I think you're way off (except about Salon slipping. I mourn for the old War Room daily). Farhad is writing about the dissemination of information-- that happens to be political-- via the internet. I disagree with some of his conclusions, but its a well-crafted arguement that is more about 21st century information management than it is about politics.

The sw1ft b0471||g 0f 0b4m4 c4115 4 4c710||. 1 //0||7 54y 5p3f1c411y--y0u |<||0// w|-|47 70 d0.

It's a good idea because it aggressively attacks the rumors. Misremembering the truth? Come on. This strategy is geared toward opened minded people who just don't read a whole. It's unfortunate that they vote, but hey, that's democracy.

The old democratic strategy of ignoring the illogical rants that no one with half a brain could possibly believe has been ineffective (see Gore 2000, Kerry 2004).

Proactive is the key.

...that the only people who should be allowed to comment on politics are people with "expertise" in "political campaigning"?

I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that, because that would be plainly ridiculous, I'm sure you're aware. (It would give Mark Penn and Karl Rove -- veritable experts in political campaigning! -- more say than, you know, you!)

I think you've brought up some valid points. I hope that Obama's counter-intelligence people consider them.

I share your opinion that chain e-mailing is of scant benefit. In fact, I tend to agree with a previous poster who said that it's most likely counterproductive.

I think that mass media access is key- along with having articulate spokespeople who are able to unpack the smears and lies without aggravating their energy through over-focusing on them or descending into paranoia. I think that have the response project an element of unflappability is imperative. Humor can be effective, too- but for the most serious slanders and libels, it isn't called for, and finely controlled outrage is more appropriate.

Also- if possible, trace the lies to their source. And once the source is found and confirmed, hammer their integrity to pieces.

And even if he were a (nonpracticing) Muslim, there is no frakking way I'd call myself something I wasn't, especially if it concerned religion, which is, we are taught in this country, a private matter. I've heard similar nonsense from Muslims insisting I must be Muslim (despite my denials) simply because I have a Muslim name. (although, even that is subjective; Jews claim it, too.)

The request for the password box is very badly done. One should never, ever, reveal passwords like this. But in this case, the password never actually leaves your own computer - technical explanation coming! The box that pops up is done by a technique called Javascript - which runs only on your own computer, not on the web site. The script could upload the password, but I'd bet almost anything it doesn't.

But still a pretty awful implementation of the request. The request really needs to make this clear:

It is a bad idea to give your email password out, but we promise you it will not leave your own computer. It is needed to get access to your contacts address book.

But still a pretty crummy idea, I think. All sorts of bad things here: generating spam, appearance of collecting passwords, etc. It is one of the few things the Obama campaign has done that has offended me, and I'm on their mailing list and have contributed.

I have no problem with Obama fighting "slurs" posted about him, i.e. racial slurs or misinformation about his beliefs. I doubt, however, that the primary purpose of Obama's "war room" is going to be fighting slurs. Based upon his modus operandi so far, the primary purpose will be to dilute the impact of truthful but damaging information about him, and to disseminate propaganda in an effort to con voters into voting for him in November. He knows he has some very serious problems regarding his lack of experience, his continual flip-flops on the issues, and his various sordid associations, and he also knows that the Republicans are not going to be nearly as reticent as Hillary Clinton was about capitalizing on these issues. I say, don't fall for his propaganda. We've already seen the deceptive and seedy side of this "agent of change," and no Madison Avenue effort at damage control is going to change that.

Hey, there you are!

When you're done here, I have a question waiting for you over in the letters forum attached to the story advocating Hillary Clinton as Obama's VP. Nothing too complicated, just wondering if I can get the references for some poll numbers you quoted in various letters in your archive...

That's "theplanner", everybody. Also known as "Fred", "Fred Jones", "Hinnis", and who knows what other screen names.

theplanner, aka, has been racking up a track record far and wide on various sites from topix.com and Huffington Post to daily newspapers across the USA- from San Diego and San Jose, Ca., to Hampton Roads, Va. and Washington, DC, ever since his debut as an informal Internet political commentator, which dates back nearly three months, as best I can tell- the last week in March, 2008.

How did I learn this? Well, theplanner is in the habit of cutting and pasting his favorite writings and bestowing them wherever he decides that they would do the readership the most good.

(Hence "theplanner", I suppose.)

You know how people like to choose a special focus for their political comments, sometimes- well "theplanner" has done this. His preferred subject of concentration is Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. In fact, as far as I've been able to determine- both here at Salon, and elsewhere- that's his sole topic of commentary!

Yes, we know that many of the trusty Salon minions are wondering what's wrong with Obama, or they're worried about sexism....

But the times they are a changin'!!!

But here's a sneak peek at the latest front page story: and this time, Joan is worried about....herself!

http://salonparody.blogspot.com

The right-wing propaganda machine - they work at it 24/7, even between elections. I'm seeing one a day now on average, not all of them about Obama, a lot of them concern wedge issues such as immigration. I’m not as concerned about the 10% from the Pew study, I’m more concerned about the one-third of respondents who don’t know. They are not that far superior to the on the informed-on-current-events chain and theoretically still could be influenced by these emails. Repetition works, and the Republican misinformation distribution system has that covered. The emails absolutely have to be debunked - online, on the air, in the newspaper, in discussions with friends, wherever.

What makes them so effective is that the emails usually come from family, friends, coworkers and the like, sources that generally granted a higher level of trust than sources the receipient does not know. Therefore, the debunking is most effective when it comes from a similar trusted source, even if the acquaintance only says the online rumor is false and links to the Obama website. However, I do agree that it is not a bad idea to also link to factcheck.org, or some such politically-neutral source, as long as the links don’t get too entangled and confusing. Ease and simplicity are important because people are often getting these at work amongst the spam and work-related emails.

Fighting back is important - a true recent story:

A couple of weeks ago, I got the following email from one of my bounty of right-wing sources:

Subject: O'bama explains Nat'l Anthem stance....

He's got to be kidding.

Obama Explains National Anthem Stance:

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT?????????????? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless . . ...

It wasn’t me (although I have replied similarly in the past), but some other individual to whom he sent the email must have corrected him, because I received the following email less than one-half hour later:

Subject: FW: O'bama explains Nat'l Anthem stance....

I was Wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

I'm not sure everyone would be that honorable, but it sure was encouraging.

I can see where calling them smears would be insulting when referring specifically to the one about Obama being Muslim, but that really is just one of many. Maybe calling them falsehoods, misinformation, disinformation or propaganda or some such would be more appropriate.