Anybody listen to Ed Schultz today regarding Hillary?

[PlanetBev]

He was talking about Hillary standing up and speaking out against this latest literary atrocity against her. He was saying that she's got to stand up and speak out against these slanders once and for all. He said the days of turning your check are long gone in this country.

I completely agree with him on this one. Questioning her sexual orientation and saying Chelsea is born of rape is as vicious as it gets. I'd drag that Ed Klein bastard into court, even if it meant saying bye bye to my career. For Christ's sake, at least demand an apology from this prick. Why do the Clintons continue to take this shit? Is power that important to them, and do they think they can maintain it by being nice?

[Qanisqineq]

1. Apparently those are good Christian values

Starting vicious rumors about people... nice.

[liberal N proud]

2. This is why the Democrats are getting whipped.

They don't stand up for them selves and fight back.

[LittleClarkie]

3. I also thought I heard him say the "I" word at the very end of the show

was I hearing things or did he way "and yes, I do think he should be impeached."

[dweller]

10. he did,

check the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3904637

dp

[undeterred]

4. I wouldn't dignify the things they've said with a response.

[ailsagirl]

5. Klein is a hack journalist, IMO

He selectively copies and pastes from many other sources
and then puts his own spin on it. And he doesn't name sources.

Conason gave Klein's book a lousy review.

[still_one]

6. I agree

I do NOT support Hillary for president, but she MUST fight this

I am not sure as a public figure if she can drag Klein into court though

[patricia92243]

7. If she sues him, the book will just sell more copies Re.O'rilley suing

Al Franken. Most authors consider it manna from heaven if they get sued.

I don't know how Hillary can hit back, but suing isn't it.

[sendero]

9. Uh...

... it matters why you go to court and what you intend to accomplish.

I see no parallels whatsoever is a case claiming copyright/trademark infringement vs. a case of personal slander.

Hillary absolutely should sue, regardless of the fact that winning would be next to impossible. What she can accomplish is to bring this cocksucker to his knees financially - and since making a buck is the only reason these hacks exist it would be a strong disincentive for future liars.

[FrenchieCat]

8. That's the unfortunate problem Hillary has...

She'll have to be so busy standing up and DEFENDING herself, she'll have little time else propose anything else, if she runs.

That's not good for the Democratic party.

I don't want our elections to become "all about Hillary" and not "all about what this country needs!".

[Pryderi]

15. Maybe a good "Checkers" speech would be worthwhile? Expose the

viciousness of conservatives, get more moderates on her side and increase the donations to her campaign.

[karynnj]

17. Unfortunately, ANY Democrat will have this problem

In 2004, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Kerry's service - and he did put 140 pages of naval records on his web site, this plus the fact that Nixon had him investigated (when all of this ancient history was fresh) and found him squeaky clean. If they have nothing they will make something up.

General Clark is an honorable man (who I think I'd prefer to Hillary - need to do more research on each - and it's 3 years out), but they will put out very nasty lies about some aspect of his life.

I think that the rape story won't work - largely because it's too nasty to fly (I think), the lesbian nonsense is harder to fight, but to some degree their use of the word may make it easier to fight.

[noonwitch]

19. Exactly-they did it to their own (McCain) in 2000, they'll attack

whoever gets the dem nomination. With Clark, they will attack his service during the Kosovo war. The freepers also seem to think he had a hand in the events during the standoff in Waco with Koresh and company. They will run with it unless they are slapped down early and frequently.

I don't think either Hillary or Clark will make Kerry's mistake and let all the GOP throw unanswered garbage at them.

[karynnj]

20. The swiftboats were answered

The problem in August was they released a book with hundreds of unrelated and even inconsistent charges.
The campaign disproved most charges, including all the important ones and gave the info to the MSM. The cable stations continued after it was obvious that the group had lied repeatedly to give equal weight to proven liars as they gave to Kerry surrogates. Kerry also put 140 pages of naval records on the web site. Anyone who tried to make a fair assessment would have rejected the charges for one of three reasons.

1) Kerry did answer the charge in the spring by saying that his medals were not challenged for 35 years and that his line of command then thought well enough of his service to make him an aide to an admiral. (In fact, one of the documents on his web site was approval for the higher level of clearance needed for that position.)

2) Nixon investigated him 2 years later and found him squeaky clean - clearly as they were concerned about this highly decorated vet, they would have checked this out.

3) If anyone chose to wade through the 140 pages of records - there were many fitness reports - all very good - some signed by SBVT. As it's unlikely that they would lie to make a poor performer look extraordinary , it's more likely they were lying last year. (A mediocre report would have sufficed if they thought he was poor, but didn't want to hurt him.}

It's possible that a major emotional response by Kerry could have worked, but as it is the path not taken no one knows. McCain responded emotionally and that destroyed him. Kerry's teams methodical support showing the mendacity of the group probably would have worked 4 years ago. (Also, look at how the media backed away form the whole TANG story when non essential documents were shown to possibly be false. This discrepancy may be the best clue that there really was no right way for Kerry to respond.

[election_2004]

11. I agree with still_one

These silly allegations from Klein does not mean Hillary deserves a "sympathy nomination" to become the Democratic presidential nominee becuase of it.

But when addressing this during her U.S. Senate run for reelection, she should redefine it to emphasize what she's done for her New York constituents and what she plans to do for them as their U.S. Senator for the next six years, while disregarding Klein's rhetoric as tabloid trash.

[ElectroPrincess]

12. I hope she gets re-elected as a NY Senator but ...

beyond that, I don't give a DAMN, this is all a BIG DISTRACTION!What EXACTLY is the "newsworthy story" that the power brokers and the corporate media trying to cover up with this manufactured sensationalism?

The forgoing is the true issue because Hillary's a survivor.

[truthisfreedom]

13. Hillary Rocks.

end of story.

[CTyankee]

14. She should have her own Swift Boats

out there defending her and saying how despicable the Klein book is. I don't see her responding personally to the claim that Chelsea was born of rape. What is she going to say in her defense, except that she and Bill had consensual sex. Why should she have to open up a discussion about her sex life in the first place?

Let surrogates do it, a whole chorus of them, pounding away and repeating over and over again "SLEAZE, SLEAZE, SLEAZE."

[Pryderi]

16. Excellent idea! Especially, if other republicans bad-mouth her. Put them

into the commercial with the dispicable ravings of Klein.

[LiberalEsto]

18. Actually this may ultimately be a good thing for her

because it gets Hillary's name out in public again. Name recognition means a lot, even if some of it comes from negative publicity. Only freeptards are going to believe the crap in that book anyway.

Some voters are sympathetic to her because she was an innocent victim in the Monical Lewinsky debacle. This ugly book could win her more sympathy points.