Its called Swiftboating

AKA "campaigning as if you were a Republican"

Let's hop in the way-back machine and take a trip to 2004:

John O'Neill, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, on John Kerry's service in Vietnam:

The problem he has is that when he reported what happened to his superior officers, he first reported that he was part of the first action-that he had gone in with the lead boat, when he hadn't. The second thing he reported is that when he turned his boat in, he turned it into a bunkered force of Viet Cong. And therefore the citation talks about his turning his boat into a numerically superior enemy and intense fire. No offense, but a single guy in a loin-cloth-a teenager, wounded in the legs-is not a superior force when confronted by a large gunboat with double 50-calibers and 30 troops on board.

When you're awarded a Silver Star, doesn't there have to be more than just one guy saying, "I did these brave things?"

A damaging attack to Kerry in 2004, perhaps a major cause for his defeat. However, facts are stubborn things.

If we are to take the definition of "swiftboating" as diminishing the important accomplishments of one's life through falsehoods, and making that person seem like a liar for talking proudly of these accomplishments and turning strengths into liabilities, then we have a new round of it going on right now for another candidate: Hillary Clinton. True, one case dealt with combat bravery, and this case deals with diplomatic and legislative bravery, but the attacks are quite reminiscent.

Lets take a quick look at these claims and counter-claims, shall we?

SCHIP

Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

This has been familiar to anyone who has regularly seen the debates of her campaign speeches. However, doubt is now being cast on her role. Here's Orrin Hatch:

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."

"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Ted Kennedy:

Asked whether Clinton was exaggerating her role in creating SCHIP, Kennedy, stopped in the hallway as he was entering the chamber to vote, half-shrugged.

"Facts are stubborn things," he said, declining to criticize Clinton directly. "I think we ought to stay with the facts."

I agree with Ted...and so does Ted:

"The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Kennedy told The Associated Press.

President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.

While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial.

"She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."



NORTHERN IRELAND

Greg Craig, Washington attorney and a senior adviser to the Barack Obama campaign, and former Clinton administration official:

It's a little bit presumptuous for the first lady, who would meet people and support people to take credit away from the Irish themselves who did it...

The evidence should be accurate. And my point is that Senator Clinton and her supporters have in serious ways overstated, if not grossly exaggerated, the nature of her experience.

Pretty damning, huh? Not really. There are a lot of important testimonials I could put here, but this is a good one:

Statement from John Hume former MP MEP, founder of the SDLP and an architect of the Good Friday Agreement. He is the only person to win the Nobel Prize for Peace, the Ghandi Peace Award and the Martin Luther King Peace Prize.

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton's support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward.

Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process."

See also.

Actually, Greg Craig can't even seem to agree with himself on these matters.

Greg Craig Tuesday:

Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

Greg Craig today:

I think she would be a capable Commander-in-Chief.

Ummmm....okay?



KOSOVO

During the air war over Kosovo, Hillary Clinton went to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in May 1999. What did she accomplish? Here's the Obama campaign's Greg Craig again (I find that name annoying, by the way):

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats.  President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue."  Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict.  He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Starting to see a pattern here? Here's both a news report and a testimonial to set the record straight:

Hillary met with Macedonian officials 'trying to diffuse any anti-American sentiment and to bolster Macedonia's fragile coalition government. "Hillary Rodham Clinton swept through Macedonia on Friday on a visit that illustrated the Clinton administration's continuing struggle to balance the diverse strands of its Kosovo policy...Ethnic Macedonians, who make up roughly two-thirds of this country's population, generally oppose NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. They also fear that if ethnic Albanians -- who made up roughly one-third of Macedonia's population before the crisis -- continue to pour in from Kosovo, Macedonians will be reduced to a minority in their own country. So although Clinton spent the morning addressing the suffering of the refugees, she spent the rest of the day trying to defuse any anti-American sentiment and to bolster Macedonia's fragile coalition government, a mix of Macedonian and Albanian parties." [Austin American-Statesman, 5/15/99]

Statement of Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton Accords, and former permanent representative to the United Nations.

