I am BEGGING all current Democratic campaigns to read this post

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

I just witnessed another absolutely pathetic Democratic spokesperson on MSNBC attempting to represent Dems on the Jim Webb non-issue about what is in his critically acclaimed (and endorsed by John McCain no less) NOVEL. Her opening comment was - "yeah . . . it is kind of disgusting". . . and then she launched into a complete non-sequitor about supporting our troops!

Anyway, BEFORE you go on the air to represent us in some discussion or other- PLEASE read Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and the Huffington Post. You will find someone else, with aid of many others, has probably already researched and debunked or refuted whatever it is you are going to discuss. And believe me, the bloggers and comments are usually a heck of a lot smarter, funnier, pithier and more informed than what you are coming up with. Good grief! USE the collective intelligence and commentary of these foot soldiers in the war of ideas! You need to be at your top top form because all the heaviest and slimmiest mud wrestles are just about to begin.

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. Here. Let's make it easier for them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2491792

I'm going to email this link to Howard Dean. Maybe SOMEONE will read it?

[mom cat]

6. Great! The troops are way ahead of the generals!

[Amonester]

2. K&R

In hoping most of them have a few minutes to read the posts on the Greatest Page.

[barbtries]

3. excellent advice

[Land Shark]

4. help with homework, it's not like it's cheating to learn more, eh?

[Orrex]

5. While you're absolutely right about

While you're absolutely right about the need to have informed, media-savvy spokespersons working on behalf of the Democratic party and its candidates, I think that it would be a strategic error for those spokespersons to draw too much from blogs, however respected those blogs may be. Here's how it would go:

DEM SPOKESPERSON: The President claims never to have advocated a "stay the course" policy in Iraq. Well he clearly said it with great enthusiasm on Date X, Date Y, and Date Z.

CONSERVATIVE HATCHET-MAN: My esteemed colleague may be content to get his talking points from unaccountable and unverifiable liberal blogs, but I believe that the American people deserve a more credible and impartial source of information. Blah blah blah...

So your strategy is a good one, but Dem spokespersons who seek to deploy it had better do it carefully and thoughtfully (unlike most of what we've seen to date from them) or their Conservative counterparts will mop the floor with them.

[Fovea]

9. Next line in exchange

Dem: While you may hold *liberal* blogs in contempt, history shows them far more accurate than
taking your talking points from ** and KKKarl Rove. By the way, when you were at the White House meeting last week,
did you see Jeff Gannon?

Troglodyte: <sputter, growl...> <BLEEEEEP>!!!

[Orrex]

11. Not sure that would be effective

Naming Gannon wouldn't work because more than 99% of the viewership doesn't know who he is, and 99% of the remaining 1% just doesn't care. And unless you're prepared to turn every Democratic stump-speech into an informative discussion about Gannon, that isn't likely to change any time soon. Also, if you pit the accuracy of Liberal blogs against Conservative ones, the Conservative spokesperson will immediately point out the speed with which Conservative bloggers debunked Dan Rather's report about Bush's time spent AWOL. Can you name a similarly well-known case of bogus info being exposed by a Liberal blog?

[Fovea]

12. You know

I am a bit short on cash. Howse about a twenty five dollar bet that 99% of Americans can't put a scandal to that name?
Even my Republick party neighbor one house south of me knows who Jeff Gannon is, because he proactively told me the whole story was BS
when I cornered him about Foley.

"This is more BSs like that Gannon thing." They remember just fine, and in their closets, they wish it was
them getting their head rubbed by the deciderer.

And I am not pitting the accuracy of FR vs DU. But if I did, and they came back with the whole Rather incident, I would smile, and mention that the actual *STORY* was never debunked, just astroturf'd.

[Orrex]

15. Objective accuracy doesn't matter, though

Save your money. A quick poll of the 20 people in my department, excluding me, reveals that only two know the name Jeff Gannon, and only one knows who/what he is/represents. That's not quite 99%, but it's pretty darned close. I suspect that the larger population is even more blissfully ignorant.

