2000: The "Al Gore is a Liar" campaign
The rightwing compiled a whole list of comically ridiculous distortions about Gore, and "writers" (stenographers) at major, serious newspapers repeated the lies verbatim as fact (and then quoted each other -- "the echo chamber"). The Gore campaign reacted too late with too little, apparently thinking nobody could possibly believe such craziness and that if it's ignored, it will go away -- whereas if it's responded to, it could take over, drown out the campaign messages that had been carefully honed, and distract, pulling things off-track.

We just need to "get the truth out," past the media, right? But the horse had already left the barn before the campaign tried to lock the barn door. "Al Gore is a serial exaggerator" had taken hold, and it's hard to get the horse back into the barn.

(By the way, I am NOT saying that is all Al Gore's fault.)

2004: The "John Kerry is a Traitor" campaign
The rightwing managed to redefine a war hero as a traitor -- quite a feat indeed! The Kerry campaign responded as the Gore campaign had -- too little too late, and I think for the same reasons. (Who could possibly believe such lies? Don't feed them with attention - just stay on message.) Once again, the horse left the barn, and the campaign was REacting, trying to overcome something that was already out there.

(Again, I am NOT saying that is all John Kerry's fault.)

(2006 INTERIM: The "Vote for Democrats and Die" campaign" -- The answer to "What the HELL is it going to take before people freaking wake UP" question is answered at last: Near collapse of the economy, the military, foreign relations, and anything else you can think of. Democrats regain some real power.)

2008: The "Barack Obama is a Terrorist" campaign
The rightwing tried it, a lot of the media rejected it (especially compared with their compliance in 2000), Republicans had cooked themselves into burned toast, Obama was an awesome, compelling candidate, the campaign was on-target, the party was on message, and the lies were overcome in immense measure!!

Victory at last!! Forge ahead!!

2009: The "Health Care is BAD" campaign
Here we go again. Even with the White House and both houses of Congress -- and TEAMS of highly-paid career experts tackling every issue on every level -- Democrats are REactive, as thought this were a surprise.

Like, "What, are you kidding me? How could anybody possibly be convinced that something as obviously good as healthcare is actually bad?" Meanwhile, people are equating it with Hitler and murder. Nobody saw it coming, apparently --the horse is out of the barn running wild, Democrats are asking bewildered questions about how to close the door now, while a CORRUPT minority is successfully convincing a FEARFUL populace of outright lies, day after day after day.

(Once again, I am not saying this is all President Obama's fault.)

So...
WHY are Democrats still playing DEFENSE???

WHY are Democrats always REACTIVE, rather than PROACTIVE?? It doesn't take years of expertise or high salaries to anticipate that the opposition will mount an outrageous campaign and to set up the machinery to fight back, QUICKLY.

WHY are Democrats always VICTIMS?? "It's the media," "It's the idiots," "It's the money" -- No kidding! Here we are now, with all the power in the world (even literally, perhaps), with a historic number of people behind the president, against the rightwing, seeking change and hope... And WE are fighting "back:" -- against what??

What are the excuses, again? Rightwing radio? Willfully ignorant people? Are you kidding me???

(AGAIN, for the people with the hair-triggers, I am NOT blaming Barack Obama, the man, as solely responsible for all of this. It's a broad system, with many layers and calculations involving a lot of people. He is one person in this equation, who's tasked others with various jobs.)

HELLO!!! We aren't VICTIMS anymore! Our party holds THE Power nationally and internationally. Our Democratic president is THE Leader of the Free World. And we're whining about the power of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin? We're surprised there are gullible people swayed by fear in this country, and can't overcome this? Our party leadership is clueless about how to "control the message?"

Our well-paid, experienced experts at the highest levels of power are caught playing defense, as though caught off-guard -- trying to put the horse back in the barn. Why was the door even left open? Are they really incapable of seeing the opposition's machinery and MO, from 2000, 2004, and 2008 (and years before those)? Is there any SURPRISE here??

I'm reaching a point of complete and total cynicism. I have to wonder whether the party is even trying to succeed at its stated goals. Either they are smart but not trying, or they're trying but not smart....

I believe they are smart.

(And I'd rather believe they aren't.)

Tools -- things you USE for the ends you want.

What a sorry bunch of deluded morans. A whole lot of fury, emotion, and opinion -- totally heartfelt and invested in -- based on lies and manipulation.

It's puppetry at its worst.

