And this is the reality of politics. Anecdotes always make for good speeches and good commercials. This is done all the time.

The ad against Bush by the NAACP where the daughter of the man drug to death is pretty much the democratic version of the Willie Horton Ad.

Both candidates use anecdotes in support of their positions-it isn't new and it is an effective way to personalize the realities of the position.

Horton's situation was a great example of the problem with the program-he is a casebook example of why it was a bad idea. I think the ad would have been just as effective had he been a scary looking white guy-it was the furlough led to murder that was scary.

Well, aside from the scary looking black man, the history of race relations and the well known and quantified bigotry wrt scary looking black men, sure.

LOL. So, what you're saying, (Given that so many Democrats voted for Bush on the basis of the Horton issue, because they're all racists) is that Obama stands no chance at all, even among Dmeocrats?

That IS the logical conclusion to that line of non-thought, Hal.

You're welcome.

Well, aside from the scary looking black man, the history of race relations and the well known and quantified bigotry wrt scary looking black men, sure.

In a perfect world, many things are possible. However, to claim that a scary looking black man has no serious and obvious racial overtones is simply ignoring reality. Clearly, even in 2000, Karl Rove knew that smearing McCain with rumors of a black child out of wedlock worked and worked extremely well for Bush.

Your entire comment is that it was "Al Gore who brought up Willie Horton", which is demonstratively false.

So, Hal; What incident was Gore talking about, then, hmmm? As James points out;

Aside from the fact that Horton was a scary-looking black man, and thus it's somehow therefore racist to show his picture, I've never understood what was so wrong about using the story as a symbol of being soft on crime.

Simple, James, it was successful.

Hal, you say:

In contrast, the Massachusetts furlough program is a policy disagreement, which has no such racial overtones and isn't anywhere near a smear campaign

(Snicker) I must assume you're dodging this purposfully, since nobody would dance around this issue so well by accident; Think, now; Given the overwhelmingly black and hispanic jail population, how to bring up specifics of the issue, without the left claiming it's all about race?

And let's also recall the landslide nature of that particular election. A lot of Democrats voted for Bush that year. Remember? Are you really OK with calling those voters, racist?

It was somewhat unfair to blame Dukakis, who after all didn't invent the program nor personally screen candidates for furlough, for Horton's subsequent brutalities. But, hell, all sorts of "on his watch" crap is unfair and we consider that normal politics. And Dukakis wasn't exactly without connection to the whole thing

He certainly had the power to stop it, being govenor. Sorry, James; it's not unfair at all.

Horton was not a policy issue. People don't give a crap about governmental policy until it affects THEM. Apparently, a lot of folks decided that their government letting Willie Hortons out of jail was a very personal issue.

Interestingly, that argument is flaring just now here in WNY.

Willie Horton qua Willie Horton is pretty much universally recognized as a smear campaign, run by republicans. It was a racially charged campaign focused on a particular prisoner who was furloughed - a classic smear.

In contrast, the Massachusetts furlough program is a policy disagreement, which has no such racial overtones and isn't anywhere near a smear campaign.

That's completely fair as an analytical point. The problem is that political campaigns aren't social science, they're means of making points in an effective manner. Using a specific case shows the heartwrenching consequences of the policy much better than dry statistics.

Al Gore never brought up Willie Horton. He brought up the Massachusetts furlough program.

Aside from the fact that Horton was a scary-looking black man, and thus it's somehow therefore racist to show his picture, I've never understood what was so wrong about using the story as a symbol of being soft on crime.

It was somewhat unfair to blame Dukakis, who after all didn't invent the program nor personally screen candidates for furlough, for Horton's subsequent brutalities. But, hell, all sorts of "on his watch" crap is unfair and we consider that normal politics. And Dukakis wasn't exactly without connection to the whole thing:

Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was the governor of Massachusetts at the time of Horton's release, and while he did not start the furlough program, he had supported it as a method of criminal rehabilitation. The State inmate furlough program was actually signed into law by liberal Republican Governor Francis W. Sargent in 1972. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that this right extended to first-degree murderers, the Massachusetts legislature quickly passed a bill prohibiting furloughs for such inmates. However, in 1976, Dukakis vetoed this bill.

Wikipedia - Willie Horton

In contrast, the Massachusetts furlough program is a policy disagreement, which has no such racial overtones and isn't anywhere near a smear campaign.

Your entire comment is that it was "Al Gore who brought up Willie Horton", which is demonstratively false. From this error, you derived that this was a pattern where by the democrats were the first to bring up the the smear only to have the republicans only too happy to follow suit. Which is clearly a bogus conclusion.

I'll repeat it again and see if you'll actually admit your error: Al Gore never brought up Willie Horton

OK, explain to us how getting the specifics of the matter out in the open makes things any different. In reality, that's your complaint, here.

We'll wait.

Willie Horton for example, was actually brought up by Al Gore.

Either you simply cannot read, or you're just completely oblivious to actual facts.

I'll repeat it again and see if you'll actually admit your error: Al Gore never brought up Willie Horton. He brought up the Massachusetts furlough program. Now, I know in Bithead land, these are actually the same things because, you know, it's obvious that Willie Horton == the Massachusetts furlough program. But on the rest of the planet, the two are not identical.

So which is it Bit? Oblivious? Or just unable to admit your simply wrong?

Yes, Al Gore was the first person to mention the Massachusetts furlough program in the 1988 presidential campaign

Period.
Full stop.

16 of the top 25 527s are on the left (2 are 'neutral' and 7 are on the right), including 4 of the top 5. The two top liberal 527s have raised as much money as all the conservative 527s in the top 25 combined.

Add Obama's pledge breaking decision to go for the big bucks indicates the current smearers will be the ones with the money to buy the biggest loudspeakers to broadcast their smears.

It was the Republicans that first brought up Willie Horton and ran with it all the way to the goal line.

So, how, pray tell does your theory even work. This is a matter of public record. Again, I'd ask you for any evidence backing up your obviously false claim, but we both know that ain't gonna happen.

I think the problem for Obama is that the point of plausible deniabiity has run its course and there is a nice collection of bodies under the bus.

McCain's attacks haven't really started yet. Give it a few more months and there will be dirty hands everywhere. Of course McCain isn't running on "Hope, change and nice guy=new tenor in Washington" so the mud on Obama tarnishes him a little more than it does McCain.

There have been only two incidents in which people officially associated with McCain have done anything approaching what Thomas and Wolfe predicted

compare with

some of the outlandish remarks made by high-ranking Obama supporters

?

That's like saying only a couple Ford employees are smearing Chevy, but look at all the Chevy owners smearing Ford!

Not to resort to the undergraduate paper standby of “they both have good points and bad points,” the argument seems rather silly. Professionally run campaigns make a concerted effort to maintain plausible deniability, ensuring that the candidate and senior campaign staff can disavow any negative attacks that get judged as beyond the pale while nonetheless benefitting from their effects.

Well, exactly. As I said at my own place this morning;

Obama’s campaign has been nothing if not disciplined and well orginized, in nearly ever detail. They know full well what is at stake here, and how hard they ahve to work to gain the office. Given that, it’s hard to imagine that the pattern as I mentioned yesterday is anything but part of the plan… particularly when it has occurred so often in this campaign.

The “Who’s smearing more?” game is silly at this point since McCain has been the presumptive Republican nominee for months and has thus been the object of Democratic attacks for much longer. By contrast, there hasn’t been much need for the GOP to smear Obama, since Clintonistas like Larry Johnson were more than happy to do it.

Exactly so. I would submit that this has been the pattern in previous campaigns, as well. Willie Horton for example, was actually brought up by Al Gore. Etc, etc.