You make a good point, and I don't intend or advocate villification of Bill Clinton. It is horrible to be labeled a racist and I wish that it had not happened.

But what I mean by a power differencial is that Obama is the one running for office right now. He has less than 100 days to make his case and Bill doesn't so far seem to be making it easier for him.

As for Clinton, especially if or when he shows people he's behind uniting the party--don't you think he will be forgiven?

My main worry is that if this election is lost, both sides will know where to point the finger, and it will not be at themselves/ourselves.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

The best book that I know of on sexual predators is actually called Predators by Anna Salter. However, it looks at offenders against both adults and children. I'll try to remember others and post again if you let me know that you are still reading.

You also might want to look for ways in which two personality disorders are common among child molestors: Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissitic Personality Disorder. You don't often find molestors who don't have one or both of these. Both are characterized by lack of empathy.

She gave the wikipedia definition I think. And she said Axelrod has a background in it.

Why, yes I did. I will offer it again for those who missed it.

The way I understand it "astroturf" is, as you say, fake grass...it's a term for a fake grassroots movement. In other words when Walmart wants a lobbying group to be exempt from rules that might be placed on a corporate lobbying group, they can sometimes front the group with a name like "workers of the world united" or something equally completely false and misleading, and pretend that it is a spontaneous group of people who want that particular kind of legislation...instead of Walmart driven legislation that would help their corporation to make money hand over fist.

So far so good dolores, but that is only one example. Don't get too complicated. Trying to create a spontaneous seeming grassroots movement is the key. Just creating a front organization is not in itself astroturfing. It is only astroturfing sucessfully if it arouses real grassroots efforts inspired by the fake stategy.

The problem is that Obama is a person and a candidate.

Now this is a rather confusing non sequiter. It would seem obvious that he is but it has nothing to do with astroturfing.

I fear that Smith has fallen victim to the Lynden LaRouche writer who has a new manchurian candidate book out on Obama that I have read about but not read.

You fear this why? On what evidence. I can assure you that I don't care for LaRouche, don't think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, and have read no such book. Therefore, you purpose in posting such nonsense upon no evidence is what? Is it your purpose to smear me with something created wholly in your own imagination?

Maybe I'm mistaking her sources, she didn't cite them. But this kind of accusation is hard to disprove or to prove...the point is that if Obama is fronting someone--who is he fronting?

Really? I said Obama is fronting someone? I said no such thing. Please quote from my posts what words of mine have provided you with this flight of fancy. Perhaps I can use this whole thing in fiction.

As to sources, I shall soon post a bit from Business Week. Perhaps you will think that this source to is a gift from the fairies. As to my source for astroturfing, the quote was merely the definitiion from wiki. Do you see something sinister in that?

It's all very vague and misleading...and helpful to the right wing.

The right wing? Would that be the John Birch Society or something? Again with the sinister innuendos.

Maybe it is you dolores who have been hanging out right wing sites and listening to religious nuts. Luckily, I have no religious nuts among my family and close friends. I would dump then if they ever displayed such tendencies.

Obama is being attacked as 1) the anti-christ 2) the manchurian candidate. I've heard all of these attacks before. And Edwards, we now know, didn't have a prayer.

Edwards and prayer? Let us leave that between him, his god, and his physically failing wife. Obama may be being attacked as the anti-Christ but no by me. I'm an agnostic. As to the Manchurian candidates, I have seen both movies and thought Glenn Close was just terrifying in the last. However, I seem not to take movies as seriously as you obviously do.

But if Clinton had won this year I'd be exactly as dull, urging Obama supporters to vote for her and to stop repeating right wing talking points against her.

Dolores, we were in some of the same threads. I don't recall you complaining too much about right wing talking points being used against Clinton. You could have, you know.

Now you seem to be aroused to passion, but by what? Is it not enough that you are eager for war with maureen? Now you wish to pick one with me.

