Obama Campaign Developing Aggressive But Low-Key Counterattack To Swift-Boating
Here's a development that really bears watching: In stark contrast to John Kerry's 2004 campaign, the Obama team has developed a very aggressive response to the growing Swift-Boating apparatus that is targeting the Illinois Senator -- but crucially, the Obama camp is striving to keep the counterattack as low key as possible.
The approach, which is taking shape daily in response to the attacks, contrasts most obviously with Kerry's in its aggressiveness. But it's also different from Kerry's approach in another, equally important way. The Obama campaign is doing whatever it can to keep the return fire from spilling into the national media, whereas Kerry, when he did finally respond, did try to win the argument with the Swift-Boaters on a national level.
When Kerry belatedly released his first major response to the 2004 Swift-Boat Vets, it took the form of a high-profile ad that pinned the negative attacks directly on Bush. The ad was released to the national media and landed on page one of The New York Times.
By contrast, when the Obama campaign yesterday started airing an ad responding to the now-notorious Swift-Boat spot tying Obama to former Weatherman William Ayers that's running in four battleground states, it put up the ad only in Ohio and didn't alert the news media. It's still unknown whether the Obama camp intends to air the ad in the other three states.
The Obama approach represents an effort to get around the conundrum that bedeviled Kerry and that such attacks present to campaigns. Rather than choose between doing nothing and launching a high-profile response that risks granting the attack national media attention, the Obama campaign is striving for a middle ground: Aggressive but localized and low-key responses that the campaign hopes won't drive the national dialog.
"It's a savvy approach," says Evan Tracey of Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks national ad buys. "If you get into a conversation using the national media, it elevates these stories. The Obama campaign is trying to avoid having these debates on the national level, and wants its unfettered response only in markets where the attacks are being played over and over."
It's way too early to judge whether this approach will prove aggressive enough or whether the Obama campaign will be able to keep it under-the-radar. But the Obama camp is clearly working to keep its response cloaked in other ways, too.
For instance, the Obama campaign is warning station managers against airing the spot and is even asking the Justice Department to intervene. And the Obama camp is also mulling plans to try to get advertisers to pressure stations into not running the ad.
In short, the Obama campaign, enjoying the benefits of hindsight, is putting together an approach that's both more aggressive and less visible than the counter-attack waged by the Kerry campaign. It bears keeping an eye on.
I think this would be a major misstep for the Obama camp. I remember the backlash that the Kerry campaign received for sending legalistic looking faxes to television stations warning them not to run ads. It made Kerry look afraid of the ads and gave the appearance of him seeming litigious.
August 26, 2008 2:24 PM
Disagree, totally.
August 26, 2008 4:21 PM
Could you be more specific? I do remember when Kerry was sending out faxes to tv station managers warning them of running that faux documentary (an hour long swiftboat ad). By Kerry doing this he brought even more attention to it and looked afraid and overly legalistic in the process.
The funny part about it though was that, at the time, McCain denounced the "documentary":
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) disagreed. He called the decision “unpatriotic” and told Sinclair President David Smith that “your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war’s terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.”
August 26, 2008 4:39 PM
Correction: McCain didn't denounce the documentary, he denounced Sinclair in ordering its stations not to air a NightLine that named all of the American soldiers that had been killed to that point.
August 26, 2008 4:48 PM
"... the Obama campaign is warning station managers against airing the spot and is even asking the Justice Department to intervene." So much for the First Amendment.
August 26, 2008 2:25 PM
FYI: The First Ammendment does not protect against Slander.
August 26, 2008 2:27 PM
Actually to be slander it must be "untrue" and since it is broadcast it would be libel anyway (again if it were untrue).
August 26, 2008 3:00 PM
Actually, no. Libel is if something is printed. If it's broadcast, then it's slander. And the First Amendment deals with the government's suppression of free speech. Since the Obama campaign isn't the government, an attempt to pressure certain outfits from running false attacks doesn't fall under the amendment at all.
August 26, 2008 3:21 PM
"...defamation of a person by written or representational means..."
The person narrating the ad isn't commiting lible (or slander), he's narrating an ad. The people who produce the ad are commiting lible through "representational means" (if infact it is untrue and defamitory). Not trying to nit pick, just stating a fact. Also the "so much for the First Amendment" quip was in reference to the "Justice Department" involvement at the behest of the Obama campaign. Hope that clears up the confusion.
August 26, 2008 3:26 PM
I believe the attempt to involve the justice department is because the ad is likely illegal. As I understand it, the laws that allow third parties to spend endless amounts of money on ads during campaigns do so only if the ads address issues only. They cannot advocate for or against a specific candidate.
August 26, 2008 3:48 PM
This is why lawyers we usually just call it "defamation." The rules governing both are identical in every respect and being specific as to which it is increases your chances of losing a point or two on the exam in law school and of making you look stupid in front of a judge. Or, worst case scenario, be right when the judge is wrong.
But its not about defamation or the First Amendment. Its about whether these lying pigs get to accept unlimited campaign contributions and pay no taxes yet simultaneously engage in activities that render them taxable and subject to contribution limits.