I never much liked the term "tools," applied to people -- but here, it's a perfect fit. I feel sorry for them, and infuriated with their puppeteers.

Why should I have to pay for things I don't need? Like public schools - I don't have any kids in school, so why pay for it? Let the kids damn parents pay.

If they can't pay, they shouldn't have children. But don't make me pay for any abortions, either. Stop having sex or use birth control. But pay for the birth control yourself.

No money? Not my problem - rob a bank. But don't expect me to pay for your prison stay -- you pay for it yourself. Rob another bank or something.

And furthermore, there are roads all over the place that I never drive on -- why should I pay for them? And the library -- haven't been there in years! Haven't had to call the police or fire department, ever. Why can't we privatize those?

I'm still pissed that we didn't privatize Social Security. We know what to do with our money better than the government! We could have invested in stocks!

Damn Congress -- why are we paying for them, anyway? People who want it should pay for it. We should have private, for-profit government so market forces will keep it in line, not this government-run government we have now. I never even write to them.

Speaking of writing, why do we still have government-run mail? Most of the mail is junk mail, anyway. I should only have to pay for the mail I want, and I think I get less mail than most people. Why should I pay for everyone else's mail?

I don't use a lot of laws, either. Let's just pay for the laws we want, a la carte.

And now healthcare. If my neighbor gets a deadly disease, why should I care? Unless it's contagious. In which case he should pay for my healthcare. I could sue him for it. In a privatized court.

Yup, this government-run government has got to stop.

I was miffed to hear this point of view on Scarborough the other morning, but I guess it's a wider stance than I realized. (So to speak.)

The idea is that Republicans have an advantage in making fair, "best-person-for-the-job" judicial appointments, because they aren't saddled with the limitations of diversity. That's right, diversity means limitations. It's always been complete coincidence, or a fact of natural superiority, that tends to put white men in such positions so often -- nothing to do with "identity politics" or "limitations!"

Here is Benjamin Wittes in WaPo today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

Now it's "bucking" something to nominate white men. Conservatives supposedly don't "care" about diversity, which means they "care about issues" (especially, as it just so happens, about issues negatively affecting women and minorities)!

No group is monolithic, of course -- Clarence Thomas, Phyllis Schlafly... But there's not a thing wrong with taking life experience into account, and race and gender matter. If there were a fantastic minority lesbian deaf atheist potential judge out there, wouldn't either party be "limited" by excluding her?

There's not just one easy, obvious "best person" who's a white male -- that's a strawman -- nor is there a big pool of "the best" who are white males yet somewhere beneath them a "diversity" candidate is picked. That's the image being pushed here, and I for one say it's BS.

Remember when we were all convinced of the things that are slowly dripping into evidence now -- torture, illegal eavesdropping, vast general disregard for national and international law? What were we called? "Fringe," people who just have personal hatred for the Bush boy, whiners, traitors, people who hate America, etc...

Now we see the "teabaggers," riled up by moneyed rightwing interests. They are indeed fringe, people who have personal hatred for the president, whiners, traitors, haters of America, etc...

It's been a rightwing ("Rovian") ploy to accuse others of their own weaknesses. In many cases, that equalizes the playing field in the public mind, and both sides are equally dismissed -- it's a draw. Their opponents' strengths are neutralized, as are their own weaknesses.

(Perfect example: Kerry vs. Bush on the subject of military experience in Vietnam. By the time the Swiftliars and the Dan Rather sting did their damage, there was a general cry of, "I'm sick of hearing about Vietnam! Both men served admirably, let's just leave it at that." Thus, the contrast between Kerry's heroism and Bush's privileged dishonesty was effectively neutralized.)

I wonder whether the rightwing is rallying their true fringe into a lather, insisting it's a "grassroots movement," to accuse President Obama of outrageous things in a way that, in the public square, equalizes sides. Can't you hear it now: "Both sides have a radical fringe. Both sides' extremists accuse the president of the opposite party of illegalities, dangerous erosion of fundamental American principles and rights, etc..."

Thus the plain contrast between the Bush and Obama administrations is "neutralized" -- dismissed. "I'm sick of hearing about presidents being traitors and acting illegally -- they both do what they think best, they both get crazy accusations, let's just leave it at that."

The people doing the "teabagging" are fearful, racist idiots. The people pulling their strings, however, are crafty and as smart as they are selfish. Put nothing past them.

I don't think the rightwing powermongers expect these nuts to be taken seriously and gain them any political popularity. I think they fully expect them to be ridiculed and brushed off. My theory is that this is really about the call for prosecution of BushCo criminals.