"It was dire in May 1999 when Hillary Clinton arrived in Macedonia. The government of Macedonia had slowed the flow of refugees from Kosovo to a trickle. After visiting refugees and gaining a first-hand assessment of the situation, the First Lady had intense talks with President Gligorov and Prime Minister Georgievski. In these talks, one in the Presidential Palace, another in the residence of the American Ambassador, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Clinton pressed the Macedonian government to fully open the border so that Kosovar Albanian refugees could flee the war zone to safety. She also committed herself to work with the government and people of Macedonia who also faced an emergency because of the threat to their own safety and stability. Hillary Clinton promised to take action to help the Macedonian economy. Returning to Washington, she pressed hard in the administration for action to support the Macedonians. She even contacted American business executives to ensure that American textile contracts in Macedonia were not canceled. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of those people I worked with in the Balkans at the time - that her intense efforts resulted in easing a crisis of significant dimensions and contributed to saving many lives."

There is a lot more.



BOSNIA (AKA the Sinbad trip)

In 1996, Hillary flew into Bosnia, accompanied by Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, a current Obama supporter.

Clinton cites her March 1996 trip to Bosnia as an example of traveling into a war zone to promote U.S. policy, recalling a harrowing "corkscrew" landing during which she and her daughter, Chelsea, were ordered into the armored front of the plane to protect them against possible ground fire. She jokes that one mantra around the Clinton White House, was that "if the place was too small, too dangerous or too poor, send Hillary."

Boy, doesn't this sound vaguely familiar:

Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.

Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.

"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

But once again, even in this instance...facts are stubborn things, for Ted Kennedy and Sinbad alike:

Defending Clinton's characterization of her Bosnia mission, campaign spokesman Phil Singer kindly provided experts from news stories written about the trip at the time, including a Washington Post story from May 26, 1996, that said, "This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone."

Singer also cited a Kansas City Star article from September 2000 that quoted Sinbad as describing the situation in Bosnia as "so tense. It was Crips and Bloods."



And get this...

....they are even starting to downplay her "Womens rights as human rights" speech in China in 1995:

In her memoir, Clinton writes about the rousing reception her speech received at the conference and adds: "What I didn't know at the time was that my 21-minute speech would become a manifesto for women all over the world. To this day, whenever I travel overseas, women come up to me quoting words from the Beijing speech or clutching copies they want me to autograph."

Rice, the former Clinton administration official now supporting Obama, credits the first lady for delivering an important speech on women's rights, but says that that doesn't translate into presidential crisis management credentials.

Question: Is the Obama campaign sure they want to get into a discussion of candidates who give great speeches that are not followed up by action?


CONCLUSION

Hillary Clinton has dealt, and will deal, with this sort of stuff better than John Kerry did. But there will be more, and it will probably get worse...



Display:


tips if you got em (2.00 / 17)


by Scan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:58:14 PM EST

Excellent piece! (2.00 / 3)

Nice to see a progressive reality based diary once in a while.
:-)

Definitely Rec'd.


Grumpy, reluctant, sore-losing, unhappy, irritable Hillary supporter for Barack Obama 2008
by DemAC on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called "Swiftboating" (2.00 / 2)

Good diary.  Although to tell the truth, this is more akin to the campaign that was run against Al Gore in 2000, when they tried to portray him as a serial liar on anything and everything.

Importantly, one of the differences between 2000 and 2004 is that it wasn't just the right-wing pushing the attacks, it was Democrats doing it to themselves in the primary.  Bill Bradley did more to hurt us than Nader ever could have dreamed of.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:58:42 PM EST

Re: 2000 Dems (2.00 / 1)

I remember 2000 when so many progressives didn't much like Al Gore, and they all passionately believed Nader's assertion that there's no diff between the Dems and the Repubs.  Well all those starry eyed progressives have learned over the past 8 years there is indeed a difference.  And ironically they all love Al Gore now -- a little late!

Are the starry-eyed progressives going to screw it up again?  (I'm progressive myself but drop the starry-eyed part.  HRC's plans for the country are much more progressive than BHO's.)

p.s. and Bradley's busy on another divide-and conquer-mission in this campaign.  Maybe he's working for Rove -- and Howard Dean too.


by moevaughn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2000 Dems (none / 0)

HRC's plans for the country are much more progressive than BHO's.