August 26, 2008 4:09 PM
Law school mnemnonic:
Libel is Literary (written),
Slander is Spoken.
August 26, 2008 5:18 PM
"Libel" is written, "slander" is spoken. Where either occurs is irrelevant.
August 26, 2008 3:21 PM
I was commenting in the context of whether the ad is libel or slander. But thanks for the clarification.
August 26, 2008 3:23 PM
LOL - Strike Two for SFCWallace.
August 26, 2008 3:26 PM
time for the replay official...
August 26, 2008 3:29 PM
...and in case you'd like a second opinion:
"libel
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community."
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/7613C25C-8E5D-47A5-9E0D93B952DE16E7/alpha/L/
August 26, 2008 3:34 PM
I know you'd like to cloud the issue by making a distinction between libel and slander in TV ads, but is it your opinion that Libel is protected speech under the First Ammendment as well? Think carefully...
August 26, 2008 3:37 PM
Not at all, I was just responding to all of the smart ass "you think you're a Constitutional scholar" remarks that were incorrect in saying I was incorrect. If you read every one of the posts, I clearly state "if untrue." If the claims in the ad are both false and defamitory, sue away. However, if they are not untrue then yes, the ad is protected. Whether you like the content or not.
August 26, 2008 3:41 PM
I believe it is the McCain Feingold law which makes this ad illegal.
August 26, 2008 3:50 PM
I believe that everyone was responding to your initial post of "So much for the First Amendment" wherein you placed no caveat about whether the context of the ad was true or not.
The problem here is that we've seen this game played by the right before. The right has no problem with trying to restrict people's speech when protesting the way they're being governed ("Free Speech Zones" anyone?) or against a critical press (remember when the NY Times was guilty of "treason" for publishing misdeeds?). But when it comes to actual cases of slander or libel they're all of a sudden First Ammendment champions.
August 26, 2008 3:58 PM
Doesn't it suck that TPM comments don't allow editing? This is one of those times where you'd like to be able to go back and change a few things.
There's no First Amendment issues at play here. So your original post was incorrect, no matter how you slice it.
August 26, 2008 5:06 PM
In that case the narator of the commercial is commiting slander and the 527 is off the hook...?
August 26, 2008 3:28 PM
...even though it was incorrect.
August 26, 2008 3:36 PM
So is a slander read on TV from a script libel or slander? If A is quoted in the paper making a slanderous statement and then later phones in to a call in radio show and reads the statement from the paper, is he engaging in libel or slander? What about if he publishes and distributes a DVD containing recordings of a number of people making slanderous statements, do you sue him libel or slander?
That's the kind of stuff that caused my bar cram teacher (but never my torts professor!) to recommend avoiding the words libel or slander.
Even if you think you know the right answer to each question for your state, the judge may not, in which case he either thinks you're stupid or else looks it up and finds out you're smarter than he is. Neither of those is necessarily conducive to a good outcome.
August 26, 2008 5:46 PM
Clearly, you are not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the restrictions on political speech which this ad is plainly violating are perfectly constitutional (i.e. do not infringe the First Amendment).
But don't let facts stand in the way of your trolling b.s.
August 26, 2008 2:28 PM
The First Amendment precludes talking with people in the Justice Department?
August 26, 2008 2:28 PM
..so much for trying to stop someone from airing unsubstantiated smears.
August 26, 2008 2:33 PM
agreed, its not fair when someone tries to defend themselves
PUMA at the convention: day 1
August 26, 2008 6:12 PM
The issue as I understand it is that the ad is advocating against electing a candidate rather than a specific issue. In that case the people running the ad have to disclose their donors. They have refuse to do so, so far.
August 26, 2008 3:36 PM
I believe that you are correct. The people involved in the ad are registered as a 527 and as such are only allowed to create "issue" ads and are required to provde lists of their donors. Interestingly, it was McCain-Feingold that placed restrictions on them.
August 26, 2008 4:21 PM
I tire of you. Since you're so obviously inimical to the dems, it makes no sense to me that you would spend time on this site. Can't you just choose another blog on which to participate? Is it really necessary for you to antagonize people here? Is your life so impoverished that this kind of behavior gives you pleasure?
August 26, 2008 3:40 PM
Comment directed to SFCWallace, in case that was not clear.
August 26, 2008 3:41 PM
Then I would never meet people as friendly and charming as yourself...
August 26, 2008 3:47 PM
Comment directed to Nora, in case that was not clear.
August 26, 2008 3:47 PM
In all seriousness, I don't understand your motivation. Is it just to antagonize (a pure hostility)? Or is this a kind of a political activism for you; that is, do you believe that you will somehow convince Dems to vote for McCain?
August 26, 2008 4:01 PM
He's a party loyalist. That's what makes him so boring.
August 26, 2008 4:25 PM
Just not an "echo chamber" guy. I stumbled on to this site years ago and have hung around for the "back and forth" it offers. Most of the time it's light hearted and fun. A few times it gets a bit nasty, during the Valarie Plame days it was more nasty than fun. I try not to insult any one but don't like to let insults slide either. I like to think I could get a couple of converts over time, but I think I do y'all a service too by breaking up the echos.