I will post most about astroturfing, dolores, but I hope your responses will not be so deceptive or so obtuse -- I am not sure what you are playing at here. I suppose you could be striving for deceptive and obtuse at the same time, but despite your good girl reputation, even you won't be able to pull off such butter won't melt in your mouth innocence.

and I worried a bit about incurring your wrath, which is a different thing than deliberately provoking it (an accusation you didn't make but one which I'm forestalling). My curiosity got the better of me and I risked it. As it is, it seems I didn't invoke the full load, given your restraint in telling me what you think of me. I'm frankly relieved, because, childish as it is, I honestly would have felt hurt. I understand that's intellectually indefensible, given that we are all strangers here; nevertheless, it's true.

It's also true that I don't know a thing about you, nor do I feel I have suggested I do. I have only your posts to go on and I, like so many others, have felt entertained and awed by your intellectual prowess over the last several months. Somewhere along the line I noticed that your seemingly sharp jabs seemed to cross into cruel territory. Have you ever felt like you were living in surreal territory, crazy land, where what's real to you seems not to be to others? That's the thought I had last night and today as I watched posters go up against you, compliment you, get thrown down, and come back for more. Was it disingenuous of me to ask about this? I don't know. I really wanted to know what people thought of you. I wanted to know that I wasn't alone, that I wasn't crazy. In retrospect, it looks like bullying or ganging up, and if that's how you feel, I am truly sorry.

I certainly had no intention of provoking doloresflower, none at all, and that is the tiny crack in your armor--that you so confidently attributed false motivation to me. Because that is the single thing which I know and you do not--my own intentions. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe me; what matters is that I am clear on your misinterpretation of events, which gives me just a little bit more to go on regarding you.

The thing is, you don't really know me, either. Sure, I've put out lots of factual details, but you don't know me. You're right that I play it straight online, earnest. Hardly ever playful, although I've had my moments (Something about Xrandadu Hutman and AKA Smith and birds and bees?). What you don't know is how I am in the classroom, of course. Please don't make assumptions about a persona I've honed online at a newsmagazine and my persona with kindergartners. We all put on different faces in different situations, as you've mentioned yourself. (And for the record, I am not looking for a job in education. I already have one. I mentioned, not all that seriously, that I would consider extra freelance writing work.)

Your disclosures and feelings about doloresflower leave me at a loss and I will have to mull it over. I have had a similar conversation with Ben Sen about Weeping for Brunnhilde, and I am both fascinated and discomfited by the idea that people present themselves on anonymous boards in anything but a straightforward manner. What on earth does someone gain by lying, anonymously, to strangers? (other than the aforementioned paid networking, which, as I said earlier, I can't imagine doing unless the ideas and beliefs were in fact my own, and, come to think of it, unless I was able to disclose to other posters that I was officially working for Obama or whomever.)

You seem particularly bothered by challenges to your sanity and accusations of racism, which honestly surprised me. I thought you were made of heartier stuff, and I don't mean that badly. Your petulant demands that others come to your defense defy logic and the regular practice of posters here at salon. For goodness sakes, have you come to my defense when I've been accused of things? Charges of sexism and racism and just plain craziness have flown around here for months. Exactly where would the obligations begin and end? People are generally expected to defend themselves. I wouldn't assume there's no "ruffling" going on just because people remain silent. Occasionally the tone of the letters depresses me and I sign off, ruffled as all get out. As for Auntie Cairo not getting back to you when you asked for clarification, perhaps she had gone by then? If not, then I can't defend her, as it's my own practice to try to answer questions directed to me. As for your nationality, sobriety, etc., it was my understanding that those posts were playful, unless I missed something. I even thought they were overly generous, given your retorts. Perhaps the whole exchange was on a level different than I thought, which is why I sent feelers out. I don't like to not understand. Your sensitivity reminds me precisely of AKA Smith on this issue. She slings smart, snarky mud and then uses others' silence to the blowback as a weapon. I just don't know what that's about.

Peace.