I think there is potential for a lot of abuse with these 527 ads. The candidates don't have to take any responsibility for the claims in the ads. I have a feeling this is how you will get your dose of dirty campaigning now.

Take these MoveOn ads--they are very good but the facts behind some of the statements could be debated (some might disagree, im sure). However, since Kerry didn't make these statements, he won't have to defend them during a debate or interview.

The same goes for the Swifties ads. Those ads are perfect examples of 527 gone bad. Bush can even condemn them without negating their effect.

It didn't really strike me that the accusations in these ads were much different in severity from most biting political ad campaigns...I was more impressed with the style of delivery of the accusations, seemed that it could connect on a more personal level. I guess you could offer that the style of delivery does in fact change the message (i.e. a soldier who was in the was and now condemning it is different than a blanket statement condemning a war)...but the way the ads were delivered were really clean and, I thought that made them harder to ignore...I wasn't as fixated on the facts than how they delivered the message...mostly b/c I'm paranoid and believe every fact use for a political campaign has two sides to it...

I do agree with you that the 527 ads are going to make things really nasty....it reminds me of the gubanatorial races in neighboring Louisiana when I was growing up...the ONLY tv ads those guys would ever run are mud-slinging ads....so like the very first round of ad's on television one guy shows up and starts calling the other guys wife a whore and hilarity ensues....

Agreed Colin!! But if I ever find Wes Boyd and Eli Parser...I am going to smash their laptops!!! Stop crowding my email boys!!!