August 26, 2008 4:29 PM
Hogwash - your post claiming Obama did not believe in the first amendment was intellectually dishonest. Once you got slapped-around - you changed the subject rather than admit others were right. So you never really cared about the first amendment - it was just bullshit trolling.
And by the way...
My father landed on Normandy beach. My wife and I both served in the Air Force. Her father served in the Navy during the Korean war. And my son is serving in the Navy in the Gulf right now. And I have to say that I find it disgusting that you use military designations in a political forum. Nobody knows who you are here. So all it shows is how intellectually dishonest you are.
August 26, 2008 5:00 PM
mccoytg says:
If he's still alive, give him my regards.
Oh, and by the way, I beat your father in by about 6 hours. :-)
August 26, 2008 5:57 PM
Then stop feeding it.
August 26, 2008 3:55 PM
slander is an offense that can be taken to court, i believe
The Illegal Organization Running Ads Against Obama
August 26, 2008 6:10 PM
According to Ben Smith over at Politico (pah-tooie), the film company that did a documentary on The Weather Underground has sent a cease and desist letter to the "Swift boat group" since the ad uses footage from their documentary without permission. The Swift Boaters said that since they use so little footage and it was a documentary that they are in the clear.
The Ayers ad is illegal, they are not advocating for any legislative measure. That's why the DOJ was asked to investigate, of course the slow wheels of justice will likely not move on the issue until long after the election is decided.
August 26, 2008 2:32 PM
Yeah, but that's bullshit. "Fair use" doesn't apply to paid advertising. I work in advertising. Trust me, if we could get away with using 4-5 seconds of anything in anything we wanted by citing "fair use" everyone would be doing it. You have to pay to use somebody else's footage, unless you're reporting.
August 26, 2008 2:53 PM
...or Al Gore
August 26, 2008 3:14 PM
Isn't this the same ad that Fox ran anyway and then said it happened by mistake?
August 26, 2008 3:04 PM
Bill Clinton yet again stabs Obama in the back. What a dick.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/bill-clinton-in-denver-again-undercuts-obama-2008-08-26.html
August 26, 2008 2:32 PM
Anything less than 100% committment for Obama during his speech on Wednesday and I hope he gets booed off the stage. That would be unity - everybody finally fed up with Bill Clinton.
August 26, 2008 2:41 PM
Yeah, cause the 90's under Clinton were so fucked compared to the 80's under Raygun and the 00's under Bush.
Get over the Clintons. Obama has.
August 26, 2008 4:33 PM
A giant bubba dick!
August 26, 2008 2:50 PM
He's not only stabbing Obama in the back, he's undermining his own wife's political future. Every time Bill mentions the election, the press is going to be all over him, thereby raising the stakes for Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and what she does in the future.
And the money quote from the piece is this:
Yeah, uh, right, Bill.
August 26, 2008 2:52 PM
Who is Bill Clinton?
August 26, 2008 3:09 PM
The only saving grace is that amount of people who will see this article or quote compared to those that will watch him on Wednesday is astronomical.
It can't said too many times that for both his and Hillary's future political relevance, he needs to hit this one out of the park.
August 26, 2008 3:20 PM
I've always wondered how genuine his concern for Hillary's future was - maybe this will tell us. He did things during the campaign that really made me wonder if he wanted her to win. -- Oh, hell, knowing Bill: he did want her to win and didn't want her to win and just acted on whichever he was feeling that particular day. I hope he's concerned about her and wanting to do right by her on Wednesday.
August 26, 2008 5:06 PM
What a dick.
August 26, 2008 3:05 PM
Perhaps, someone needs tohire a biter for that dyck.
August 26, 2008 3:09 PM
Are you kidding me with this? Trying to read into this comment is ridiculous. This kind of question is posed every election, from all sides. It's sad how many people try to inject controversy into every utterance from a Clinton. Who cares!?!
are you an issues voter?
are you a one issue voter?
are you more concerned w/ productivity from the presidency as opposed to ideas?
How will you measure your priorities in voting w/ what you see from your candidates potential?
Clearly, Obama and McCain both can fit into Bill's candidates X & Y depending on your perspective.
And from my perspective reading into everything Bill Clinton says is more damaging than anything he's said throughout the campaign.
August 26, 2008 3:34 PM
He wasn't trashing Obama, he was trashing "Candidate X". ;)
August 26, 2008 4:00 PM
X always has been an uppity letter.
Algebra just wasn't enough for it, now it wants to get into politics too.
August 26, 2008 5:03 PM
This approach seems to be part of a larger plan on the part of the Obama campaign to circumvent traditional media and making their appeal directly to the voters. This plan also encompasses the cell phone alert announcement of the VP pick, which will surely be used more often in the coming weeks and months.
