I already made a distinction between PUMA and Clintons/McCain, so I'll return to a discussion of the latter, which was clearly not set up by disaffected Hillary supporters.

Surely there's room for reasonable disagreement here. On the one hand, we have the view that the mere discussion of such a group threatens to send them significant numbers of recruits. On the other, we have the view (mine) that their ludicrously far-right and bigoted home page is a lure to no one, but that their very existence raises some interesting and as yet unexplored possibilities, as well as some disturbing questions.

To wit: have we become so jaded about the American political process that we care more about a politician's adulterous affairs than we do about a campaign's subsidization of front groups? Have we become so accustomed to the Bush/Cheney politics of deception that don't raise an eyebrow when we see other Republicans resorting to flagrant deceit for partisan gain?

What's more, doesn't the news media have an obligation to scrutinize the claims that campaigns make and to hold candidates to high ethical standards? Doesn't this entail looking into campaign front groups? As I recall the press did just that with respect to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

And, as a practical matter: can Democrats benefit from an investigation of Clintons/McCain?

Thinking out loud here, I also wonder if this group can be of any help?

Mission Statement
The mission of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws is to enhance professional development of its members in the areas of government ethics, elections, campaign finance, lobbying, and freedom of information and to promote government integrity throughout the world.
http://www.cogel.org/about
(Probably not, but I thought it worth the mention)

While I make no claim to have stumbled on anything earth-shaking, I do take note of the fact that no one seems to be inquiring about this group. Whether that is of interest to any of the forum's readers remains to be seen.

Political campaigns in this country, or any other country, have always been full of "dirty tricks," and unfortunately, always will be.

The fact that the USA political landscape has evolved into a de-facto two-party system almost ensures that both sides will employ the tactics of "negative" campaigning into the foreseebale future. Why? Because it works, and every vote has a potential 50/50 chance of being swayed. Negative campaigning influences those who are either too lazy, or too complacent, to do their own research, and who want someone (anyone?) to tell them how to vote. This is the group that "king-maker" wannabes target with innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies.

The best that we activists can do, is to counter this false advertising with the truth. I don't expect any Big Media organization to ride to the rescue of one side, or the other. Controversy, and Paris Hilton type reporting is their bread and butter, and political campaigns are no different in their eyes.

The "republicansforobama" group is no better, and to attempt to use a particular political affiliation for staged "shock and awe" is disengenuious. All of these "splinter" groups should have the integrity to just vote for their choices, and stand up for what they believe. Afterall, the General Election is essentially a non-partisan voting (as opposed to campaigning) process.

And finally, I do not believe that either Cristi Adkins, or PUMA, are being funded as a "front group" by the McCain machine, as there are no facts to support this assumption. It would be a waste of money considering how few followers they have attracted, despite their claims of representing "millions" (closer to 10,000). They are exactly what they say they are: malcontented sore-losers who will not graciously accept defeat, nor strive for Party unity. They place their own selfish goals above the goals of the majority of the Democratic Party, and the nation. They are political garbage, and should be treated as such.

I agree with every one of them.

For example, "Habbush-gate" (my coinage) as detailed in Ron Suskind's new book, The Way of the World, comes closer to implicating the Bush WH in impeachable activity than anything published thus far. Which of course is why Conyers plans to investigate. Yet the book and its apparently well-documented allegations has been received with almost comatose indifference by the general public. I believe ABC and CBS didn't cover it at all.

I also well remember all my email campaigns to investigative journalists, starting in August 2002, that detailed who the neocons were, what they wanted (war in Iraq) and why they were going to get it. Neither those emails nor others identifying the obviously political manipulation of intelligence made any impression on the vast majority; op-ed writer Jay Bookman stands out in my mind as one of the glaring exceptions.

So, yes, I've had both indirect and first-hand acquaintance with what Bill Bennett called "the Death of Outrage". (To be sure, what outraged him and what outrages me are very, very different.;))

Apart from calling attention to what you correctly describe as a "mini-scandal", I hope this thread will encourage fellow progressives to look at the nature of American campaigns with fresh eyes, and perhaps with renewed outrage, and to consider what we might still learn from the election systems of other countries.