporter or not, is not expecting the Swift Boaters to attack Obama viciously? Or were you just trying to be snarky about the WaPo's reporting of LaCivita's comments as though they were, well, news? It's not like anyone has expected the Swift Boaters to sit this election out.

Speaking of Swift Boating:

"A quick note on super-del policy here: Because Obama has what is essentially an insurmountable delegate lead, we won't be doing a post on every single super-del endorsement unless there's something remarkable about it. Instead, we'll do one or two daily posts wrapping up the day's super-del action."

How convenient. There is no excuse for you trying to gloss over each super delegate endorsement. Delegate accumulation is the name of the game, and each one has a different profile and regional story to tell. There is nothing more important, at this stage, to report on TPM than the individual stories of Super Delegates as they make their decisions.

I much prefer to hear what such super delegate has to say, than the "boiler plate" propaganda coming from spin doctors.

There is no excuse for TPM trying to diminish the coverage of each super delegate that announces an endorsement.

This IS what we can expect from the GOP... this crowd is not independent... they are the Rove GOP.

Like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

"I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll bloooowwwwww your house down."

Hey is that you wolfie. I see you behind that bush. Yea, we've been expecting you. Do you see us? ALL of us. Here. Waiting.

You caught us by surprise last time. Good one for you on that. Well anyway we've gone all A-Team on you and upgraded a bit. Even got ourselves one of those fancy brick house thing-a-ma-gigs. Darndist thing, nothing seems to scratch it.

Btw, if I were you I'd worry about looking after my own place. I've seen it. Didn't look so bad years back. Now? Well... I don't think it'll last the coming storm.

America is smarter this time around. It won't work.

They don't more of BUSH and McSame is in trouble.

To quote their failed hero, W:

Bring it on!

I realize I'm playing with fire here (and I definitely don't support the Swifties), but do we honestly think that Obama is going to be able to prevent MoveOn.org from similarly attacking McCain "viciously"?

I'm seriously trying to remember an instance when MoveOn swiftboated anyone. Does anyone have an example?

That's right, we'll nail Obama on Wright!!! Oh wait, he'll come back and say something against Hagee?? Oh, we'll nail Obama on not letting taxpayers save 25 cents a week on gas this summer! Oh wait, voters with a brain won't care?? Hmmmm...OK, we'll nail Obama on...on...on...being black!! Oh wait, you say that would make us racists?? Hey, f*** it, we're Republicans - WE KNOW AND DON'T CARE!!!

it's funny how hard myths die. You fools continue to believe that Obama being on HLR means something, that he got on by merit (which he didn't). And that his "teaching" at Chicago signifies something (it doesn't). When challenged that he was not a full prof, you all cry "but he was offered tenure!" When challenged that ordinarily, for any non-AA to be offered a tenure track job, you cry "but he was an adjunct, and anyway publication isn't required to be a law prof (which is non-sense).

I was an editor of a law review at an elite skool, and I'm not impressed at all with myself on that basis. Law reviews are pretty pathetic actually. But I know enough about HLR and AAs to know that like many of Obama's touted "accomplishments" this one is make-believe.

A key thing to remember is the swift boating of Kerry only worked because the media played, replayed, replayed, and replayed the swift boat lies. The swift boaters could never afford the play time that made these work. The truth is that it was the main Stream Media that swift boated Kerry. I think this time, when the media tries this against Obama there will be sufficient outcry and negative reaction to the MSM and their corporate sponsors that the same tactics will not work this time.

Folks:

Just Ignore the Racist Vermin Troll.

Inquiry: Why are they threatening and not attacking?

Is there a poverty of ammunition? I am certain that all they got is clips of Clinton trashing Obama.

OMG! I just realized that Obama's wife gave birth to two . . . American-born childern and she is not a recovering drug addict beer fortune heiress . . . . sigh.

Ah, well, it goes both ways. I think any organized group that crosses the line this year is going to experience a major backlash.

Gee, you mean the "Swift Boat" folks weren't just proud Vietnam vets outraged over Kerry's version of what he did in Vietnam? You mean they're actually just opposed to Democrats in general?