August 26, 2008 2:34 PM
Yes, it allows Obama to attack on multifronts without enabling his critics to counterattack because it is not being played at a national level. In short, folks like Begala, Caraville, Billary can not undercut the message because the message is not being run at a level that they are aware of it.
Obama was a stealth candidate and he has to campaign stealthly as well.
August 26, 2008 3:09 PM
Conservatives complain to the media about ads all the time. Although they do not look on it as a First Amendment violation with regard to their complaints. Conservatives only complain when they are not allowed to spew misleading and erroneous information about their opponents.
I think that Obama's decision not to go national with his ads is very astute. If he had gone national with the ads, McCain's attack ads would receive free play time on the political talk shows. The Swift Boat ads against Kerry were played for free over and over and over.
August 26, 2008 2:40 PM
What an interesting approach.
August 26, 2008 2:47 PM
Yeah, but I'm not sure if I totally get it. He's counterattacking in 1 of the 4 states that McCain's Weatherman ads. What's going on in the other 3 states?
August 26, 2008 3:12 PM
I had the same question. 1 of the states only? That makes no sense.
Greg Sargent's article seems really incoherent. Obama's response is in "stark contrast" to Kerry because it is more aggressive, yet Obama is only putting up an ad in one state? Obama's response seems too little.
August 26, 2008 4:12 PM
I'm happy the Obama camp is responding and I'm happy they're doing it where it matters - in the states where the smear ads are being run. But this is hardly under the radar. TPM is talking about it, Politico is talking about it, Halperin is talking about it, USAToday did a story about it (and Ayers in general) today because of the dueling ads. The folks on The Corner and Commentary are calling it - running a response ad - the dumbest move the campaign has made yet (I disagree with them and I think they're more surprised that he actually responded) because...it will draw the media's attention to a story that hasn't been talked about much in the traditional media and not at all since the Dem primaries. In this age, you can't run anything under the radar....because we all see these ads, or somebody in Ohio sees these ads and talks about it on a blog. Then the mainstream blogs notice it and they pick it up. Next you thing you know, folks are talking about it on the teevee. It's also hard to run these response covertly when you had groups that track ad buys, like the one cited in the post above.
August 26, 2008 2:48 PM
But Joe Sixpack isn't paying that much attention, and the Obama campaign is smart in not spreading the McCain garbage around on its dime.
It's like using just the right dosage of chemo to fight a cancer (metaphor chosen for its aptness), but not enough to kill the healthy tissue, too.
The Obama camp has shown remarkable discipline and I have a strong feeling that they know exactly what they're doing. Frankly, I'm sick of the second guessing that has become so fashionable among bloggers and among the talking heads.
I want "red meat" as much as the next guy, but it might taste better and look more appetizing if properly prepared.
August 26, 2008 3:11 PM
"TPM is talking about it, Politico is talking about it, Halperin is talking about it"
Sorry but none of these really impact the voters.
August 26, 2008 3:41 PM
This is similar to their general decision to keep most negative attacks local. They have only gone national with house-gate.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
August 26, 2008 2:53 PM
Yes, one could call this response saavy. On the other hand, one could also call it ineffective and inadequate which I think will be the judgement. I also don't understand how anyone can characterize Obama's flaccid responses thus far as "aggressive." That's just inaccurate unless you count any response of any kind for a Democrat as being "aggressive" and there is some legitimacy to that definition.
August 26, 2008 2:53 PM
Oleeb, what response do you propose would be more effective? Kerry's version didn't work, for the reasons stated in the post - a national response elevates it to a national story. Yet the state-by-state response reaches the same people who were reached by the slander, while keeping the national spotlight off of it.
You fight the fires where they are. It's the same principle as in regards Osama: you kill the terrorists where they are, not by spreading your response broadly over parts of the world where they're not. The broadly-spread response just helps them recruit.
August 26, 2008 3:11 PM
The Justice Department was and is still corrupted. Let's not forget that the reason it was corrupted was in order to throw elections.
August 26, 2008 2:58 PM
Has anyone noticed how the Corsi book tour was stopped short after the Obama team demanded equal time from the news organizations? What could have been a publicity nightmare was nothing more than a two-day story at best. Say what you will about the Obama campaign, but they do give the impression that they know what they're doing.
August 26, 2008 2:58 PM
This point has been completely overlooked by all of us complaining about the Obama strategy.
August 26, 2008 3:02 PM
Sticking your finger in that hole in the levee is much less exciting than leading a cavalry charge against the oncoming waves. But in the end, more effective.
August 26, 2008 4:06 PM
Please explain, why should Obama's campaign accept possibly illegally-coordinated attacks? Why should Obama's campaign spend advertising money on stations that run this slander? Even the government can refuse to expend funds with, for instance, colleges which violate its policies. Yet is it restricting those colleges' first-amendment rights that Title 9 is enforced in regards to athletic and educational funding?
Do all stations have a right to Obama's advertising money? As a donor, I'll be very upset if a dime is spent making any scum who'd run the slanders richer. This is what is called a free market.
