Obama and RW Smears - Key Needs To Be Grassroots Support

[Median Democrat]

I have seen a lot of folks Monday night quarterbacking the 2000 and 2004 elections suggesting that Gore and Kerry lost because they did not respond in the media aggressively enough. This may be true in part, but I think it is a dubious proposition because responding in the MSM to MSM spread lies requires the cooperation of the MSM, which is owned in large part by the RW.

I think the real key and difference will need to be on the ground and on this board. In other words, DUrs need to do more than simply bitching on this board about MSM lies. Rather, we need to go out and talk to non-DUers and explain why we can't simply choose another Republican who promises more of the same. When they go into the liberal media bias, point out how they relying on that supposedly liberal media to get the smears against Obama, and point out how that so called "liberal" is owned by about 5 corporations.

For example, Disney owns ABC, and Disney benefits from GOP control over the FCC. Then ask, does it make sense that Disney would have a liberal bias?

In other words, if each activist Democrat can convince one person who is on the fence to vote Democrat, then we can win this election. However, relying on winning a PR battle played out in the MSM is a losing proposition. The MSM will always come down in support of John McCain. The stage has been set with liberal media theme even though it is complete BS; it is a smoke screen to cover their slant in favor of John McCain.

So, yes, Obama needs to rebut these smears, but we can't rely on the Obama campaign to do the work for us. Notice all the smear e-mails and signs being torn down as reported by DUers. The real battle is taking place out there in our front yards. Convincing 1 undecided person to vote Democrat is worth more than 100 posts or so on DU.

[blm]

1. Right. When Kerry countered the swifts at Firefighters Convention Aug2004, few Dem blogs

discussed it and most every one allowed the corpmedia to get away with not broadcasting the speech at all, and barely even reporting it occurred. Then, after the election, all the bloggers turned and blamed Kerry claiming he never countered the swifts at all.

They never ONCE examined their role in failing to FURTHER Kerry's attack on the swifts and his attack on Bush for hiding behind the swifts.

[Median Democrat]

2. Exactly, Relying On The MSM Alone Is Not Going To Do It

If anything, the MSM will use ads as an excuse to spread the smears. The key difference needs to be the people on the ground. People may easily dismiss an Ad defending Obama or a surrogate, but it is tougher to respond to a friend or acquaintance who PATIENTLY explains why the smears are full of shit.

OF COURSE THIS MEANS YOU CAN'T JUST YELL AT A FREEPER LEANING RELATIVE THAT THEY ARE A MORON. I understand this takes patience and will power.

[KharmaTrain]

3. The Dilema Of A Media In The Bag

We're seeing how both lazy and arrogant the corporate media is. You are correct about their motives...they fear an Obama administration cause it would mean the reinstitution of regulations. Their agenda has become very clear in how they have handled Senator Obama's trips along with the cratering of Gramps campaign. They're riding to the rescue...as if this election isn't about issues, but about personalities...and in specific, them.

Here's the rub...Obama fighting too hard against the latest slime plays right into the Rove machine game (and that's where all of this is coming from). Many DO see this as desparation from Camp Gramps but that opinion can't be measured in a poll and doesn't fit the corporate media narrative.

It was extremely telling to see Mrs. Greenspan defend Obama today...after playing prima donna last week in Baghdad...telling it as it was because she was there...and some wingnut spinner still had the stones to tell her she didn't see what she saw.

My hopes are that SOME in the corporate media with a little bit of class and scrupples will start standing up.

Yes, the battles are in the trenches, not on the teevee...and I tend to think its good we're getting a good kick right now. Maybe it'll get a few folks off their duffs and out doing the real legwork that will bring home the resounding defeat of both the GOOP and its corporate media enablers.

Cheers...

[Median Democrat]

4. The Question Is Do You Abandon Your Message To Focus On Smears

I don't really remember Kerry's big policy initiatives, because towards the end of his campaign, all I recall is the controversy regarding the Swift Boat veterans. Now, most folks believe it was bullshit, but that is all Kerry's message devolved to, that it was so unfair that he was being attacked. The focus became RW attacks, rather than what would Kerry do for the country or how Bush screwed things up.

That is why Obama needs to focus on (1) his message and (2) attacking Bush/McCain. With respect to responding to smears, I would like him to take a play out of Ronald Reagan's book, and just "There you go again." Let the surrogates attack aggressively, but I would take Obama's tone of "Of course, they are lying."

[KharmaTrain]

5. Different Campaigns, Different Times

I'm with you that Senator Obama should not take the bait and stay on his message...keep his campaign forward looking and keep hammering on the issues that matter to the voters. It's what got him where is is now and he's done a great job of dictating his race, not the other way around. You get caught in these pissing matches and you've lost your focus and have to fight on their turf. And that's what Gramps has to do if he stands any chance of keeping this thing close.

While I have a lot of admiration for Senator Kerry, he was a lousy candidate and had an even losier campaign. He was ill at ease on the campaign trail and was easily distracted from getting any message out. And, you are right, in the end his campaign really didn't offer much other than being "anti-bush"...another framing from the GOOP that hurt him. He couldn't make people want to vote FOR him...couldn't close the sale.

Senator Obama has run a far better campaign and he's a lot more prepared for the attacks. The problem is if he bites, he ends up on their turf. This is a job for surrogates and the "alternative media"...the blogosphere. The campaign needs to run people out (which they have) to refute and debunk, then the rest of us to follow up with facts and support.

IMHO, I see this sliming as desparation rather than trying to get ahead. The vast amounts of lies and distortions aren't believable and appears as whining and sour grapes. Even worse, in the Swiftboat game, it was surrogates who did all the work, not boooshie. This time it's Gramps doing the hatchet work...and with it comes the strong chance he'll over-reach and this could backfire on him. Some pundits are already saying that's happening. Gramps is quickly becoming a parody...lying is the least of his problems.

Cheers...

[blm]

6. How did the Dem party pundits, left journos and left blogs do in 2004?

I'd say they are the ones doing better this election..... and, I paid attention to Kerry's serious policy initiatives, while others allowed the idea of the swifts to grow into a bigger deal than they were. If swifts HAD been as effective as some claim, then BushInc wouldn't have had to work 24/7 setting up the steal again as they gained control of every level of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted. Worked four years to set up that steal, and McAuliffe's DNC sat on their hands the entire time and let them do it.