<p>FF, (ignoring the desperate ad hominem attack on my profession) I’ll make it clear enough for anyone who isn’t willfully avoiding “getting it” to “get it”: If the guys who had served on Kerry’s boat in wartime - guys who were side by side with him through hours and days of alternately boring and terrifying service, who were in a position to observe him and judge his behavior hour after hour, day after day, guys who were in a position to actually know his character - came forward thirty years later and said “He’s a liar and a sleazebag - I don’t trust him” that would carry a lot of weight with me, and a lot of other people. But those guys didn’t do that. With a single exception, they endorsed him and defended his wartime service. </p>
<p>But a bunch of other guys - guys whose actual experience with the man was transitory and second hand - stepped up and claimed the mantle of the kind of personal knowledge that the other guys actually had, and allowed that falsely claimed mantle to be used for plainly political purposes. I understand the sleazeboat guys - they hate Kerry for his anti-war activities later; that’s not too mysterious. But for the propaganda consumers to be unable to distinguish between the guys who actually served with Kerry and the guys who just claimed to have done so - and yes, used “lawyer-like” ratiocination to justify that claim - explains the success of the right wing tactic of personal attacks unfettered by even basic ethics: it works. The consumers have become so inured to straining gnats and swallowing camels that even obvious smears are uncritically accepted and repeated. </p>
<p>That’s why Obama will be smeared. Of course it’s already started, but wait till the pros like Bob Perry get into it full swing. Clinton would have been easier to smear, but it doesn’t matter who the candidate is: he (or she) will be smeared. And the right wing propaganda consumers will eat the smears up, and repeat them.</p>
<p>“That’s why Obama will be smeared. Of course it’s already started, but wait till the pros like Bob Perry get into it full swing. Clinton would have been easier to smear, but it doesn’t matter who the candidate is: he (or she) will be smeared. And the right wing propaganda consumers will eat the smears up, and repeat them.”</p>
<p>Now that ABC is saying that Begala and Carville will be offering advice to the Clinton campaign, I wonder where the smears will REALLY come from.</p>
<p>The smearing isn’t going to work this time.</p>
<p>People are tired of that bs. </p>
<p>Let the right wing smearing machine loose. Fewer people are going to listen this time. </p>
<p>How do I know the smearing isn’t going to work? Most of the republicans I know are sick of Fox. They are sick of what the republican party has become. They are voting democrat. I can’t see one republican candidate running worth voting for. And then there is Obama.</p>
<p>Obama is the anti-smearing candidate. The more the right wing smears, the better Obama will do. </p>
<p>The country is tired of the Bushes, Clintons, Fox, and the smearing.</p>
<p>Oh, but haven’t you heard? It’s only the right wing scum that spreads innuendo and gossip, and it’s only the right wing propoganda consumers that eat it up and repeat it.</p>
<p>The republicans had six years of control of the presidency, and both houses of congress. </p>
<p>We all saw what the republicans did with this power.</p>
<p>In Iowa, the independents are voting democrat this time. In New Hampshire, it is going to be the same. All over the country the independents are voting democrat this time.</p>
<p>It’s all over but the counting.
We are going to have the democrats control the presidency and both houses of congress in 2009. I’m not thrilled with this, but the republicans had there chance and they blew it.</p>
<p>“But a bunch of other guys - guys whose actual experience with the man was transitory and second hand” </p>
<p>It is hardly second hand when you are in the same operation and under the same attack as Kerry’s boat. You keep ignoring the fact that these guys were eye witnesses just as much as Kerry’s crew. You also ignore the fraternity effect of guys that are close knit are more likely to lie for their friend. You ignore the forensic evidence or lack thereof. If the boats were under “withering fire” why were their no holes in an unarmored, aluminum boat? You also ignore the fact that the this is but one of a whole series of documented “oddities” in Kerry’s stories - including that of an admiral who DID serve on the same boat as Kerry.</p>
<p>But, I agree … this can never be resolved after almost 40 years. I am perfectly willing to give it a rest, but for some reason, the left continues to want to re-dig this up time and time again as “evidence” of Republican smears - when they can prove no such thing. My point is that absent such proof, these allegations against the Swifties (and by extension the Republican party) is itself a smear - one that the left continues to make to this day. When will these “lefty” smears end?</p>
<p>I don’t think it is relevant whether the allegations of the ‘swiftboaters’ were true or false. Truly I don’t think it is relevant. What happened in Vietnam did not matter for the future of the country even during the Kerry vs Bush election.</p>
<p>What is relevant is the manner in which dirt (valid or otherwise) was dug up and dramatized (I think Fox even showed the movie on national TV) by a group of vested interests who I strongly doubt cared one rat’s a** about the truth. These people cared about their own petty, personal and political agendas. They wanted simply to use the dirt- any dirt- to discredit the opposite side (Kerry just happened to be the victim) so that he could be defeated, so that their own power and influence on the course of the next 4 years would be preserved. It was just political gamesmanship.</p>
<p>Are Democrats capable of these tactics? Absolutely. I am not naive. I see ugliness on all sides. That is why I consider myself to be an independent, not a partisan. I simply happen to think that at the present time, we need Democratic President to undo the damage that Bush has done. </p>
<p>My original point was that I am concerned that Obama <em>may</em> be an easier target for the “swiftboat” type attacks than Hillary. I am not sure.</p>