August 26, 2008 3:00 PM
What this strategy proves is that the Obama campaign is running a state-by-state campaign. To me, anyway, this shows they don't care what national polls say, but instead, are trying to head off the potential damage in specific swing states.
Now, that doesn't mean they can sit back and take it. They do need to be more aggressive, but the media will pound BO if he suddenly turns into Negative Nancy all the time. So, from a perception standpoint, he's trying to have his cake and, well you know.
If you look at the pollster electoral count and believe it, Obama needs 10 EV's (if he holds serve everywhere) to win. That's one state (Ohio or Florida), or a mix of three smaller states.
August 26, 2008 3:04 PM
How do they conduct national polls anyway? Who is the population sampled?
August 26, 2008 3:13 PM
there are other approaches that maybe should be considered. Instead of letting the odious right-wing smear artists control the discussion, do a bit of smearing on other topics (i.e. counterattack on another flank). It is fine and necessary to respond to their attacks but Obama needs to drive the discussion. There is NO discussion with the smears going. He must drive down McCain's character...McCain after all is a foul-mouthed, dishonest,ill-tempered lout who sponges off his wife's wealth and has contempt for hard-working, hard-pressed workers and veterans. I am not sure without this type of attack, Obama can make the issues the central question of the election.
August 26, 2008 3:16 PM
Did anyone notice that McCain pulled ahead in the Gallup tracking poll today? First time in months........Obama shouldn't have picked Biden. This is bad.
August 26, 2008 3:16 PM
He was trending that way anyway. Give it time. Give it time. Let the voters compare Michelle last night with Frankenbitch and see what happens.
August 26, 2008 3:21 PM
"This is bad".
I know. Just like that USA Today Gallup poll that showed MCCAIN UP BY FIVE WHEN OBAMA WAS UP BY SIX IN THE LAST ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Except the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, which got no attention from anyone, shows Obama back in the lead.
August 26, 2008 3:22 PM
Sure, I'd be happier if Obama were ahead in the national trackers, but the state by state is really what matters, not the national trackers. Most important, the campaign is only starting now. The conventions and the debates, along with the final deluge of ads, AND the ground game, will decide the election. From what I've seen, the Obama campaign is gradually upping the voltage on the attack ads, and is doing a beautiful job repeating the McCain/Bush linkage and the out-of-touch message. Meanwhile, they appear to be building the best GOTV operation in history. All this means we need to work like hell to help him get elected.
August 26, 2008 3:27 PM
I hope you're right, but I think there's good cause to be concerned if not downcast. The proper fear, it seems to me, is that Obama's campaign may have ALREADY lost the chance to define Obama positively and define McCain negatively. I don't think that's the case. I think there's still time. But that's what I thought four years ago when the Swift Boat attacks brought Kerry's numbers down in the summer, but Kerry was never able to get those numbers back.
August 26, 2008 4:16 PM
You are the most miserably stupid goddamn troll on the internets.
Good one, HusseinTenaX. Terrorist fist bump to you!
August 26, 2008 3:21 PM
I'm wondering too whether this is more economical than trying to go national. My hunch for what it's worth is that they are trying to spend as little as possible until after the convention when McCain will tied down to his public funding amount. Then Obama can up the attacks which they have held back on (eg Keating 5) and McCain will have few resources to counter.
August 26, 2008 3:24 PM
It might serve a double purpose there. You bring up a great point but I think it does also serve to allow Obama to frame the image of his campaign the way he wants. He has worked very hard to give peopel the impression that he's somehow above it all and "Presidential" Plus, It wouldn't serve him at all to be seen as always counter-attacking. That's a weak position
August 26, 2008 3:34 PM
War of the worlds
By Brent Budowsky
Posted: 08/25/08 07:58 PM [ET]
When Sen. John McCain lied about Sen. Barack Obama and said he would lose a war to win an election, the single mom and her teenage daughter fought back. Mom cancelled Sunday dinner. Her daughter returned the CD. They gave another $20 to Obama. In their America, the big truth must defeat the big lie.
When McCain (R-Ariz.) lied and said Obama (D-Ill.) would rather shoot hoops than visit wounded troops, the vets for Obama fought back. They gave a standing ovation to Obama’s work for wounded warriors at Walter Reed while McCain lets veterans down on major votes, far too often.
When Cindy smeared Michelle — calling herself always patriotic, implying Michelle was not — the executive assistant in Washington fought back. She is organizing a rally for Barack where those who don’t have much will give what they can, to change the course of history.
When McCain lied about Obama and said Obama wanted to send political reporters and television cameras to visit wounded troops in Germany, the war hero who should have been president fought back. John Kerry spoke with integrity and passion that this time, the big truth will defeat the big lie.
When McCain smears Obama, proud of his ads with young blond women and talk of “the messiah,” the Obama kids fought back. Throughout America they came with blue shirts and white pads, signing up more volunteers and small donors who total more than 2 million patriots believing that this time, in our America, the big truth must defeat the big lie.
The man who was John McCain in 2000 would be sickened by the McCain who campaigns today, and would stand against, not with, the heirs to those who fomented hate against Jefferson and Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, Jack, Bobby and Martin who were all slandered by the haters of their times. As Barack is in ours.