And yet, none other than Mark Penn himself, said obama was too liberal.


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberal O (none / 0)


His voting record in the Senate has been reported as most liberal,  but his plans for the country as espoused in this presidential campaign  are the least progressive of all the plans put forth by all the Dem candidates in this primary.
by moevaughn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberal O (none / 0)

Really?  Have any proof of that?

Did you call the Clinton campaign and complain that Mark Penn, Hillary's campaign manager is telling the press that Obama is more liberal?

Is he just pandering to the conservative white vote?  Or does he really believe Obama is the real liberal?


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberal O (none / 0)


Which is it?

All I know is that I don't especially like his plans for the future of the country.  I like Hillary's more, and that's why I support her.

You must like Obama's more and that's why you like him.


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberal O (none / 0)

I like Edwards and think he puts Clinton and Obama to shame.  So now my choice is who do I think is the most electable, because in my eyes there is not a hairs breadth difference between Clinton and Obama.

Which is why I asked you what differences you see between the two, that makes you like Clinton's plans more?


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: plans (none / 0)

for starters, compare their plans to deal with the foreclosure crisis. you can do your own research.  well here's a piece from a Democracy Now program comparing plans to get you started.  I would also check Paul Krugman for a good analysis of their respective health care plans.

from Democracy Now interview

JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to turn also now to Max Fraser, who joins us. He's with The Nation magazine. He's written an article recently called "Subprime Obama," where he looks at the housing crisis, and initially the article dealt with--John Edwards was still in the race--with the positions of Edwards, Clinton and Barack Obama on the housing crisis sweeping the nation. Welcome to Democracy Now!

MAX FRASER: Thanks for having me.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you outline the differences between--the major differences between the candidates? And it would be instructive also to talk about John Edwards's policies, as well.

MAX FRASER: Sure. Well, when he was in the race, Edwards's plan was by far the most comprehensive and aggressive, insofar as it really committed the government to intervening on behalf of homeowners and resolving the crisis in such a way that it would keep people from losing their homes. Edwards called for a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates, a real kind of redoubled efforts to not only regulate the mortgage markets, but financial markets generally.

Clinton and Obama fall short of that, and Obama falls short most significantly. He is the only one of the three who hasn't called for a moratorium on foreclosures or a freeze on interest rates, which really are the most effective short-term measures that can be taken to keep homeowners in their homes. And beyond that, his plan calls for the least aggressive government intervention, the most limited spending to bail out homeowners and to especially borrowers who are at risk of defaulting on their mortgages and to help them restructure their loans in such a way that they're affordable moving forward. And his plan actually really most relies on a pretty insignificant tax credit, which comes out to about $500 on average for homeowners, which might make a difference for those who are just barely falling behind, but not for those who are falling further and further behind.

AMY GOODMAN: Max, in your piece, "Subprime Obama," you talk about his three main economic advisers.

MAX FRASER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who they are.

MAX FRASER: Well, there are these three young economists: David Cutler, Jeffrey Liebman and Austan Goolsbee.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, I'd like to ask you about Liebman in particular, because I think that, from what I understand, he is proposing a--has proposed for a 20 percent increase in the Social Security payroll tax to, in essence, create private accounts for all Americans. It would be like the equivalent of dues check-off for Wall Street.

MAX FRASER: Yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: It would be an enormous windfall for the Wall Street firms to be able to get that kind of a operation.

MAX FRASER: Right.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But it's not clear--Obama has never said anything about this in the campaign trail, but his key adviser is known as the main proponent of this, right?