Kind of calls their credibility into question, doesn't it?

I originally posted this on Digby on 05.12.08 at Digby. I apologize in advance for the length.

Also posted under The Obama Party at Digby,

Why I Think Ayers doesn't Matter.

There's obviously been significant discussion of the "doomed" Obama candidacy that will spiral down in flames of unrelenting scandal.

I'd simply like to offer this. The Republicans have truly mastered the art of racial politics. However, there's been a significant change in both local as well as national politics over the last ten years that poses a significant danger to the Republicans should they choose to take this route.

Republicans are notorious for using racial politics at the local and state level. There is, however, precedent to believe that this strategy will no longer work given the new found ability to rapidly disseminate the very "worst" the Republicans have to offer (i.e., the macaca meltdown, remember he was SUPPOSED to be their presidential candidate).

The Republicans, McCain in particular, have also shown little ability to control their state level reps (see, for example, the recent Republican losses in "safe" districts where the locals tried to nationalize the election using some particularly obscene advertising). There is general disdain for McCain among Party regulars and unwillingness to deviate from past election practices which will likely result in a large number of "macaca" moments. Also, keep in mind that there is no precedent for the Republicans running a racist strategy at the national level under the glaring klieg lights of the national media.

The Republicans have spent the last sixteen years overplaying their hand in numerous circumstances from the government shutdown to the impeachment (the War in Iraq has given them a bit of a reprieve whilst they bludgeoned the Democrats and the Press with "freedom fries" and lapel pins, both of which now have lost their luster). The greatest hope the Republicans had was the Reverend Wright controversy. Had this controversy blown up in October, the Republicans would have won the Presidenc...easily. There simply might not have been enough time to respond. However, they were unable to contain their surrogates and the Press and so the Wright controversy peaked early. Certainly, they will use it in the fall. But the potency of this scandal has reached its peak among those who would actually consider voting for the Democratic candidate and will only be useful to them as GOTV. Again, they will run the risk of overplaying this controversy to the self-identified independents and moderates and given the less than calm demeanor of their lower echelon troops, we, again, are likely to see innumerable "macaca" moments.

Which brings us to Ayers. The same dynamic is at play here, but, unlike Wright, the Ayers connection is tenuous at best. There’s simply no evidence that Obama participated in the Weatherman activities. Sure, the Republicans will use it, but their recent efforts have demonstrated an extraordinarily tinny ear and the lack of Party discipline (both intentional and un) that may result in severe damage among moderates and independents who may view the Ayers affair as guilt by association if not downright racism.

Finally, we have McCain’s response. He can condemn any ads he sees fit. But the same guilt-by-association that will plague Obama will turn on McCain as well as he is forced to repudiate wing-nut after wing-nut calling for Obama’s beheading. And the same dynamic that affects Obama through his association will impact McCain through his associations with the various nut-bags who won’t know when to shut up, leaving McCain with a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. In essence, it’ll be a wash.

ALL political candidates have baggage, there’s no doubt (if someone knows of a “clean” politician, please let me know). But what matters is how the politician responds to their own baggage and more importantly, how their opponent responds to the controversy. If McCain has to keep reiterating what an honorable man Obama is in repudiation to the worst elements of the GOP, it’s a political loser for McCain. If he goes along with the slurs, it has the potential of being even a bigger loser for McCain, especially with moderates and independents. Of course, none of this will be easy for Obama (if it were, everyone would run for President) and he’ll need to demonstrate the leadership and crisis handling skills that are required. Else, he doesn’t deserve to be POTUS.
Rihilism | 05.12.08 - 10:07 pm |

I think Obama is going to be President. McCain will not win; all the Swift Boating in the world won't help. In fact, I think that the American public is completely sick and tired of DeLay/Rove attack politics. They will recognize it, and are already voting it down.

Swift Boating Obama will have a rebound effect: it will make him more attractive, unless he loses it and blasts them. Then they have him on their turf.

Unfortunately, Clinton is now doing her best to "raise doubts" about Obama, even as he is winning the nomination. She is doing her best to swift boat him too.

