*yawn*

Scary! We know from the Swiftboat business how they can twist even positives into negatives. The sad truth is that negative campaigning works.

But I believe that the "book" on Hillary would be a lot thicker; despite all her claims of being vetted she has dozens of vulnerabilities that have barely been touched. Obama has for the most part lived up to his ideal of a cleaner way of campaigning but these guys have no such compunctions.

I don't think this could be less news-worthy.

The only real question is, have the voters learned their lesson about believing this kind of BS?

Belch.

Wow! No one could have predicted that!

When are they planning to "go after Obama"?

For clarification, "Election" refers to the general "election", right?

Or, are these conservative attack groups planning to run interference during the Democratic Primary?

Paul,

Suggestion to follow John Heilemann's columns on this in New York Magazine. He started to speculate on it in the March 31 article, added more in his April 7 article (even though the topic seems at first to be different), seems to have some sources:

http://nymag.com/nymag/10912/

The best strategy for dealing with negative attacks is to gather a group of journalists on both sides of the cons./lib fence and have them spend as long as they want to with Obama. They can vet him and make a report regarding Wright and Rezo and the issues raised by his associations with them. Kerry would have won if only he had done something like that; what would have come out is that, in addition to his maneuverings on the river on the day in question, he alone charged a rocket launcher enemy and shot him. That was his most heroic involvement, but it never came out. Obama has plenty of experiences like that to put the lie to the implications created by his association with Wright, including his inclusion of blue collar workers in a voting rights event. He is what he is, and he needs to open the doors wider for a fuller vetting. That's the best response to the attackoids.

We should prepare a "book" on these 527s and get our own 527s started to go after them.

We should do massive amounts of oppo research on the people involved in these groups, what their agenda is and their history of deceptiveness and then relentlessly attack their credibility both by feeding the information to the press and through ads. We can start with pointing out their use of a deceptive, euphemistic name. (Don't know what the name will be yet, but am sure it will be deceptive)

But McCain said he wants this to be a high-minded and civil campaign! I'm sure he'll just be heartbroken that he has "no control" over these dastardly groups that will be running the usual GOP gutter campaign.

The news isn't that hyper-conservative groups are preparing to attack the nominee. As other commenters have already stated, duh. The news is that:

1. Even the whacko hyper-conservatives have realized that Obama will be the nominee.

2. The attack groups are having to put together a book on Obama, as opposed to merely dusting off their multi-volume series on Hillary.

So what? This sort of thing is inevitable. If we had run Santa Claus there would be attack ads about illegal elf labor.

Pay close attention to this report: It shows what will happen in Iraq if McCain become the next President.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday April 08 2008 on p1 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 00:37 on April 08 2008. A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.

Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to ban his supporters from regional elections in the autumn, anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected to mount strong opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants to see finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

One well-placed Iraqi Sunni political source said yesterday: "The feeling in Baghdad is that this agreement is going to be rejected in its current form, particularly after the events of the last couple of weeks. The government is more or less happy with it as it is, but parliament is a different matter."

It is also likely to prove controversial in Washington, where it has been criticised by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has accused the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection by US forces.

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued in February that the planned agreement would be similar to dozens of "status of forces" pacts the US has around the world and would not commit it to defend Iraq. But Democratic congress members, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior member of the armed services committee, have said it goes well beyond other such agreements and amounts to a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate under the constitution.

Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only states that it is "in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened."

Significantly - given the tension between the US and Iran, and the latter's close relations with the Iraqi administration's Shia parties - the draft agreement specifies that the "US does not seek to use Iraq territory as a platform for offensive operations against other states".

General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, is due to face questioning from all three presidential candidates on Capitol Hill today when he reports to the Senate on the results of his surge strategy, which increased US forces in Iraq by about 30,000 last year.

Both Clinton and Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama are committed to beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq if elected, Obama within 16 months of taking office. Republican senator John McCain has pledged to maintain troop levels until the country is secure.

Don't despair, oh supporters of the Donkey.

We have a "Book" as well.

Chapter 1: The Iraq war
Chapter 2: The economy
Chapter 3: McSame
Chapter 4: Unending litany of repub corruption
Chapter 4: Forget the race card and the gender card - nobody feels guilty about using the age card.

John McCain is simply too fucking old to be president. He lucked his way into the nomination and hasn't been scrutinized since locking down same. He will perform terribly in debates and on tv. He is confused and reactionary and this comes across clearly. Americans will not elect the "Crazy old guy who keeps our frisbees".

If you don't think dems won't go all the way back to the Keating S&L scandal, you're wrong. McCain has plenty dirt and it's not all old.

progressives can neutralize this crap by recognizing most of the groundwork is done with their talk radio monopoly and boycotting and protesting relative to the local talk radio station.

the uncontested repetition all over the country to 50-70MIL 24/7 is the difference.

I forget, which attack group was it that pulled the orange alert after the Dem convention?

Nothing new in all of this. You should read up on the contest between Adams and Jefferson. It got nasty.