Yes, yes, by all means, promote your book. But don't expect that everyone will buy it, literally or figuratively.

"The phenomenon that scholars call "media fragmentation"—the disintegration of the mass media into the many niches of the Web, cable news, and talk radio—lets us consume news that we like and avoid news that we don't, leading people to perceive reality in a way that conforms to their long-held beliefs."

I think most of us (who aren't hopelessly partisan) recognize that this is true, and even see it in ourselves. This has been a hot topic in political psychology in recent years, and kudos for having the motivation to sit down and write a few hundred pages on the topic, and sell it to boot. I don't think it transfers directly into the kind of political strategy you're advocating, though.

This isn't an election of the base, not really. It might have been if McCain had totally failed to appeal to the Bush-loyalist base, but the selection of Palin has fixed that problem. If Bush was dead, I'd say she'd be his reincarnation, to a poorer family this time.

Likewise, that selection seems to have awakened the Democrat base to the reality that the Republicans really do intend to carry on exactly the same course. Hence the big jump in donations last month.

This election will be about swing states, independents and Republicans who can't face more of the same regardless of their identification with the GOP.

That being the case, honesty is the best policy for Obama. Forget about those who already know what they want to think. Work on those states and those demographics where you can shift the pendulum a couple of degrees.

But given the fragmentation of the media, you can misrepresent the situation to your own profit, I imagine. :-) j/k g/l

...but I agree that Obama needs to attack McCain hard but honesty and on the issues.

That doesn't mean he can't spend a portion of his time refuting the more outrageous lies and showing that they are, in fact, lies; however, he can't let himself be put too much on the defensive. That way lies the fate of Gore and Kerry.

I understand the argument that, by citing McCain's lies, Obama risks being seen as a whiner. But why can't he change it from a psedo-personal issue into a political one?

Why doesn't he say, Look, I understand the temptation to lie. It's an easy way to win. But if we can't trust you as a candidate, how can we trust you as a president? We've been lied to enough in the past eight years, and when a president asks something of his country, they have to believe what he's saying. That's what Country First should mean, right?

I'm dying to know exactly what about the February 'YouTube' clip cited in the final paragraph is, in the author's words, "a complete lie"? That clip is obviously wryly humorous satire based wholly on actual statements made by John McCain over the past few years. Surely you recognize the difference between satire and all-out lying, do you not, dear author? On the contrary, I found the clip to be painfully truthful. And completely necessary.