BP

@KenM1:

"Really nothing seems to stick long term against Obama and only drives up your side's negatives. It is a waste of resources, but they are allowed to try."

Oh really?

ABC News reported nuggets from an exit poll in W.Va, which showed that approximately half of the voters in that primary had Rev. Wright on their mind.

It will stick.

This kind of stuff sticks. Lies, vicious lies and damned lies they may be but BOY, how they sell newspapers...!

A major part of the SBVT controversy centered on the group's testimony. The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.[50]

The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.

Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, "on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies."[51] ABC News's The Note opined, "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false."[52] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[53] stated, "Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false." The editorial argued this position on the basis that "Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation." On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: "An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar."[54]

From wiki. I wonder if the reliability of this group could taint them... or will the public just open up their mouths like baby birds and swallow it all?

Reminds me of Olbermann running the clip of McCain "trying" to stop the negative GOP ads in North Carolina. He was standing at a podium, pummeling them with marshmallows, saying, "My friends, stop. Please stop." (monotone, sleepy sleepy monotone) Complete lack of force and authority. I'm sure we'll see more of the same in this case.

I have an idea, which is I am not sure is that smart, but may be could work. Why not to make a preventive ad, with clips of this swift boaters, and then, saying, Senator McCain you promised certain ethical standards from a campaign, is this the standards you are following? or something to that effect. You know, calling them in their own game. The drawback is it could sound too crybaby, but maybe it could rob the effectiveness of the attacks.

Think of any - any - foul thought you can think of when imagining a black person.

Try to link any ‘bad’ incident involving a black person in recent history to Obama.

Do that, and you will have an inkling of what’s on the 527 drawing boards.

Obama the hustler, Obama the drugsdealer, Obama the thug, Obama the teenage momma maker, Obama X, Obama Rodney King, Obama Louis Farrakhan. Etcetera, etcetera.

You think Clinton was being bad for coming after Obama with her kitchen sink?

Never mind her. What the GOP has in store for Obama is nothing compared to what the 527s will ‘independently’ throw at Obama.

And Rove will be connected. Rove, the man who wanted to become campaign leader for a GOP congressman. Rove got the position by spreading the rumor that his competitor for the position banged little boys.

Rove got the position.

Nothing will be spared, no stone left unturned, no pile of bile left untouched.

Color me unconcerned about the success of any kind of Swift Boat-style attacks on Obama. First of all, I've seen signs that the country is less likely to give credence to these kinds of attacks. Second, I don't see anything substantive that could be seized on and distorted the way Kerry's service record and subesquent anti-war activities were. Third, Obama is not Kerry, and has shown himself much more capable of parrying this sort of crap.

He has not only been hypocritical about these kinds of smears already but his base, the media, will help him do it.

First the swiftboat starts when Drudge or somebody posts the smear from these 3rd party groups and the media picks it up to play it for free for 2 or 3 days. Then just when it starts to die down then McCain will hold a press conference to "denounce" the smears and then his media will use that as an excuse to replay them for another 3 or 4 days. When that is over the "independant" group will actually pay to broadcast it once or twice "against McCain's wishes" which will give his media another excuse to play it for free again for another 2 or 3 days.

Then the village pundits will say that it is too bad that such a nasty smear has infected the brains of the populace but McCain had nothing to do with it and, my oh my, what a bad two weeks it has been for Obama!

From Wiki:
American political consultant Chris LaCivita is a private consultant with Crosslink Strategy, a conservative lobbying and political consulting firm founded by John McCain advisor Terry Nelson.

@Dorn76:

In '04, people said exactly the same about Kerry. How he would attract independents, how voters would "see through" the lies.

Michelle Obama’s Writings Display Disturbing Racism

Americans must ask: ‘Do we really want this woman in the White House’?

By Pat Shannan

Just what kind of “change” is Barack Obama offering and just how much influence has his wife, Michelle had over him in their married life the past two decades? It appears that Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people, eternally conflicted with one another.

In her senior thesis at Princeton University, Michelle LaVaughn, the future wife of the Democratic presidential candidate, stated that America was a nation founded on “crime and hatred.” Moreover, she stated that whites in America were “ineradicably racist.”

