Tech Republican talks about negative ads and says they are preparing for an onslaught of them to turn up on the net. These ads will be without the fact-checking/scrutiny of a campaign making them much more “interesting”, read, vile.

I personally keep hearing about how the online world will change politics “for the better” and give rise to a “new politics” but when I actually go online I see some pretty vicious and disturbing attacks.

“Probably there should be a rule against it,” said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine’s profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. “But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”

An interesting article on MSNBC which stated “MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.”

The article is chock full of good quotes that will make your head roll:

“I don’t make campaign contributions,” said Jean A. Briggs, who gave a total of $2,000 to the Republican Party and Republican candidates, most recently this March. “I’m the assistant managing editor of Forbes magazine.”

When asked about the Republican National Committee donations, she replied, “You call that a campaign contribution? It’s not putting money into anyone’s campaign.”

(For the record: The RNC gave $25 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004.)

There is a followup to this story here.

Hat tip to Tom Bevan who looks over Jennifer Hunters rather sloppy but much circulated article telling the tale of a phenomenon of Republicans jumping ship for Senator Barack Obama. It is apparently a movement that comprises the three people Hunter interviewed and a Web site of 75 supporters in 11 states.

The original article turned up all over the Internets and was championed by tons of people who saw some kind of revolution occurring. So hopefully the counter argument can make as many rounds.

“It is way too early to make predictions” is usually the first line someone uses before making a prediction about the election. I am full of my own predictions too but I am trying to steer clear of them because, lets face it, this campaign is just beginning.

I do have a lot of QUESTIONS and thoughts though. Here are some relating to Democratic electorate.

Read the rest of this entry »

A profile piece by Lois Romano in the Washington Post takes a look at the team behind the Clinton campaign.

Still, veteran operatives were bewildered by the ferocity with which the campaign attacked opponent Barack Obama and David Geffen after the Hollywood mogul publicly criticized Clinton and threw his support to Obama. The tactic kept the story unhelpfully alive for days. Campaign sources concede today that the situation could have been better handled, but they also acknowledge that no one on the team really objected to the counterattack.

“You have to understand,” says one, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the misstep. “We were always the underdog before, always under seige. It was reflexive. But we learned something.”

Not a whole lot new but if you haven’t followed the story before its a good primer.