Their blast-faxes are always SO freaking obvious. I'm not paying all that much attention to teevee, and even I am hearing the same parroted lines over and over again.

First, if it's not Rove himself, it's a classic Rove tactic: Find the places where your opponent is strong and you are weak, and make accusations. It leaves us with our jaws dropping at the audacity of it, but it's played for them in the past. (Swiftboaters are a classic example.)

The Chimp was "polarizing," and they pushed his popularity with a phony image because his policies were not popular with the majority. (Fake "ranch," anyone?) Polls always showed Democratic policy positions more popular than Republican ones, and now Obama has personal popularity, as well. So they claim he's more popular than his policies.

They also achieved some level of success claiming we were a "fringe element." Now that they are the "fringe element," they're going for something like a self-fulfilling prophecy -- if they say we're polarized, and everybody repeats we're polarized, maybe we'll get polarized. Poll numbers make the whole thing laughable.

So they've got to get even more McCarthy about the whole thing and claim we're evil socialists, radicals, dangerous! They, of course, took us to the brink of fascism (if not beyond it) and the state of the nation (and world) today shows who the dangerous radicals are.

It's hard to know whether to laugh and ignore the claims, hoping they won't get traction (risking that they might), or fight back, hoping to stop them from gaining traction (risking that it publicizes their claims).

I'm looking at Obama from the left, and "polarizing" is the last thing I see. He reaches out so far toward unity that I often disagree with him. But polarizing? Radical? Unpopular policies?!

Hey Pollys! Have some crackers, and shut your beaks.

I am far from an expert on any of this, but my hair hurts from reading and discussing it here! There are a lot of fundamental misunderstandings.

First, some background info and analysis:

Here is the argument from Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama...

Here is the Obama administration's motion to dismiss:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/je...

They link to Glenn Greenwald, who in turn links to more background information.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...

And of course, Turley and Olbermann, like it or not:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30096...

Now, some things I've seen on DU today (I'm paraphrasing):

1. "It's okay because it isn't official Obama administration policy." It is an Obama administration filing. Whether or not you call it a "policy," it's still pretty damned important.

2. "The motion says Obama has 'dismissed' wiretapping." I think this is a misunderstanding of a phrase in the motion to dismiss referencing BushCo's "Terrorist Surveillance Program" as no longer "operative." That was put out of use (supposedly) back in 2007. (Which means warrants, by the way, not "no more wiretapping.")

3. "Obama shouldn't insert himself into this because it's a suit against BushCo." It's a suit against the government. It is now for Obama's administration to deal with, and they are. (Having said that, I think it could impact possibilities for lawsuits against Bush admin. personnel later.)

4. "The DOJ has to defend the government." It doesn't have to make the arguments it's making, re state secrets and legal immunity, in attempts to throw the case out.

5. "The motion to dismiss is Obama's way of getting the courts to rule on this illegality once and for all." This doesn't even make any sense.

6. "There are lots and lots of lawsuits out there." What has generated such controversy this week is the motion linked above. There's complicated history but there's not a big soup of confusion about "which case" -- this is the Obama administration's first response to the EFF lawsuit and it's a stunner.

7. "Why, imagine if everybody could just sue the government whenever they wanted to!" Imagine if we couldn't!!

8. "This is a financial lawsuit. The plaintiffs want taxpayer money. If everybody did that, it'd get expensive." Please. This is about the public's right to know whether or not the government is acting legally.

9. "It's only about what BushCo did in the past." It is certainly that, but it also impacts our Constitutional rights going forward.

10. "We can't let state secrets out!" Even just knowing whether or not intel was illegally collected will endanger us all? Please. We already know.

11. "Presidents don't give up power, they just don't." We aren't describing animal behaviors here, as in "cats don't bark, they just don't." This is about the law. If there is a "power" to break the law with impunity, it is a power that must be "given up."

12. "Bush asked Congress to make wiretapping legal, and they did, and now Obama isn't doing it anymore." Uh, not exactly. I'm not saying Obama's administration is eavesdropping without warrants, but Congress did not "make it legal."

Bottom line: civil rights and laws don't mean much if they can't be enforced. This is about holding government accountable for breaking the law. Otherwise we can't ever know, going forward, that the government is acting legally.

To be continued, probably...