It is a war of the worlds. Little people with big hearts, patriots who would lift our democracy, the kids who will inherit the future, the believers in truth and honor in politics are fighting back every hour, every day, across America.
It is a war of the worlds about the content and character of the democracy of our country. It is a fight to the political death between the big truth and the big lie, between those who would lift our country up and those who would tear our country apart. The stakes are enormous. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is the truth that sets us free.
August 26, 2008 3:26 PM
Gee, thanks for telling everyone. It's no longer stealth is it?
It is my understanding that public figures do not get the same protection a private citizen does against libel and slander. It's why we see Swift boat and Willie Horton ads.
Exposing those directly responsible for the attack ads will go a long way to undermining them.
August 26, 2008 3:34 PM
The request to the DoJ is for them to check to see if this particular group is violating any federal election laws. It has nothing to do with slander, nothing to do with the truth of the message. Under McCain-Feingold rules, groups like this can't run ads promoting one candidate or the other and they have to do more than just exist solely for the purpose of running ads. The Obama campaign's argument is likely that this isn't really a group, it's a just a name, funded by one rich guy, whose sole intent is to put out political ads. They'll likely wiggle their way out of it but why not make them have to prove that they are legit and following the rules?
There are no rules against lying in political ads. But give what we've seen in the last several years, perhaps there should be.
As for pressuring stations and advertisers to prevent this particular ad from being run, that's all good. Michelle Malkin and her motley crew got Dunkin Donuts to pull an ad featuring Rachael Ray because he scarf looked like a keffiyeh. Now, that was silly and ridiculous but also well within her and her blog readers' rights.
August 26, 2008 3:48 PM
Thanks for reporting this, Greg, so the national media can pick it up.
August 26, 2008 3:37 PM
Stop worrying about the MSM picking up on the stealth strategy.
The MSM is too stupid and lazy to report on something like this.
Heck, for weeks, I never heard Obama speak at all at he end of July, because the clowns in the media were too busy talking about Paris Hilton.
Now they are busy talkign about HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY. So yet again, they will miss this and many other stories.
August 26, 2008 3:47 PM
They already did.
August 26, 2008 4:02 PM
Yes, a buried story on USA Today's site. Wow, maybe thousands will skim that! Find this on CNN's front page and I'll get back to you.
I repeat, the only thing we've heard all week is HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY. The MSM wants big juicy stories.
August 26, 2008 4:12 PM
I won't disagree with that. This is Clinton week, with guest stars Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party.
By the way, this headline is currently on the CNN.com home page:
Praise plentiful for Kennedy, split on Mrs. Obama
Read the story to see what's wrong with that headline.
August 26, 2008 4:33 PM
Weird story. No "split" on Michelle at all.
August 26, 2008 6:22 PM
I believe it is the McCain Feingold law which makes this ad illegal.
August 26, 2008 3:50 PM
Libel involves a publication. Publication is construed or defined broadly to include radio and television broadcasts.
August 26, 2008 3:50 PM
Uh...you could've helped me out up thread a little...
August 26, 2008 3:57 PM
That's wrong. "Publication" is a term of art in defamation. It means, literally, telling a third person. You can therefore "republish" slander without ever writing it down. (And the publisher of the slander is also liable).
August 26, 2008 4:10 PM
Your write-up isn't entirely accurate.
Obama has been responding to this ad more widely than you suggest, perhaps much more widely.
The response Ad has been running in Virginia for just as long as it's been running in Ohio.
I strongly suspect Obama's response ad has been running in each of the markets that the the hit piece was run. I believe the swift-boat AD was only run in Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
So Pennsylvania and Michigan have probably also seen the Obama ad, thought I can't confirm this.
August 26, 2008 3:55 PM
What fogu2 can't seem to understand is that the legal issue with the Ayers ad is not slander, it is that 527s are prohibited from running ads that advocate for or against a specific candidate. thus a 527 can run an ad on, say immigration reform and remind viewers what McCain's position is, but they can't say "vote for McCain because of x, y, z." Do you get it now?
August 26, 2008 4:06 PM
Does the law governing 527's hold broadcasters liable for airing ads produced by illegal 527's? I don't know myself. Libel seems to be the most obvious potential liability for the stations.
August 26, 2008 4:14 PM
They're individually liable for conforming to ALL LAWS regarding the broadcast of content on their stations. That's why they refuse some ads -- it's almost never a question of libel or slander.
August 26, 2008 5:29 PM
You know that Bill Clinton is no more a racist than George Wallace. Prior to being defeated by racists in 1958, Wallace was about as progressive on race as any Southern politician. But once he was beaten by the racist, he decided he had to join them if he was going to win. As a result, Wallace's name now means racist to most people. But in 1982 as he made his final run for Governor of Alabama, George Wallace made a heartfelt apology for his racist behavior and actually won the votes of most of Alabama's black voters.