MAX FRASER: Well, one of the--a proponent of it, that's right, entirely true. And, you know, Obama, I think what he says on the campaign trail on various issues of domestic policy are, you know, not wholly in line with where these policy advisers are, but they clearly are animating where he stands on these issues, like Social Security and the housing crisis, most notably, I think.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Kuttner, can you weigh in here with these three economists that Max writes about in The Nation magazine, their significance, and especially on this issue of privatization of Social Security?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it's very distressing. I mean, I think it was National Journal, recently came out with a rating that showed that Obama has the most left-of-center record, voting record, in the Senate. And yet, the advisers that he relies upon are--I would call them center-right. They're basically free-market guys who want to use markets to somehow solve social problems, which is like squaring a circle. And I was just at a board meeting of the Economic Policy Institute, which is, you know, the most effective left-of-center think tank in Washington. Except at the staff level, he is not reaching out to progressive economists. It's a fairly narrow circle.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert Kuttner, veteran economics financial journalist. His latest book is called Squandering of America. We're also joined by Max Fraser of The Nation magazine. When we come back, we're going to add to this discussion the issue of nuclear power and where's the money coming from for these Democratic candidates on that issue. Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the issue of nuclear power. We'll play a clip of Senator Clinton and Barack Obama talking about nuclear power at the Democratic debate in Utah last July.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue. We've got to develop solar. I have proposed drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. But we're going to have to try a series of different approaches.

The one thing I have to remind folks, though, of--we've been talking about this through Republican administrations and Democratic administrations for decades. And the reason it doesn't change--you can take a look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy. He met with environmental groups once. He met with renewable energy folks once. And then he met with oil and gas companies forty times. And that's how they put together our energy policy. We've got to put the national interest ahead of special interests, and that's what I'll do as president of the United States.

ANDERSON COOPER: Senator Clinton, what is Senator Edwards-- is he wrong on nuclear power?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax breaks for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney. And we could spend about $50 billion doing what America does best. It's time we start acting like Americans again. We can solve these problems if we focus on innovation and technology. So, yes, all these alternative forms of energy are important. So is fuel efficiency for cars and so is energy efficiency for buildings.

John is right, that until we figure out what we're going to do with the waste and the cost, it's very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. Let's figure out what we're going to do about the waste and the cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution. But this issue of energy and global warming has the promise of creating millions of new jobs in America. So it can be a win-win if we do it right.
 .......
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Paul Gunter, we're going to leave it there. I want to thank you very much for being with us. He is director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond Nuclear an advocacy group opposed to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Max Fraser of The Nation, and Bob Kuttner of American Prospect.
     -----------------------------
more on nukes:  I saw Hillary here in NH at a town hall meeting on the environment.  She was asked by someone about clean nuclear as a  way to achieve energy independence. She argued against it, saying there's still a big problem with disposing nuclear waste.  Robert Kennedy Jr, a passionate environmentalist, has endorsed Hillary.

Here's some more on Obama on nuclear:

Senator Obama voted yes to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (promoted by Dick Cheney). Hillary Clinton agreed with environmentalists' concerns and voted no.  This bill offered HUGE giveaways to the oil companies and special interests.

Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network states:
http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/ epact2005.html

A sound energy policy would focus on conservation, efficiency and CLEAN renewables (like wind and solar -- no "biomass" incinerators) and that we need a clean fuels policy that reduces our oil consumption and moves us towards CLEAN hydrogen fuel cells (using hydrogen separated from water with wind and solar electricity).
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 does just the opposite. It's without question the most environmentally-damaging national legislation ever to be passed in the U.S. It's a gigantic subsidy bill, providing support to almost every conceivable dirty energy technology, including nuclear power, fossil fuels, and polluting "alternative" fuels.

The energy bill will...
   * increase gasoline prices (according to Bush's own Department of Energy)
    * do nothing to reduce our reliance on oil imports
    * do nothing to increase auto fuel efficiency
    * do nothing to transition our electricity sector towards clean renewable energy
    * inventory the U.S. coastlines for oil and gas, to make way for future drilling in our coastal waters
    * trample state's rights to protect their coasts from liquefied natural gas terminals (used so we can go to war  
     for gas as well as oil, now that we're running out of natural gas in North America)
    * require ethanol use, increasing gas prices [mention this if you're in a Western or New England state, where  
   ethanol would need to be imported from the mid-west]
    * make us more vulnerable to terrorism by building more juicy terrorist targets (new nuclear reactors and a new  
     gas pipeline from Alaska)
    * throw many billions of tax dollars into the expensive and polluting nuclear power industry
    * promote nuclear proliferation by reversing long-standing U.S. policy against reprocessing waste from
commercial nuclear reactors, and using plutonium to generate commercial energy
    * promote building more coal power plants
    * provide incentives to cut down our national forests for energy production
...........


