OMG! This is terrying...I actually have a sick to my stomach feeling about this election!

What can the DNC and the Obama campaign possibly be thinking? Is there a "secret agent" from the other side on their team?

I'm beginning to think that the very things which appeal to me about Obama and which have appealed to so many of his ardent supporters, are what now are turning the tide against him ...his intellect and his thoughtful responses are seen as alien and "other" by the people who will flood the voting come November...our nation's pathetic educational system will come home to roost in the form of Palin-loving votes.

It is a nightmare scenario which we face and one that could be FAR worse than any "Bush White House"....

Too much negativity is a reason why many voters get turned off. Unfortunately, the loss of turned-off voters usually effects Democratic candidates more than it effects Republican candidates. Democratic candidates need those extra independent votes that may go to the wayside as the rhetoric heats up and the real issues these voters care about go to the back-burner.

Even though the research indicates that negative ads work, one must be cautious in using them. Contrasting message ads, often referred to negative ads, work because it cuts a clear distinction between two candidates. Carping for the sake of carping, and nit-picking in a tit-for-tat style is what costs the votes at the end. The voters have little tolereance for this kind of attack ad while their economic situations and the country crumbles.

And whoever thought that the Dukkakis campaign was a fine example of anything except losing should be fired.

You make good points, but...

"Look at how much mud was throw at Bill Clinton in 2002"

...I think you need a new calendar.

The difference between the Obama and Dukakis ads--and it's a crucial difference, one that makes them not at all alike, let alone "eerily similar"--is that the Obama ad uses McCain's image and superimposes quotes against his sleazy tactics from major newspapers (not just Obama). The Dukakis ad, while it obviously has the same theme, starts with an image of the tank (good grief, what were they thinking!!!) and then Dukakis, talking, talking, and it's totally ineffective.

But the Obama ad works, and that's how they're different, and why 44 will not be more ot the same 43.

There are a number of reasons why.

1) Bringing up the attack to refute it, brings up the attack. People are likely to remember it.

2) It's not moving your message forward, or even defending your message.

3) It shows your opponent has gotten under your skin.

4) It makes you look weak. Even hints of "He's lying about my record" tend to turn off swing voters.

Look at how much mud was throw at Bill Clinton in 2002. His refutation was excellent, because he mastered the art of being dismissive about it.

They only proven effective way to counter negative ads is with personal humor. Obama's team has not mastered this yet.

The ads are totally different. First, there's no Obama in his ad. There's McCain with character attacks, one after another, coming from Obama's campaign. The is issue of honor, which is about core character and morals - not about political strategic or campaign tactics. And unlike with Dukakis, there's no Obama being defensive, only an attack against his opponent. The character attack is embedded in a campaign that can be perceived as about "high road" politics, but it is, in fact, a character assault by Obama against McCain. The words and images being directed about McCain are harsh - made more credible coming from multiple news sources - but harsh nonetheless. Dukakis, on the other hand is preachy and defensive and says more about him than about the "scum bag" that was his opponent.

I'm starting to think the only way to win an election is to smear the other person with lies. People don't fact check statements for the most part, they take them at face value and if enough of those statements add up to support, they go with that candidate. Nothing you say after that matters because people would rather be "right" than admit they are wrong.

I have a feeling that the democrats aren't winning (and it's starting to look like we won't win this time either-amazingly enough) because the honest campaign doesn't win anymore. Hopefully Obama and Biden can come back in hit harder with this crap but I honestly don't think voters care. They want simple answers and 30 second soundbites to solve their problems. Policy wonks, those probably the most qualified to lead, aren't what they want to listen to.

...except the fact that we're running someone with a little more charisma than a greek dwarf!

How the hell did Dukakis get nominated again?

Message required.

a number of major news outlets have latched on to this story. I don't watch Fox "News",but the others seemed united on calling McCain out on his "Blizzard of Lies". What Mr. & Mrs. Flyoverstate want to believe is a different matter...

I think there is a perfect opportunity for the Obama campaign to leverage this issue and tie it into the "4 More Years of Bush" theme. McCain is conducting his campaign of lies and distortions based on the Bush model. He's lying already, how can you trust him in the White House?

They need to be specific to reach beyond the converters. Lest we make too many comparisons to Dukakis, bear in mind that Dukakis was a lousy candidate and ran a horrible campaign. He was running against the VP of a popular president.

The initial reaction to Palin was positive, because the republicans ran the product release. Its now up to the Obama camp to make the (clear) case how reckless and cynical this pick was.

http://palincounter.blogspot.com/

Funny.

He (Obama) is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't it appears here.

Just be grateful you can groan out another grunt.

McCain is a liar. Is Obama supposed to pretend otherwise because Dukakis called Bush a liar? I'm starting to wonder if Alex is really KateTex.