Bill Clinton can best be described as progressive on race but he is far from being a racial egalitarian. And he did pander to the racist in the primary. His denials just are not believable. Given his current behavior I don't expect an apology until he is on his death bed. At this point I have more respect for George than Bill.
August 26, 2008 4:11 PM
As I have noted on these pages before...
You cannot win anything with the national corporate media. You are playing on their turf, using their equipment, and they control your message the moment it leaves your mouth.
So at least I agree with them not trying to win this in the national media. The corporate media is a one way republican street. We have to come up with other ways to change the narrative and attack and make it hard for the media to spin. You know they will, we need to (when using the national media) to make sure the messages are too strong for them to water it down or pick it to shreds. We need other NON-advertising ways of wrenching the cameras and the narratives away from the corporate spin shacks.
August 26, 2008 4:12 PM
Yes, the sooner we realize the MSM is not our friend, the sooner we try to get around them or at least dupe them.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/study-press-tougher-on-obama-t.php
August 26, 2008 4:18 PM
Put "The Weather Underground" on your netflix list if you haven't seen it. Great documentary.
August 26, 2008 4:20 PM
haha the only thing fogu2 will "get" is what he coolaid he is spoonfed from the right wing. He is just another repub robot. Dont bother confronting him with "liberal" facts or reasonable arguments - they wont work.
He is only posting here to enlarge his sad e-peen, in a desperate bid for attention. Ignore him.
Mind you, I do long for the days when we can arrest these robots and put them up against the w...er reasonably have intelligent discourse with them (AHHAHAHAH).
On the actual issue: Brilliant move. But really, we need to recruit a bunch of dock workers, fruit pickers and iraq vets, arm them with ball bats, and send them with a lawyer each to the repub convention. THAT would be the only discourse those robots would "understand". $$
August 26, 2008 4:27 PM
Could someone, please, debunk they Ayers story for me. In the versions that I've been exposed to seem to go like this:
Obama was the head of some organization. Also in that organization was Ayers. Obama didn't resign/disavow/whatever that organization once ayers was in, therefore Obama can be accused of tacit approval and or convenient acceptance of Ayers and his past actions. Added to this is the idea that somehow Obama doesn't want this to get out, and there are some "papers" involved" that Obama got Mayor Daley to supress.
All weird, guilt by association stuff which would be pretty mild even if true. But what, if any, truth is there to this?
August 26, 2008 4:28 PM
I think there's a belief among the wingers that their relationship is closer than Obama would have us believe. But I've yet to see anybody come out and say, "O yeah, they're real good friends, they've socialized with each other in the past a lot". I don't know if there is evidence of this out there - I doubt it - but if this were just about sitting on a local board or two together, this wouldn't be an issue at all. And it probably still isn't an issue. Ayers contribute $200 to Obama's state senate campaign years ago. Big deal - so did a lot of other people, I'm sure, and $200 is chump change.
This is the one thing you'll always hear:
"In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn."
The Obama haters will have you believe that Ayers was Obama's political mentor, that he launched Obama's political career. But the above is not even close to being evidence of any type of relationship like that between Ayers and Obama. It looks like Alice Palmer called for the meeting and selected the location. And there were other people there. I read the long Ryan Lizza piece in The New Yorker about Obama's Chicago roots - a piece that didn't really paint a pretty picture of Obama (actually, it showed him as ruthless political operator - to be honest, I find that a positive when it comes to being a presidential candidate...you have to fight tough) - and it mentioned Ayers maybe once and only in passing. (I believe it was about the event above but it focused more on the passing of the torch from Palmer to Obama...when Palmer wanted it back, Obama wouldn't give it up)
As far as I can tell, there's nothing there. But Stanley Kurtz - a winger (he contributes to The Corner) - is on the case and studying the files so if there's anything else there, I'm sure he'll be screaming it from the highest mountaintop. Until something else emerges, this is just a smear - the old "guilt by association" deal, even though Obama "association" with Ayers is pretty darned thin, at least based on the evidence available.
August 26, 2008 4:48 PM
There are two commonly cited connections, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation. Obama chaired CAC; there was potentially some contact between him and Ayers in Ayers role with the Chicago School Reform Collaborative. UIC has records from the CAC; they were originally going to be released upon request of a right-wing group, at which point UIC said "We actually can't release these til we get permission from the donor". That's the 'suppression'; the papers have since been released.
The Woods Foundation connection is simply that they both served on the board of a charity at the same time. By that definition of connection, McCain is heavily in support of universal civil unions - he serves on a board with Jim Kolbe, who supports them, therefore McCain must think the same things.
August 26, 2008 4:58 PM
Those two things and the 1995 "house party" visit (or whatever they call them) at Ayers' apartment, one of several that State Sen. Palmer took her protoge (at the time) to to introduce him to the district. Oh, and Ayers apparently contributed $200 to his State Senate campaign (possibly at that party?)
Here's the only treatment of it on Factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html
Somehow, I bet a list of the 'suspicious characters' that served on Boards of Directors with McCain or Cindy would make MUCH more interesting reading! (Hey, I've been on a few BODs myself and surely wouldn't want to be tarnished with the political or other beliefs of some of my 'colleagues')
A true molehill....