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2000 Dems (none / 0)

How anyone can give time to Bradley is unclear to me.  He went after Gore in a very personal and negative way.  He and Nader really hurt Gore's vote count in the GE.  If there is a bigger jerkoff then Bradley i dont know who.  He did nothing but f the dems in 2000 and he still has this condensing self serving tude and refusing to take responsibilty for how he hurt the party.

WTF.

david


by giusd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2000 Dems (none / 0)

Explain why despite the fact that people, even after realizing Iraq war is stupid, have not been convinced by Democrats how disastrous such a foreign policy is? People still think McCain is strong on foreign policy despite supporting the war. Isnt that the DEmocratic Party's failure to not have a slam dunk election despite contesting a presidency after eight wretched years? And this is an improved Democratic Party infused with great new blood. So imagine how stale the party was in 2000. Better than Bush? Sure. But was it in need of a shakeup? Definitely. Nader would ahve been marginalized as bad as Kucinich if he ran in the primaries in stead of a third party candidacy. Until the party learns to respect their views, you will see more third party candidacies. For the record, I do not agree with all of NAder's policies, but I know when a party spouts a lot of bullshit and the DEmocratic Party continues to not be serious about reform. Just look at the inertia in the party even in its more radical period of the last 20 years.


by Pravin on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2000 Dems (none / 0)

---"People still think McCain is strong on foreign policy despite supporting the war."

That is due to his personality, his background. If it was Romney/Guiliani/Huckabee, people wont be thinking that. It is not a party driven thinking.


by Sandeep on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 0)

Good diary refuting the lies.
Hope it makes Rec List!

Yes - Obama's followers and surrogates have been swiftboating Hillary with LIES!

They claim Hillary's VP comment was racist code for Obama to "get to the back of the bus."
Whatever it takes to stretch a statement to imply racism!! and smear her character.

And now they claim Hillary should withdraw from the race! - a clearly sexist statement since males have always controlled the White House.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:03:58 PM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 1)

I've seen skilled writers purposefully fakepost this kind of opinion and not be able to come across half as crazy. Either you're an excellent troll or really, really far gone.


by upstate girl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama supporters (none / 0)

have to demean and belittle Clinton's accomplishments and foreign policy experience, because Obama's resume doesn't have anything similar. How many stamps does he have on his visa?


by georgiapeach on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 3)

Oh get real. Since when is it wrong for one candidate to dispute the claims of another one? This diary is 100% ridiculous. Arguing over the claims of another candidate is not what Swiftboating has ever meant. Disputing her claims is completely legitimate. Especially when the claims are false.

First, it's great that Hillary was the first First Lady to travel to a potential combat zone, and OK it was tense in Bosnia. Most people I've heard discuss this don't dispute any of that.

Also most think it was great that Hillary gave the China speech. As a matter of fact it was impressive and I was very proud of her when it happened and still think it was brave.

But she can't in all honesty claim foreign policy credentials because of them. Doing more than most First Ladies is still not foreign policy experience. It just isn't. Also you can't claim her speech counts as foreign policy experience in one breath then in the next, say that Obama's claim to judgment or being against the war is "only" because of a speech he made in 2001. It was a brave speech made when the war was popular and was every bit as important as Clinton's speech and deserves praise, not belittlement. One might consider those 2 speeches to be equal in value. Obama doesn't claim foreign policy experience because of it, though. Just good judgement and I'd add political bravery (as did Clinton"s speech).

She's counting on people not checking much into it and when you do there isn't anything there.

by Becky G on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 3)

So let me ask you this....you won't count all these experiences - dealing with problems in foreign countries - as having "foreign policy experience".  I don't want to put words in your mouth,but are you counting what Obama himslef is touting as his foreign policy experience - that he lived abroad when he was 6?


by cmugirl90 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (1.00 / 1)

They aren't MEANINGFUL foreign policy experiences.  We're not electing someone to sip tea or encourage people to do things politely.  We're electing someone to negotiate on the world stage.


