1.I don't think it's a new tactic or that it really matters. I think one of the most powerful weapons that the Democrats have employed over the last eight years has been their control over media organizations like NBC, Comedy Central and HBO to drive home the message that Republicans are stupid, greedy and dangerous to the country. So this "snarky" anti-Rush campaign is nothing new.

What's more interesting to me is the battle going on in the world of social media as both Republicans and Democrats have taken their message to the web. The Obama campaign was clearly more effective in staking their claim to the web 2.0 space. But the McCain campaign also used blogging, YouTube and their own social network powered by KickApps.

So I think that while Republicans pretty much own talk radio. Democrats have a stronghold on TV, print news (slowly evaporating as papers fail) and the web. I think the biggest danger for Democrats in all their campaigns is to take their lead in using the web for granted. Republicans are improving in their use of web platforms and the number of Republican oriented blogs is definitely growing.

2.A little below the belt in my opinion, but still a great example of the Democratic party's use of social media and getting the community involved. In order for the Republican party to stay afloat today, they really need to master Plouffe's genius behind the Internet and two-way communication. In my opinion, it's time to take the focus off social issues and back to the economic fundamentals behind the Republican doctrine.

3.I can't help but think this will have the opposite results Democrats are looking for.

They are simply stooping to Rush Limbaugh's level. As we all know, this does nothing but erode your own credibility. Now the Democratic party itself is proving itself to be juvenile, mean-spirited, unprofessional and all those things they're accusing Republicans of being.

In fact, it might go even further, depending on how Republicans react, by giving them the opportunity to take the higher road, thus improving Republic credibility.

It's also an insult to Democrats because it assumes they can't understand and see for themselves how silly the Rush Limbaugh hot air is.

On many levels, it's a baffling bad move.

4.Great topic. On the one hand, from a communications standpoint, it will resonate with the segment of the Democrat audience who IS getting the bulk of their "information" from things like the Daily Show.

On the other hand, it underscores two huge problems. First, is that more and more Americans are making voting decisions based on "fake news" or entertainment-based news than really examining the issues and thinking about things (and I consider Rush similar to the Daily show in this respect). This should terrify us all.

Second is the problem that "real" news seems to be becomming more like biased fake news every day. This, too, should terrify us all.

I touched on this on my own blog here http://koifishcommunications.com/blog/?p=62

5.Having run for office both successfully, and unsuccessfully, I agree with Francis' comments about the Democratic party looking "juvenile, mean-spirited, unprofessional...". My personal experience was that this was the tactic used by the party in my local elections. Folks actually parked in front of a candidate's house they didn't like and called at all hours of the night.

Harassment has long been a prime tool.

The Republicans have their M.O. too, but this (accuratly described) juvenile attack is consistent with Democrats political tactics.

6.I appreciate everyone's thoughts, but I had really hoped to keep the discussion out of the real of politics. Look at it this way: If circumstances found Coca-Cola on the ropes and Pepsi could further marginalize Coke through some snarky marketing maneuvers, would they? Would it be appropriate? Would it work?

Right or wrong, the Republicans are suddenly on the outside looking in and virtually every step they take is a misstep; they appear almost comical. The fact that a talk radio host is the GOP's most influential leader -- that they can't come up with somebody, anybody to galvanize the party -- is astounding. The base is eroding as well -- recently released research suggests the number of Christians in the U.S. has dropped by something like 15%. These aren't people who have opted for an alternative religion. They have opted for NO religion. So a shrinking group of evangelicals still wields substantial influence over party policy. It seems to me that the Democrats sense an opportunity to help the GOP over the edge and into obscurity, and they're taking a media approach designed to appeal to the Stewart/Colbert demographic.

Surely Republicans won't like it, but the core questions remains a simple one: Is it an effective communication approach under these circumstances?

When I look at the communication dimensions of these issues,i try hard to separate myself from my personal political leanings and attempt to be as objective as I can.

Also consider that, as juvenile as the Democratic attacks may be, a lot of people see the GOP as having it coming.

As for me, I'd prefer to see people discussing alternatives that weigh the best elements of both points of view, since it's a hybrid of ideas that will work, not the ideological claptrap adhered to by some true believer and his followers.

Alas, parties do fade. I honestly don't care if the Republicans or the Democrats are the first to lose their position of political pimacy, as long as the space they leave is occupied by a party that actually reflects my values. and those of some people I know.

Nothing would make me happier than living to see the ascent of a new party that represents the views of the crowd. I remember research conducted by someone who proved that neither major party represented the average person who wanted big government spending handled by outsourced workers.

There must be a parallel to pushing brands out of relevance and replacing them with something that really does reflect what people want. FastCompany, three or for elections ago, reported that most Silicaon Valley workers wanted big taxing and spending to take place, but for government to determine where the money wold be spent, but the work done by private enterprise using the kinds of reward systems that work.

I hope this makes sense. I fear it doesn't. In the end, though, let's talk about the communication anbles of the story, not the political ones. They're too dull.

7.I wish both parties would learn the most basic lesson of their respective recent wins, and focus their communications on substantive forward-looking vision. Reagan won because he promised a forward looking vision of a better, stronger America. Clinton won because he offered a forward looking vision of an improved country, with specifics about what he was going to propose and support. The Republicans won in Congress based on the successful offering of the Contract with America. Obama won because of what he represents for the future of the country, not simply because of his tearing down the incumbent and his opponent's proximity to the Bush Administration. You can argue all you want about the success on delivering on any of those promises, but the forward-looking, substantive content of those messages are what delivered the win.

So nifty uses of social media, sure, but ultimately, those efforts will have little, if any, lasting positive effect and potentially a negative backlash. Use those tools to advance the positive messages and let the negative wither and die an ignominious death.