Evidently, we're in for a ticket with a VP who has one or more problems:

1. No national security, foreign policy, or military experience

OR

2. Voted "yes" on the IWR, taking away the rationale for Obama's campaign on "judgment."

AND/OR

3. In addition, it may be someone who doesn't help in the south, and/or someone who pisses off the Clinton supporters, and/or someone who's a long-term "Washington Insider."...

(Disclaimer: Yes, I'm voting for the ticket. I would prefer a ticket with the best possible chance of winning.)

How dare Republicans run year after year on "You don't support the troops!"

How many of those troops would be home with their families instead of in hospitals or graves, if it weren't for this catastrophic fiasco that's STILL being promoted and cheered by John McCain?!? And they continue to exploit those troops, in their hospital beds, as political fodder, pretending THEY "support the troops."

Slap on a bumpersticker, accuse somebody else of "not supporting the troops," and vote Republican. Easy, instant "Patriotism."

Shame on them all. I hope the Obama campaign, and all his career-military supporters, come out STRONG against this tactic. We've seen enough of it.

Previous versions:

We're so much safer now! That's why we need to re-elect Bush/Cheney!
We're in so much danger now! That's why we need to re-elect Bush/Cheney!

We got surpluses -- that's why we need more tax cuts for the rich!
We got deficits -- that's why we need more tax cuts for the rich!

And now:

We must achieve victory! That's why we gotta stay in Iraq!
Hurray!! The surge worked!! That's why we gotta stay in Iraq!

Thank you, General Clark, for telling the truth and not backing down!

I salute you for making the point that McCain's military service, although honorable, does not automatically qualify him to make sound decisions on foreign policy and military strategy.

I appreciate your taking the GOP's phony machismo off the table, relentlessly, and bringing it back to the word "Judgment" over and over again on Obama's behalf.

You've taken on one mission after another for Democrats, and you are invaluable to the party. (Smartest guy in the room, too, as far as I'm concerned.) I'm always in the fight right with you, General!

The RNC isn't fit to shine your shoes.

So I was just looking at the list of channels on Sirius, when I saw channel 144: "Sirius Partiot: Conservative Talk."

That's right, "PARTIOT."

It's quite perfect, actually -- both because it fits nicely with the classic Freeper misspellings we've come to know and love, and because it seems like such a nice combination of Party + Idiot. (As in, "Partiot - Noun. Member of the GOP Party of Idiots.")

http://www.siriusspecials.com/prog_news.ht...

Last November 2nd, I wrote about "How the Game is Played" in the primaries.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

I guess I'm just old enough and cynical enough to see a lot of this as a cycle that gets repeated every time -- and yet, optimistic enough to hope we can help each other recognize the game and not get sucked into being "played" ourselves!

The next level of "the game" is about the General Election (pre-convention). Here's how I think this one goes (and some of this will continue post-convention, of course):

1. "The Rift!" The media insists the Democratic party has no unity, is in disarray, is suffering from a great "rift." The reality is that it's the Republican party polling against itself in all sorts of ways, conflicted and confused, but the story must always be: The Democrats Are in Trouble!!

2. Stupid Sharings (asinine emails, conversations at work, remarks heard while shopping, etc.) from people who assume you, too, are an idiot. Some people can be set straight; some people refuse to be. Figure out which applies to your annoyers, and if they're in the latter category, don't waste your energy. It's needed elsewhere.

3. "Running to the Center!" The Democratic nominee "runs to the center" (never walks, never flies, always "runs"). That's because the Democratic nominee is all about getting ELECTED.

4. The Great "WTF?" response to "running to the center." Some fellow sincere and well-meaning Lefties freak OUT as if it's unheard of, a big surprise, an outrage, a compromise that is completely unacceptable. How DARE a politician act like a politician, as if campaigns were all about getting elected?!?

5. The Third Party or Stay Home Threat. Lesser of two evils; no difference between parties; run two Republicans and the Republican wins every time, blah blah blah... THIS time, I don't think that'll play out as it has in the past, because the "change" about Obama is undeniable -- and yes, I mean his race -- it IS a positive, to embrace! (5a. Ralph Nader crawls out from under his rock, as he does every time there's an important election. Fortunately, he matters less and less each time.)

6. "The Wife is a Nightmare!" (Anyone else remember that?) Attacks against our candidate's wife -- she just NEVER knows her place, does she?!!

7. The VP Pick Hysteria -- I think this varies, but the MSM always tries to make a Beauty Contest out of it, focusing on what they deem obvious names, dropping the most absurd names in an effort to appear insightful, and leaving out (what I consider) the really interesting ones. And I always hope they're wrong, but they're usually right.