BTW, I totally disagee with vets4change's suggestion (although the possible attacks are pretty funny). Or - maybe half-disagree. I think each attack should be addressed straightforwardly and factually and THEN a somewhat "reciprocal" (and accurate) attack be made on McCain:
"McCain says Obama associated with a murdering terrorist named William Ayres. Obama was introduced to Ayres, now a Univ of Chi professor, at a political coffee, held to introduce Obama to people in the district where he was running for State Senate; Ayres contributed $200 to his State Senate campaign; and Obama and Ayers served at the same on the boards of two different organizations. That is the extent of any connection. --- On the other hand, John McCain __________________ (fill in more telling questionable connection)"
Messages:
1) I'm not dodging any inquiry, the public is entitled to all releveant facts;
2) if you want to talk about this kind of guilt-by-association, John McCain is MUCH more sketchy than I am;
3) I'm not even *saying* he's done something wrong, only that as good a case can be made against him - you have to decide for yourself; and
4) I wouldn't even be making these negative insinuations about McCain, which are irrelevant or worse, but won't let him make them about me with no consequences.
Granted you would need a much better ad-writer, but I think that is both tough and consistent with Obama's message/approach (If it were up to me there would be no attacks of this sort but I'n not going to be a doormat.)
Actually, I hope Biden does make some gaffes or they start running his old ones - his are rarely stupid and never mean-spirited. For every ad focusing on one of Biden's, there should be a response showing two of McCain's. And some of his ARE stupid and/or mean-spirited.
August 26, 2008 5:37 PM
In my view, the best way to approach this is to not even acknowledge the attack ads. Simply go about your own attack ads. If they say "Barack is a Muslim", do not waste time, money, resources with "No He's Not".
Simply, deflect it and run your own. Something like "McCain is an Ambien junkie, and is not ready for the 3am call". "McCain called his wife a cunt in public, he is not sure which one, but claims he has moral values?" "McCain claims to be an evangelical, yet has been divorced, takes drugs and likes the taste of his own urine". Something along those lines.
August 26, 2008 4:53 PM
I have not seen anything to suggest that the Obama campaign has threatened to sue anyone for defamation. Clearly they feel the sponsors of the ad are breaking campaign finance law, and have asked the Justice Department to look into that, but what, if any, legal threats have they made against the stations?
August 26, 2008 5:04 PM
is it smelling trollish in here or what?
mind you, kudos to fogu, with the hilldog middle-finger pic, that is really good lol
August 26, 2008 5:20 PM
Release the Surrogates Now!
Now, the Democrats must move away from their flawed policy of capitulation to the Republicans and the Bush administration. The American people you need to reach and persuade want a leader who demonstrates the ability to fight back and be in control, and in the forefront putting the opposition on the defensive and keeping them there. Policy must be firm, sharp, crisp, understandable and hard hitting. The presentation cannot contain equivocation and the campaign cannot be the place to negotiate one's positions. The points can only be made by consistency over and over and over and over and over again!
The war in Iraq has become an example in that the Obama approaches are being adopted by Bush, especially withdrawal on a timeline and a date certain. The war in Afghanistan and its dire state is an Obama revealed priority now being claimed by McCain/Bush. McCain claims to support the troops but his statements and votes in the Senate do not. These points must be made clearly for all Americans to know . Obama must take credit. Unleash the surrogates!
Concerns with the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons Obama called for negotiation. Despite criticizing Obama internationally as an appeaser Bush has negotiated with North Korea and has started with Iran. McCain/Bush takes the credit that belongs to Obama. McCain has publically call Obama a traitor who would "rather lose a war..." and then said he didn't question his patriotism. The traitor accusations require McCain to be held accountable for his lies. Unleash the surrogates!
McCain/Bush is fomenting a conflict with Russia and America’s positions in the world are impotent and compromised by the past actions of the Bush administration. McCain/Bush is destroying our military strength and McCain has even suggested reinstating the draft. This needs to be shouted repeatedly from the roof tops so all can hear. The young and their parents will flock to Obama.
The American economy is a shambles. This is due to the reckless economic policies of Bush/McCain. This Mantra must be heard constantly from now until the election in November. McCain will destroy women's rights that have been fought for all of these years. The McCain heath policy is bankrupt. The list goes on and on. Unleash the surrogates with marching order to spread the truth mantra style.
The Obama campaign needs to immediately unleash their surrogates with short, firm, truthful messages to use and be inserted into every communication and conversation. The Bush campaign in 2004 did this with everyone ordered to use "flip-flopper" with every contact. It worked. "McCain is Bush" is a great mantra message. Release the Obama surrogates to do their job of getting him elected!
Smears and lies will be coming Obama's way that you can't even image at this time. Be prepared with the aggressive prevention approaches and the rapid response approaches that will be required. Release the surrogates now!
Problem Solving, Communication, Education and
Prevention Strategies Consulting - Dr. Saul B. Wilen
August 26, 2008 5:22 PM