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 2)

So tell me what MEANINGFUL foreign policy experience Obama has?  Since you think 8 years as first lady going to over 80 countries to "sip tea" with foreign dignitaries is usesless, tell me what Obama has done that has taught him more about diplomacy and negotiation?  If her 7 years in the U.S. Senate don't give her experience, how does his 3 years there give him more experience?
Obama supporters are always quick to put down Hillary's competency to be president, but they can never give any reason Obama would be more competent.  
by AnnC on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Of course not, that's just silly.
by Becky G on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 3)

Becky,

So,  you don't know what Hillary has done because you haven't bothered to educate yourself, and so that means Hillary hasn't done anything. Brilliant reasoning. If Becky doesn't know about  it, (translation - if she can't find it on the Come-To-Obama website, it's not real), it's not real because Becky is so fucking brilliant that she knows the truth of everything in the universe (including Hillary Clinton's history) intuitiviely. What Becky feels in her gut is obviously the truth - because, well, she's an Obama supporter and is therefore endowed with the divine sight.

Traditionally, completely false rhetoric, as Obama has engaged in again and again and again, is discouraged at party level because it handicaps the party in the general election. See Bob Somerby's brilliant archives about the Bradley/Gore battles of 2000 and how Bradley's themes were first used against Gore in the primary, and then with great authority by the Republicans in the general.

Considering how paltrey Obama's qualifications are and how insignficant his resume, Clinton could have legitimately brought out far bigger guns than  she has. I mean, c'mon, the guy has done of value in his entire life except make lobbyists stand up when they head - yahoo! She's restrained herself because she's looking to not handicap the party. The same cannot be said of Obama. But fortunately, the Reverend Wright has probably obliterated his chances of getting the nomination. The good reverend has almost certainly eliminated any possibility of Obama winning the general should it fall to that.

Grow up, Becky - just because you don't know what Clinton's history is doesn't mean that Clinton doesn't have a long, sterling resume of working prodigiously at that executive level and on behalf of progressive causes. If you like being ignorant, that's your call, but it doesn't serve the nation when you remain so.


by Little Otter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Reading your post made me very glad we're anonymous on here. I felt kind of afraid. But then I realized it's just petty name calling and jeering.
by Becky G on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

My, you do like showing off the size of your ego. does that pass for cleverness in your neck of the woods?


by Little Otter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Coffee Spit (none / 0)

"She's restrained herself because she's looking to not handicap the party." OK, that was the funniest thing I have read in a few days. Thanks for the dark humor!
by defibialater on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

So Becky , if Obama doesnt claim foreign policy experience based on that speech, on what does he claim that experience?

Indonesia's 6 years? Where does his foreign policy experience come from?

And lets not talk about his judgement after he showed the lack of judgement on Wright and Rezko. Lets not go there.


by Sandeep on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 2)

Great diary. Thank goodness BO is toast and will never, ever be president. I knew he'd lost a large number of women voters with his sexist comments, and certainly a good portion of white males with his "Archie Bunker" comments, but attending the services of Rev. Wright for 20 years while he talks about whites doing the nasty to blacks and Hillary not being a n*gger, and how congregants should sing "God damn America" I think he's lost more than the significant numbers he'd lost before.

Thank God for super delegates who are in place to correct the choices of voters in early states who voted before the truth about BO was revealed.

Hillary has experience -- lots of it. She'll be an awesome president...I can hardly wait for Bush to be gone and Hillary to take the oath of office.


by seattlegonz on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Forgive them, oh Lord- they know not what they do.  ;)


"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."
by Setrak on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 0)

Oh we're going to win the popular vote my friend, you can bet on that.


by c4every on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

seattlegonz-

reread your post and see if you can spot the incredible amount of irony. you write all that in response to a post about swiftboating. if you look hard enough you will see it. calling out swiftboating by swiftboating another is not simply hypocritical, but it totally negates the point you are trying to make. get real.


by AHunch on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (2.00 / 0)

Bravo.

This idea that her work as First Lady should not count is insane. And we ain't letting it fly.


by c4every on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:10:57 PM EST

This is a GREAT diary-- Please Rec this People (none / 0)

so I can come back when I have time and read it more thoroughly.  