8. Modern American fiction returns with new covers. There are several tomes to this collection. National Security is the Republicans' Strength! The GOP just OWNS The Military, Strength with that big macho Capital "S," and All Sorts of Other Nebulous Hyper-Masculine Mystique Imagery and Bullshit. Small Government and Fiscal Conservation are Republican -- it's all about Tax Cuts! And surely you've heard the famous tale, "Tax cuts always increase revenues?!" (Pay no attention to that 1% at the top selling the country out -- look at that lazy 1% of poor people at the bottom cheating you! Hey! Some of us WORK for a living!) Nevermind that Republicans have shown themselves over and over again to be anything BUT smart managers of national security, the economy, or anything else. They've established this fiction over three decades, and it's become the given assumption. Modern American fiction.

9. The Great Equalization. The GOP starts trying to knock out the Democratic candidate's strengths, and inoculate their candidate against his own weaknesses, by creating a ruckus or controversy that will lead to a draw. Thus, for example, they create this big brouhaha with Dan Rather about documentation of the Chimp's lack of military service, so that in the end everybody's dizzy and sick of it and the broad conclusion becomes, "Okay fine, both Chimpy and Kerry served admirably, let it drop" -- as IF they were equal! Get ready for, "They both have outrageous surrogates," "They both flip-flop," "They're both Whatever McCain Is."...

10. As in the primaries version of this game: People of all stripes act like none of this has ever happened before!!

1. He isn't a lawmaker. I don't think a Senator should run with another Congressman or Congresswoman. The voting records are too easy to make hay with. Someone with a lot of experience would have a long voting record; someone with a short voting record would be dubbed inexperienced. Neither makes a good comparison or complement for Obama. In addition, there's the issue of the IWR vote in some cases.

2. He's got major national security/military creds. A four-star general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a lifetime of service -- the man knows his stuff, and that would strengthen the ticket enormously. McCain's military experience would pale in comparison. In addition, Clark is no "ordinary four-star general" (said tongue-in-cheek as if there were such a thing)-- he is a brilliant intellectual, first in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, etc.

3. He's a southern white man. I know, I know, I know I know I know -- it shouldn't matter, but in political reality, it does. I know there are other southern white male Democrats, notably the ones in Virginia everybody's talking about. But as I've long said about them, they are needed right where they are, and they aren't necessarily the stuff of national politics. They are conservative for one thing, and we might well lose their seats for another, and we need them! (I'm talking about Jim Webb and Mark Warner, who should become Senator.)

4. He's liberal. And, he appeals to moderates because of his biography. He can quote Bible verses, speak of his profound patriotism, connect with the rural south, explain military strategy; and in the next breath, defend civil liberties, attack Republicans, and promote progressive ideals in ways that reach beyond the stereotypes the GOP has spent three decades and billions of dollars to plant. He will talk tough when it's called for, but he knows when it's called for and when it isn't -- he doesn't need to talk tough as a posture for himself.

5. He's from Clinton's camp. His association with the Clintons used to be an albatross -- now, whatever one thinks of those characterizations, they can be a plus. I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, and think she'd have been great at the top of a ticket, but I don't think she's the best pick as a balance and complement for Obama. Bringing General Clark aboard could help unify the party, while still strengthening the ticket.

I hope Obama and his team give him full consideration. I can't think of ANYBODY better for VP!!

(Sorry to link to Politico, but I clicked through to this while wondering why the HELL Politico is now featured on Yahoo News next to AP, Reuters and AFP...)



I'm just sayin'... I'm afraid THIS is what they'll use to explain away inexplicable conflicts between polls -- including exit polls -- and the counted "results" in this general election.

There's no time to change the flawed voting processes by November. The only solution is to get behind Obama in numbers that the "Bradley effect" can't come close to explaining. If they go this route, the anomaly will have to be HUGE. We need numbers too big to ignore -- and yes, I think we can get them!

(Time will tell whether they'll do it this time -- I think Republicans run the country into the ground until it's so far gone only PAIN will bring it back; then they hand it over to Democrats to repair and to take the hits for raising taxes to pay off their messes, etc. And they've run it into the ground in a major way now. But time will tell.)

(Edit: All the more reason to take nothing for granted, including "safe states." But I don't think anybody wants to think of this right now, so I'll just stick it in my journal for future reference!)