>> ^my15minutes:
remember those 8 illegal US district attorney firings, by alberto gonzales?
one of the DAs was named david iglasias.
he's actually the real military lawyer, upon whose life the movie "A Few Good Men" was based.
a republican, who after the service, had been appointed a federal DA, by bush.
and ACORN is the organization that he investigated, as a DA, found insufficient evidence to prosecute, and was then fired for not prosecuting, by gonzales.


Also, ACORN is required by law in most states to turn in all voter registration forms they receive to the authorities, even if the name written on it seems suspicious like "Oliver Closoff". McCain's running attack ads pushing Obama's alleged guilt by association when there isn't even a shred of evidence of ACORN's wrongdoing.

>> ^DavidRaine:
It looks like you missed Rachel's point (or perhaps you just disagree)...

Oh no, I completely agree the "liberal" media is no where near the "conservative" media when it comes to the type and depth of "guilt" in this arguement. I'm just saying that the kettle, while being horrifically black in this case, doesn't give the pot a right to not be as white as possible.

Just take the two campaigns as example. McCain's campaign is far dirtier than Obama's. Although the Dems have been "dragged" down into the muck occasionally by McCain's omnipresent attack ads, Obama's campaign has been at it's most effective when it sticks to the issues and avoids character assassination attempts.

>> ^paul4dirt:
i love how they are booing john mccain because he says you shouldnt be scared of obama. its kinda no not kinda its TOTALLY SICK, thats what it is. weirdos.

Well at least they're not chanting "kill him!" or anything really nasty.

Oh, wait...

This is pathetic. They're not debating each other, they're spouting talking points and reciting attack ads. They're saying the same things they said in the last "debate".

How about they actually talk to each other? You know, like in a debate? There's no reason to stay up any longer to watch this rerun, we've seen it before.

I don't mind actual attack ads, but this one is soooo flimsy. It's like McCain saying sex ed fund = kindergarten pornography. It's just stupid.

How can you extrapolate the existance of abortion clinic shooters in the 90s to McCain's two votes. What else is in that bill? Was it going to pass anyways? Would a stupid bill that probably restricted freedoms prevent someone from shooting a doctor?

We already have laws. Probably federal laws. WTF does passing more laws ABOUT SHOOTING PEOPLE matter? Just enforce existing laws. So McCain voting NO was a butterfly effect that rippled through extremist groups and caused the shooting... huh? If you actually think there is any validity to this ad, please, please take a long look in the Hope mirror and ask yourself what the ponies and unicorn dreams have done to you. Imagine McCain put out this ad. And if you are a proponent of The Big Lie then fine. If you think this is part of a lie strategy that Obama will repeat often enough until it becomes true than fine. As it is, it's a lame sad lie.

Anyways Jed Lewison is the lowest dirty tricks arm of the Obama 527 web coalition. We have enough Rove's and don't need another wannabe who was ex-Hill staffer.

You beat me netrunner.

My title was "Pathetic smear attack ad put out by Obama's 527".

This is the most dishonest *lie and pathetic weak attack ad I've ever seen. Jed Lewison is a total douchebag and must be getting paid quite a bit under the table from Obama's campaign.

You should change the title.

McCain voted against some bill in 1993... 15 years ago and somehow that means that some abortion shooter nutjob is connected to McCain.
Totally pathetic. If Obama lies in mud I hope he gets HPV from this low-life retard approach.

That....is how you make an effective attack ad.
If its true, and not just bending it a bit, then wow....wow.

Positive and Negative upvotes? For example, I upvote a lot a videos which I would not endorse. For example, when McCain has an attack ad against Obama, I upvote it for better exposure. However, I don't endorse the actual ad. It would be unfair to downvote it. But perhaps a green and red upvote arrow, with overall number of upvotes atop the total pro and neg votes? Or, for example, that crap video about Jews and conspiracy of 9/11 would be ideal for a negative upvote. Does anyone understand what I'm trying to get across? Could they explain better?
edit: Never mind.

Two more short videos for the Canada Sift:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Rick-Mercer-Report-Conservative-Party-Attack-Ad

http://www.videosift.com/video/Get-a-Taser-today

Is there really only one attack-ad voice-over guy that politicians can go to?