Great job, SCAN!  Highly recommended!!!!

And don't worry, Hillary's no John Kerry.  Please, we were all voting against George Bush rather than for Kerry.

Anybody remember any Kerry policy?  He was just for getting out of Iraq and so were we.  But what did he contribute to Democratic thinking?  Made us look like we're the party of arrogant, above it all types.  If everyone will remember a REAL PROBLEM WITH JOHN KERRY THAT WE'RE NOW FACING WITH BO--------

JOHN KERRY TESTIFIED IN CONGRESS AGAINST HIS OWN COUNTRY.  HE SAID HE FOUGHT IN VIETNAM PARTIALLY BECAUSE HE WAS "CURIOUS" ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON OVER THERE, AND CAME BACK TO GO IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND TESTIFY AGAINST OTHER SOLDIERS.

I'm sorry, but that will ALWAYS be a tad controversial.  

He and the rest of us can re-sell his loss all he wants as a Swiftboating job, but no it wasn't.  It was also him on several tapes vilifying the military.

Hillary is no John Kerry.  Obama's minister hates this country and telling us to sing GOD D AMERICA ON A TAPE THAT HE'S SO PROUD OF THAT HE SELLS THEM TO THE PUBLIC AND ABC NEWS reminds me of seeing JOHN KERRY in front of Congress and on that talk show vilifying other soldiers.

Kerry failed to get any single Republican to vote for him.  Ted Kennedy said he should be our nominee because of his war record-- he said that was going to get crossover votes from Republicans.

Ted Kennedy thinks Obama's going to get Republican votes now too-- Ted Kennedy might not be the best judge of how to get Republican votes!  He might have wanted to get to know Obama for like, 3 days before forcing this TOTAL OBAMA FIASCO on us.  Because, boy, if you want to talk about a guy who's bringing us down, you've got to talk about OBAMA and JEREMIAH.

Anyway, Hillary's support is only getting stronger no matter what happens in the near future with this election and her support is hardening.  But we're in for a real ride with Jeremiah's 20 year protege BO.


by chieflytrue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:29:55 PM EST

Re: This is a GREAT diary-- Please Rec this People (none / 0)

John Kerry was a far more qualified a nd trustworthy indivdual than Hillary Clinton.


by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

An Excellent Diary!

Thank you for having the insight and courage to call this exactly what it is.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:03:07 PM EST

Another element of swiftboating - IMHO (none / 0)

Is attacking someone where their heart is.

Based on the work that he has done for Vietnam war veterans/all veterans, Kerry was and is emotionally tied to fellow military people.  I disagree with the above comment in that Kerry seemed to disagree with the USA policy that was ordering young men to kill anyone in the "kill zones".  He might have done so and had deep regrets.  I've talked to young men who did things in Vietnam that they really regretted, things they were taught not to do when growing up, but things that were acceptable, if not ordered, in Vietnam.

Today, our young people are taught - in the military training, with your and my tax dollars - that it was Iraq who attacked us on 9/11!  So, they're trained and they love their comrades and they go off to shoot - not the enemy who attacked on 9/11 but Iraqi people who are fighting for their country's freedom from what they perceive as an enemy.  And I'm not talking al Qaeda in Iraq, I'm talking Iraqis who don't want Americans there, whether we agree with them or not.  It IS their country.

To be FULLY swiftboated, and this is just my opinion, she has to be attacked in an area that is near and dear to her heart, something she has fought hard for and believes in strongly AND the attackers have to be members of the group with which she strongly aligned herself in the cause that she loved.  

I think the reason Kerry didn't fight back "with vigor" was that he couldn't bring himself to attack his own, even when they turned on him.  Perhaps he shouldn't have been in the race if he wasn't in it to win because he HAD to know that they were going to come at him with his congress testimony.  Belittling his medals and his wounds was just plain unbelievable.  ANY military person knows that it doesn't matter the amount of blood or size of the wound when you're in harm's way.  The men on his boat testified to his valor and that was enough for me.  I ain't no Kerry fan either.