<p>“My original point was that I am concerned that Obama <em>may</em> be an easier target for the “swiftboat” type attacks than Hillary. I am not sure.”</p>
<p>I can see why you’d think that, but I wonder who would do the smearing. Also, republicans are unbelievably sensitive to charges of racism and would be hesitant to open themselves to those charges. Not to say it wouldn’t happen, but I happen to hold the opposite opinion of yours which is that I think Hillary is more smearable, but I could be wrong.</p>
<p>“I don’t think it is relevant whether the allegations of the ‘swiftboaters’ were true or false. Truly I don’t think it is relevant. What happened in Vietnam did not matter for the future of the country even during the Kerry vs Bush election.”</p>
<p>Had Kerry himself not made his Vietnam “heroism” a central point in his campaign, I would agree with you. If he had not mentioned it and the Swift Boat Vets came out with their attack, I would have agreed that it was way over the line. But, that’s not what happened - Kerry would likely not have even won the nomination were it not for his “hero” story.</p>
<p>Well, since it is a foregone conclusion, I guess the political rhetoric can stop, no more need for ads or debates.</p>
<p>I also agree with the idea that if the spread for a football game is a touchdown or more it is just a waste of time to even play the game - it is predestined.</p>
<p>I will stand with my original assertion that while there may be candidates from the other party who will be sorely tempted to get down in the mud- if their advisors are halfway intelligent-* & I don’t assume just because my views and goals are different that they are not intelligent ;),* they will recognize that to try and discredit a candidate who has remained passionate yet cool at the same time, is not going to sway voters toward their position.</p>
<p>I think the American people- - are much more intelligent than the media and the “powers that be” give them credit for. ( of course except for the ones I disagree with )</p>
<p>Dstark, are your Rep friends voting for Dems in NY or CA? I wish what you said was true, but I just don’t see that thinking except among super social liberals on the coasts.</p>
<p>I do agree America has had it with smears. I think the Reps don’t need spears with Obama though. While the NYT is publishing opinion pieces by the likes of Gloria Stinem (sp?) calling him underqualified and calling America race-conscience, I think the Reps are licking their chops , fully ready to just use the facts of his lack of experience.</p>
<p>Deja vu all over again? Is this an echo from August, September, or October 2004 when the flippity-floppers were crowing to anyone would cared to listen? This wishful thinking and non-sense went on even when polling booths were closing. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, the country will have to choose the lesser of two evils in a rather simple choice void all the rethoric of today. The voters will select the next president by rejecting one candidate. So far, the reject votes are a lot clearer than all the blah-blah about independents coming out of the woods to support anyone.</p>
<p>We live in Ca. However, most people around here are transplants from other areas. And I am only talking about republicans.</p>
<p>A friend of mine who gave $25,000 to George Bush’s campaign (at a fundraiser at the Cisco chairman’s house), who is deeply religious and who has multiple paintings of Jesus in every room in his house, and is obviously rich, is supporting Edwards. </p>
<p>I’m a registered republican. I’m supporting Edwards too; although, I don’t think he is going to be the candidate. Of course, in the primary, as a registered republican, I may have to write Edwards name in as a republican. Does that count?</p>
<p>I can be wrong. Ca is different than other states. </p>
<p>"We live in Ca. However, most people around here are transplants from other areas. And I am only talking about republicans.</p>
<p>A friend of mine who gave $25,000 to George Bush’s campaign (at a fundraiser at the Cisco chairman’s house), who is deeply religious and who has multiple paintings of Jesus in every room in his house, and is obviously rich, is supporting Edwards. "</p>
<p>May I chime in anecdotally as well? I know several republicans here in NYC who are supporting Obama financially because they believe that no republican can win and that Obama is preferable to Clinton. I’ve also seen mention of this last week on Andrew Sullivan’s blog.</p>
<p>Swiftboating and other forms of mud-slinging are not done overtly by the opposing candidate or even the opposing party. Those days are long gone. That is why we have 527 organizations.</p>
<p>Even if you think that people won’t bring up his race, Obama is IMO very vulnerable on terrorism-related smears. His father is Kenyan. He lived in Indonesia. He attended an “islamic” kindergarten (not true, but who cares) there. His middle name is (gasp!) Hussein. He voted against the war. Against our troops!!! He is sympathetic to foregin leaders. He might even (gasp) talk to Castro. We cannot afford such a “nice guy” (i.e weak) President. Not in “these times”. That would be like having Jimmy Carter all over again. Cut to some picture of Obama and Carter at some charitable event. Much better to elect “America’s Mayor” or “Vietnam Vet McCain”, or “Man of faith Huckabee, both of whose parents were good Christians”. Remember 9/11. </p>
<p>Blah blah blah. Get the picture? Suddenly Obama is no longer the candidate of hope, but the candidate to fear.</p>
<p>And PS: Don’t forget that he is one of the most “ultra-liberal Senators” of all time.</p>
<p>“That would be like having Jimmy Carter all over again.”</p>
<p>I think Huckabee is more vulnerable there. On the right, he’s called the republican Jimmy Carter. Also considered so liberal that the joke is that he’s the “preacher who rode in on a donkey.”</p>
<p>Dstark, did you and your friends imagine Bush could win a second time? No one I know in CA did!</p>
<p>Zooser, many wealthy people give to both parties to hede their bets early on. They’ll start giving to McCain, or whatever Rep, later as Obama looks much weaker than he does today.</p>
)</p>