The 1985 thesis, entitled Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community, was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn. Michelle Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society, never becoming a full participant.”

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but emphatically elevates black over white in her world. As first lady, would she insist the White House be painted black? That’s been a standard joke in this venue since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but this next ominous quote from her thesis suggests that she would in fact urge her husband toward just such an extreme position.

“There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.”

She seems to justify those feelings with what she claims to see on the other side of the issue: “Predominantly white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students, comprising the bulk of their enrollments.”

Michelle added in her thesis that to “whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, [I] will always be black first.” However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, “if those ‘whites at Princeton ‘ really saw Michelle as one who always would ‘be black first,’ it seems that she gave them that impression.”

Michelle Obama’s poll of black alumni concludes that other black former students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skins.

“I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility,” she wrote.

Most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire. Only 89 students responded, out of 400 who were asked for input.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama’s thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. For a potential first lady, this is a very divisive view that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Hussein Obama administration.

During this presidential election year in which the term “transparency” has been frequently bandied about, candidates have buried a number of potentially revealing documents and papers. In Hillary Rodham Clinton’s case, there’s been a clamoring for tax records, White House memos and other material the candidate’s team has chosen to keep from release.

The 96-page, 1985 Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school’s Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny. Commentator Jonah Goldberg remarked on National Review Online, “A
reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama’s thesis is unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008, at the Princeton library. I wonder why.”

“Why a restricted thesis?” asked Pastor Louis Lapides on his website,
Thinking Outside the Blog. “Is the concern based on what’s in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not black enough for black America?”

Will an Obama administration really offer constructive “change” or just an intellectually refined racism?

@ carlmcq: if the thesis is restricted, what is your source of information? do you have a copy of the questionnaire you refer to? do you have any corroborating evidence from the past 23 years?

Approximately 20% of this thread is either by, about, or in response to known troll Milorad (a.k.a Milla, Mila, Ludmilla, Godzilla,...) or it's newest incarnation (I suspect, based on methodology, subject matter, and timing) carlmcq.

And that doesn't even include this comment.

Just sayin'.

We know it's coming. Just have to not let lies pass unchallenged, and give back as good as we get.

The GOP has to be ready for their usual attacks not to work so well. They tried in Mississippi.

Here's a clear example of the republican mindset. Attack a man's wife, if you don't feel up to attacking a man directly. Trying to tear down Barak Obama's wife will hardly build America up.

Smear, lie, steal, fabricate at all costs if it helps your lobbyist pals, have become the new GOP rallying cry. They seem to fervently believe that only by creating a race war can they win. How far they have fallen from the party of Lincoln. Ironically, it was southern Democrats who learned the hard way that history was not on their side. Why are so many republicans so eager to follow in the footsteps of the southern democrats of the nineteenth century, when we have so much to accomplish to perserve our union in the twentyfirst century?

By engaging in nasty negative attacks, Republicans show themselves to only believe in the 9 Commandments, leaving out any belief in the one stating "Thou shall not bear false witness". Kind of sad to see so many willing to loose their souls just to stoke their righteousness and hate.

They actually voted en masse against Mother's Day, just to make a political statement. How low can they go? It is a very sad spectacle to watch just how far they have turned away from Jesus and principles of fairness and equality.

Why are republicans so eager to take on moral as well as financial debt just to serve their lobbyist masters? Are really all that many perks actually trickling down?

May God have mercy on on them, for they know not what they do.

You have a very good political argument to make, but for effective use I would suggest rephrasing it along the lines of a question to be answered by the voters based on the proof provided by McCain himself: "If McCain can't even control his own party, how can we trust him to control the government of our country?"

Rather ironic, These fools swiftboated kerry and attacked McCain when he ran in the last election.Now he's there huoney.What other sweetheart deals is MCCain going to make in his efforts to get elected.He isn't satisfied with being in bed with lobbyists like charlie black ie: myanmar and other repressive regimes and his fellow Blackwater friends. A zero voting record from the league of cvonservation voters. Hmmmm He may be a former POW but McCain wasn't only brainwashed by the North Vietnamese he's been brainwashed by Bush and his other political advisors.