Also, it doesn't matter that the whole Rather story wasn't actually debunked; a RW blog exposed the fraudulent document, and that was enough to destroy the story's credibility in the public's eye. The underlying right-or-wrong is basically irrelevant, as we can see from the fact that that fuckwit is still in the Whitehouse.

And the "accuracy" of FR versus the actual accuracy of DU is likewise irrelevant, because DU would be dismissed as "a Liberal echo chamber," or something along those lines, until DU breaks through with a nationally recognized scoop of significant national impact.

Sorry, but in a he said/she said contest, the Conservatives have the overwhelming advantage. Arming Dem spokespersons with the distilled wisdom of Progressive blogs won't change that.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. I think you may be missing my point just a bit

I am just suggesting that one of the fastest sources of information available happens to be blogs. A lot of times, they are running days ahead of the MSM or whatever you want to call it (please, let's not segue into THAT discussion). It's pretty hard to find a "credible and impartial source of information" nowadays. However, in the immortal words of Jon Stewart - "The FACTS have a liberal bias."

I am not asking people to spout mindless talking points. But, I am always impressed by how quickly people can research and support or rebut something based on the FACTS.

Case in point about the hapless wretch sent out to defuse this Webb flap - if she had spent five minutes reading the aforementioned blogs, she would have known:

1. It's a Novel

2. Sometimes things in novels,just as things in life, are not pleasant. A novelist uses events as a way of examining the human situation, as James Webb does in his novels depicting the REALITY of war. James Webb has particular credibility in this instance as he has fought in war for this country.

3. War, death, sex, rape, incest, murder, abuse are all common topics in any number of books. Why did Lynn Cheney write about wagon train Lesbian love? Why did Scooter Libby write about girl/bear sex? Is Jim Webb any more or less depraved than these two prominent Republicans?

4. His book was critically acclaimed

5. John McCain endorsed this book

6.Is a serious, critically acclaimed war hero Secretary of the Navy more able to serve in the Senate than someone who appears to have a troubling history of racial intolerance? And by the way, has George Allen commented publicly yet about the widely reported story about the deer's head in the mailbox of a African- American family?

7. If George Allen wants to discuss novels, he should join a book club.

I don't think anyone of the ideas above can be attributable to a single blog or person. But they all arise from the synergy of the discussion. Think if Miss Hapless Wretch had waded into the fray with the points above as opposed to her "yeah, it is kind of disgusting . . ." That's what I'm talking about.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. I just sent Skinner's "debunked" thread to the DNC.

Hopefully they will forward it to their Dem talking heads.

[farmbo]

8. But..but..but...They (Bloggers) aren't getting paid $100K for their "advice"

...so how can it be any good?!

:sarcasm:

[mod mom]

10. Excellent-Sent this out to ER list servs. Great Idea!

[ellacott]

14. This is excellent advice

I listen to so many democratic strategists who have not done their homework and are doing us a disservice. Blogs can be used but don't just stop at the blogs. The blogs reference their matierial so you are not just going on the word of the blogger.

I get so angry listening to Scarborugh report because their is so much misinformation on that show, even from the left. When they were talking about Micheal J. Fox no one provided any truth. They just debated misinformation.

[blm]

16. I have written/called DNC about getting and schooling NEW spokespeople

for the Dem party. The old ones were only schooled in defending Clinton for the last 14 years and know NOTHING about other Democrats, their records, or current events, let alone how to quickly debunk the smear attacks.

What you witnessed is the weakest aspect of the Dem party's everyday face on these shows. It was worse in 2002 and 2004 cycles.

[tom_paine]

17. K & R

[arcos]

18. deleted :P

[Toots]

19. The right has "think tanks" which give out their talking points

The left has ????????? It seems like it is an everyone for yourself approach to things. No cohesion, no central message. Even on these blogs you named there is no cohesion. A lot of really good ideas but no one or thing to put them together into central talking points to be mass faxed to every candidate like the GOP has and does. Without a central theme it becomes very messy. :shrug: