This is the "test marketing" phase where rumors and assertions will be released narrowly and the effect on voter sentiment monitored by demographic. By the time the 527's roll in, there will be state-by-state scripts to follow. Media buys, email campaigns and faux-grassroots spin-ups will be coordinated to minimize message overlap and reach crescendo in the weeks leading up to the election.

Any impact of coordinated attacks launched now is doubly blunted, in that 1) Obama has already been "introduced" to much of the country and a media narrative established 2) the election is a good ways off. Both primacy and recency work to the disadvantage of Republicans at the moment.

The smart move is to play possum and develop a compelling Obama "anti-brand" that is thematically coherent, even if its component parts are based in falsehood. The Fight the Smears "re-branding" effort is likely to meet with some success as a countermeasure; the full measure of Obama's success will come with an effective re-write of McCain's recent history as a narrative of inconsistency that is philosophically disjointed at best and confused, soulless pandering at worst. He needs to sap the hard-right enthusiasm and moderate curiosity, possibly even at the expense of vigorous self-defense in the face of character assassination.

Posted at June 20, 2008 1:01 PM in response to Will There Even Be Any Scary Right-Wing Groups Swift-Boating Obama?

Simplest solution is usually the correct one. Many posters here and on hillaryis44 were interested in fomenting anti-Obama sentiment and disinformation as soon as he emerged as a formidable contender. They now suggest support for McCain and watching only FOX News Channel (indeed practically all the news items listed on HI44 come from the FOX web site) as the only remaining option. How is it so inconceivable that many or most of the most vitriolic contributors are -- and have always been -- aligned with the GOP? Who stands to benefit most from their activity?

Posted at June 15, 2008 1:38 PM in response to If Hillary Supporters now support McCain, are they truly Hillary Supporters?

I take issue with some of the NOW examples:

Keith Olbermann, "Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

Tucker Carlson is scared of being castrated by Hillary?

Bill Kristol thinks white women are the problem.

Daryl Cagle draws violent imagery of Hillary Clinton as the slain beast.

Jack Cafferty conjures up the image of Obama running over Clinton with a truck.

Seriously, I realize these are merely "nominees," but doesn't that underscore the point? A small number of narrow-minded assholes within the right-wing media (and sometime surrogates at the non-FOX networks) intentionally said things that slurred Hillary as a woman, and this was to be expected -- not condoned, but certainly expected. There were a few people who got bent out of shape by campaign events and spoke without considering the full impact (or at least neglecting to properly filter what was emerging from their mouths). I put Randi Rhodes and Ferraro on this spectrum. And then there were journalists who made some clearly off-color comments, none altogether dissimilar from those evoking negative male stereotypes in previous political history ("Wimp President?" on the cover of Newsweek describing GHWB is one such example). It's unfortunate that male dominance of the political scene has denied us a gender-neutral pundit vocabulary. If you called Hillary a wimp or a dick, or a soft-handed effete, or implied that she could not "lead the dance" of negotiations, you could be accused of denigrating her because she's not male. We really should be working toward a neutral set of expressions, but this is a shared problem -- the media is only one component. Hillary's camp trying to have it both ways (emphasizing connections to ground-breaking women, while balking at any attempt to associate them with negative aspects of femininity that are in the culture) made it difficult to arrive at the proper lexicon.

Could Obama have come out in defense of Hillary? Sure, but that could have been counterproductive on multiple levels. Obama could have been painted as condescending, attempting to call attention to and perpetuate the misperceptions that underlie the comments. Clinton could have suffered further from criticism that she needs men to defend her. Obama could be seen as deprecating and weak. Michelle could have been a more effective vehicle for this message, but after SC, I could see how she might be resistant to don that mantle. Ordinarily, I think BO is bigger than that and would say the right thing, but I honestly think that he was concerned about the potential backlash and was frankly disinclined to further protract the primary race. I'm disappointed, but I hope to see this rectified in coming weeks.

We need the same sorts of unflinching discussion on gender that we have already seen about race. We need a better political songbook, and we need people to be clear-headed in separating what's sexist from what's merely blunt. Being drawn too ugly in a political cartoon is the sacred right of any elected official or candidate. Let's allow them to retain that.

Posted at June 15, 2008 12:40 PM in response to Okay Can We Talk About It NOW?

...you can start to erode Obama's support among white independents and sympathetic right-wingers who happen to watch FOX.

Actually, the more likely intent is to motivate soft McCain support by the same process.

Posted at June 14, 2008 4:43 AM in response to "Baby mama".

The problem here is that the demographic that FOX is targeting a) likely doesn't understand the reference and b) is quite likely to be turned off by the response -- especially the way FOX will ultimately spin it:
1. Hey, what's the big deal? We don't understand all this "hip hop jargon."
2. Look at how angry these people are in denouncing our simple mistake!
3. Come to think of it, why is there even a word with that meaning in the black culture?
4. Wow, black people have so many problems, yet they complain when we call attention to them.
5. Given the problems in the black community and the Obamas' overly sensitive refusal to acknowledge them or even have them spoken of, how can he deliver change?

I suspect you'll see this over and over again: seemingly "innocent" commentary that is designed to whip up a frothy debate on cable news. If you can get B-roll footage of angry black men protesting and Hannity can compare them to Muslims upset at Danish cartoons, then you can start to erode Obama's support among white independents and sympathetic right-wingers who happen to watch FOX. Not at all sure what the antidote is here...

Posted at June 14, 2008 4:39 AM in response to "Baby mama".

To clarify, the Executive summary that leads Wulsin's report takes the Institute to task for the risks it imposed on study participants and recommended it halt the study. The Schmidt mailer strongly implies that the study surreptitiously or forcefully infected unwilling participants with the malaria parasite. While the reports that are available certainly suggest that staff conducting the experiment failed to properly inform participants of the potential risks and benefits and thus violated the tenet of "informed consent" in the execution of this research, there is nothing to suggest that the subjects were coerced by deception or forced to undergo infection. Some would argue that it makes no difference -- the only credible consent is informed consent, after all. But I think the facts don't square at all well with the Schmidt verbiage.

Posted at June 11, 2008 6:37 PM in response to House GOPer Accuses Dem Foe Of ... "Grotesque Medical Experiments" On Human Guinea Pigs

It appears there may be some merit to the claim, but the language is clearly overblown. It seems that Wulsin did some analysis on behalf of the Heimlich Institute that was engaged in such work.

see QuackWatch and Wikipedia

According to the QW author, she had an obligation to report the nature of the study to the CDC related oversight bodies that govern human research. This could easily be a conflagration of relatively minor lapses in judgment on Dr. Wulsin's part, but I think it's worthy of some scrutiny by the voting public.

Posted at June 11, 2008 6:22 PM in response to House GOPer Accuses Dem Foe Of ... "Grotesque Medical Experiments" On Human Guinea Pigs

Posted at June 11, 2008 10:32 AM in response to Another Red State Dem Refuses To Endorse Obama

I can attest to that, having grown up in Tulsa. There were two towns in OK that were supposedly competing for recognition as the national capital of the KKK.

There are few places in Oklahoma that couldn't be burned to the ground without improving the state / country. My family and some museums account occupy most of them. WV may be an armpit, but OK is an asscrack.

Posted at June 11, 2008 10:31 AM in response to Another Red State Dem Refuses To Endorse Obama

Put the shovel down, Senator...

...we have a shiny new Backhoe that we think will fit down there with you!

We believe in your dream of plunging the Straight Talk Express into the earth's molten core.

Posted at June 11, 2008 9:52 AM in response to McCain: Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important"