Gore Gore, he's my man.  If he can't do it, no one can!


by Southern Mouth on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST

Re: Another element of swiftboating - IMHO (2.00 / 1)

I think attacking her work for children's heath care qualifies. The well-being of children is definitely one of things closest to her heart.


by Scan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Kind of Criticisms Aren't Swift-Boating? (none / 0)

If I read your post correctly, the implicit suggestion is that any criticism of a democrat based on their record is swift-boating.  

Of course, that can't be your view.  So can you please explain what kind of criticisms are legitimate?  Where's the line?  And are you truly confident that Hillary's campaign has been on the "right" side of that line in this campaign?


by OaktownDad on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:32:13 PM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Brillant Tactical ploy by the Obama campaign. He addresses the issue head on at it's source. He will say 'my church' again and again. Result will be no one will be able to accuse Obama of being a Msulim. You gotta hand it to the Obama team


McBush: ''Doesnt' know that much about economics''
by PrinceCA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:03:32 PM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Um, Craig didn't contradict himself.  He's saying that the idea of a "test" is false, and its shown by the fact that Hillary would be a capable C-in-C but doesn't pass her own "test."  

Strong points on a lot of the rest of the stuff though.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST

Excellent diary! (none / 0)

Thanks for posting this. Very helpful. Obama supporters would rather die than give Hillary Clinton credit for anything good.

Here's the Obama campaign's Greg Craig again (I find that name annoying, by the way)

Me too!

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:32:54 PM EST

First rate diary (none / 0)

We need much more of this and alot less poo-flinging.


by ineedalife on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:17:18 PM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Last I checked, only one campaign's supporters today are feeding Fox News smears.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:50:25 PM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

It is arrogant for her to claim she is responsible for SCHIP.  She may have been the sole friend in the Whitehouse-and this says something about the Clintonites who she is still hanging around with- but she did not have anything substangtive to do w/the legislation.  She speaks as if she crafted it and worked it through to passage.  This is another example of extraordinary chutzpah.
No other Democrat would stay in this race when they are mathematically as challenged as she.  No other Democrat would risk this divisiveness.  No other Democrat would call the results from a contest where they are the only candidate on the ballot FAIR.  I am really tired of Clinton supporters calling out Obama supporters when the Clinto Campaign starts slining mud.  No response is valid to you guys.  We would not have this level of vitriole between Democrats if she was just dealing w/the realities that she has lost this contest.
daninpa
by daninpa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:30:46 AM EST

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Have no fear...it will all be over soon for Monster Inc.  And there isn't a damn thing that can be done to stop BHO...you clowns know it, Billary knows it, and the incompetents running her campaign know it.  

Game over - America wins and You chumps lose.


by United7BigStatesofAmerica on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:35:05 AM EST

I thought Hillary was vetted (none / 0)

I thought the Clinton campaign could handle anything thrown at it.

No?  You don't like this kind of thing?

Funny...I read that a Buddhist monk once said that if you plant apples, you will get apples.  And if you plant oranges, you will get oranges.  I suppose the Biblical sentiment, "you reap what you sow," is tantamount in our culture.

Perhaps the Clinton campaign should have refrained from sowing lies and distortions and maybe it wouldn't have come to this.

Still, I thought the Clintons could handle the worst of it.  After all, their vetted.  Right?  There's nothing they haven't seen or faced or can't handle.  Or so we've been told.

Seems like some people are sick of getting done like others got done by the Clinton campaign.


by jaywillie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:54:55 AM EST

Re: I thought Hillary was vetted (2.00 / 1)

they are handling it.  That doesn't make the attacks any less skanky.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called Swiftboating (none / 0)

Yes, and it's truly revolting to see it being done by so-called "progressives"--some of whom these days have taken up the "no lie left behind" dogma.

Thanks, Scan, excellent rebuttal to the swiftboaters in the Democratic Party.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:54:21 AM EST

Most Important Vote Of Her Career. Period. (none / 0)

"They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment."  -Senator Lincoln Chafee

American Deaths        
Since war began (3/19/03):    3987    3262
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)

3848

3154
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):    3526    2956
Since Handover (6/29/04):    3128    2629
Since Election (1/31/05):    2550    2366
American Wounded    Official    Estimated
Total Wounded:    29320    23000 - 100000


by mikeinsf on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.