>> ^Crosswords:
It came as a bit of a surprise to me to, my first reaction was, 'who is that'. I think its an attempt to get all those angry Hillary voters, McCain's attack ads have certainly been going that direction, "He didn't pick Hillary for his VP cause he hates you, Vote McCain."


That's what all the speculation says, and honestly I don't doubt it. The only thing Sarah Palin has going for her is that she has a high approval rating. I don't doubt the Republicans will now get the votes from [Republican] women who were on the fence before, because she's an attractive middle-aged woman with young kids. [and keeps popping them out.]

She's shown she can manage her political lifestyle and a family. That might be enough to draw some people in.

It came as a bit of a surprise to me to, my first reaction was, 'who is that'. I think its an attempt to get all those angry Hillary voters, McCain's attack ads have certainly been going that direction, "He didn't pick Hillary for his VP cause he hates you, Vote McCain."

More analysis:
http://parisparfait.typepad.com/paris_parfait/2008/08/friday.html

McCain and his campaign issuing false charges

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek:

"...For about a month, McCain's campaign has been resorting to charges that are patently false. When Obama traveled abroad in July, to positive reviews, McCain decided he had to make attack ads that went far beyond the norm. In the past, plainly deceptive ads were the province of the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee or independent committees free to fling mud that didn't bear the fingerprints of candidates. But not this time. These smears come directly from the candidate.

"First, a McCain ad charged that Obama was responsible for higher gas prices, which was not just false but absurd. Next, an ad said Obama had cancelled his trip to visit wounded soldiers in Germany because he couldn't bring the press along. I was in Germany at the time, and as every reporter knew, the visit to the military hospital was never going to be open, not even to a press pool. It appeared on no press schedules. Obama had cancelled the visit when it was clear that the Pentagon viewed it as political. The charge was simply untrue.

"...One ad said that Obama would raise taxes on electricity. Nope, not in Obama's plan. Another said 23 million small-business owners would pay higher taxes under Obama. Factcheck.org found that the "vast majority" of small-business owners would pay the same in taxes as they do now, and "many" would pay less. An ad saying Obama had voted for a bill raising taxes, for families making more than $42,000 a year, was found to be "false." And McCain's consistent claim that Obama would "raise taxes on the middle class"--a major theme of his campaign--is "simply false," according to this neutral policy center. In truth, under Obama's plan, families earning less than $150,000 a year would get a tax cut, and only those making more than $250,000 would see their taxes rise.

"Maybe by the time the Democratic Congress got done with it, Obama's tax program would look different. It's reasonable to speculate that Democrats will raise taxes. But the McCain ads weren't talking about that, they were talking about Obama's plan, which is easily accessed on his Web site. McCain's description of his opponent's plan was and is untrue. This isn't opinion, it's fact.

"...But when he resorts to these kinds of falsehoods and casts such aspersions on his opponent's patriotism, John McCain is no longer putting his country first. If he were, he would recognize that the interests of the nation require a relatively truthful campaign. To fulfill his image of himself, McCain should stop lying about his opponent. For a man with his claims to honor and integrity, that's not too much to ask."

Definitely nowhere near as negative as http://www.videosift.com/video/McCain-Attack-Ad-Join-the-Obama-Fan-Club

This is more of a defensive attack ad.

I'm not fond of the negative turn, but it was kinda inevitable, especially when McCain's at 90% negative ads now.

I don't think Obama said he would never "feed into the attack ad fad", he said he wanted it to be a respectful campaign -- McCain ended that possibility several weeks ago, and Obama's chastised him for "feeding into the attack ad fad".

IMO, he's been slow in returning fire, and still isn't anywhere near as negative about McCain as McCain is about Obama.

Obama, for example, is still basing his negative ads at least partially on McCain's actual policies, and is trying to include a positive message about his own policies. McCain on the other hand isn't talking about policy at all, and when he is, he just flat out makes shit up.

Obama should just slap a campaign logo on this, this, or this and call it a day.

He may yet still, because it's only going to get more nasty from here.