Tell me ONE candidate who might run in 2008 who can't be swiftboated

[zulchzulu]

People here at DU have been bashing Kerry for his mentioning that he might run in 2008. Foolishly, some assume that the thoroughly debunked Swiftboaters against Kerry will be back and try to do the same thing. They have been slapped and smacked and debunked by many sources as well as are now under watch by bipartisan groups who support candidates who have a military past...

Name any candidate that might run in 2008 that has the best chance of not getting freshly swiftboated for something in his/her past. Name that candidate and I'm sure we can all find something that the Repugs would use ad nauseum and with millions of dollars to fuel TV ads with.

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. They all can

That's the definition of "swift-boating". For instead, if Gore gets the nomination, some "environmental" people will come out with some statements meant to lessen his support.

It doesn't matter. If we counter with the truth, we win.

[zulchzulu]

8. As for Gore, how many times has he said he isn't running?

Every interview I've heard Al talking about the film, etc., he has formly said he is not going to run. I could do a string of soundbites where he said that, but I'd rather spend time on other things...

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. That has nothing to do with my post. Blatantly.

And now I seriously question your motives.

[iconocrastic]

71. So if all can be swiftboated, what do you propose we do?

Give up in a sputtering rage?

[exlrrp]

110. Swiftboat the Swifboaters!!

The reason they were able to do this is because it pretty much came out of the blue--no one had ever done this before, or at least in modern memory. They also couldn't have done it without paid help in the media.
The Swiftboating was a classic case of the media being transfixed on a "shiny object"--tattling scandal about a Democrat. One of the main reasons they did this was to take the focus off of BUsh's miserable service record: Suspended from his ONLY job his last 14 months, getting paid for 47 days of pilots duty he COULDN'T have done--he was suspended from doing so. They went after Kerry's medals to hide the fact that BUsh's discharge shows he had NONE and further more was completely unqualified to do ANYTHING useful in the military, not even paint rocks white. Don't take my word for it, read it right on his discharge!! The Swiftboating was done, for the main part, to hide the fact that our commander in chief is thoroughly unqualified to lead even a KP detail.
But Kery's (non) reaction to the Swiftboating hurt him as much as the Swiftboating. Kerry should have demanded an oficial investigation into his record immediately. He did later but it was tardy--the damge was done. And that investigation cleared him. He had plenty of time to do this. And then he should have gone after the liars in court.
Notice that Bush NEVER demanded an oficial investigation of his record. He CAN'T!!ANY oficial investigation of Bush's record will reveal all the falsehoods and mnissing documents in his record (see my diary, the Bush Military History Project: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/exlrrp )
Thats why there was no investigation of the CBS memos, although if false they LIBEL Bush and others.

The antidote to these fatmouth liars is to go after them with evrything you have, not slink away without a comment. Go after the media that enables them too.

[exlrrp]

112. Bush: Completely unqualified when discharged! The proof!!

Bush's discharge shows he was completely UNQUALIFIED to do anything in the military, although he was kept listed--and PAID!- as a pilot for 14 months after he was suspended from pilots duty-his ONLY listed job. What is up with THAT? (answer: his superiors ignored their duty to discipline him for failing to take his physical and falsely kept him listed as a pilot unitll his discharge))
Bush's discharge also shows NO medals at all (TAFCS and TAFMS are NOT medals!!)
Thats what the Swiftboating was really about--to cover BUsh's miserable service record. Bush's discharge itself shows falsification and fraud--or explain why he was listed--and PAID!-- as a pilot with NO qualifications at all.
Also look at the remarks box--there's evidence of white out and retyping--see how the lines run diferent to the rest of the page? The whiteout marks on the left, the "lost letters on the right?
(see also: http://www.glcq.com/tampering.htm )
Bush knows all about falsified documents, he really does.
Read all about it in the Bush Military History Project!

[rep the dems]

28. What he usually says is "I have no plans to be a candidate again."

I know, it still sends the message that he isn't running, but Gore is an intelligent man and probably knows that if he is running for President, anouncing his candidacy this early could work against him. You never know.

[NYCGirl]

39. I guess you missed the latest one:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-10-gore-remarks_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday he hadn't rule out making a second bid for the White House, though he said it was unlikely.

Gore spoke to reporters in Sydney, where he was promoting the local premiere of his documentary on global warming.

"I haven't completely ruled out running for president again in the future but I don't expect to," Gore said before the Sunday night premiere of An Inconvenient Truth.

"I offer the explanation not as an effort to be coy or clever. It's just the internal shifting of gears after being in politics almost 30 years. I hate to grind the gears," he added.

[SharonAnn]

64. "Swifboating" means lies about a candidate. So, no one is immune.

[Ignacio Upton]

2. Mark Warner

The only two things they'll be able to attack him on are raising taxes (which the Republican-controlled State Legislature voted for as well) and the fact that he only served one term as Governor (but Virginia doewn't allow its Governors to serve more than one term, so that's a mute point.)

[zulchzulu]

21. Warner is a very strong candidate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner

There might be some crap with him making millions while co-founding Nextel perhaps, but he would be a more sustainable "handsome Southerner" than Edwards, who could be seen as an "ambulance chaser lawyer"...

Like you said, his experience as a one-term governor would be used against him...

You have to look at this through the lens of a Repug Roveoid twit.

[Ignacio Upton]

24. Warner needs to emphasize Virginia's term limts

Since VA only allows Governors one term, so they can't run for re-election. Also, if he chooses a runningmate with strong foreign policy credentials (Bill Richardson, perhaps?...although I'm wondering if being of Mexican descent will hurt Richardson) then he could neutralize this arguement.

[FrenchieCat]

34. If Warner needs to plug up a Foreign policy/National Security hole

in his resume, that makes him prime for Swiftboating on that shortcominng right there!

When they swiftboat anyone, they focus on that person.....not others around him.

It is HOW the one being swiftboated responds and how his attack dog VP respond that makes the difference. Warner hasn't yet shown me that he would be "strong" at fending off attacks, and therefore, he is just as vunerable if not more so to the tactic as are others.

[zulchzulu]

44. That's always the "Governor" problem

That would have been hugely used on Dean if he had won the nomination.... no foreign policy experience... and like you said, even if you have a VP candidate that "fills that void", it still gets down to the single candidate...that person on the stage...most people have no idea who the VP is, let alone make the connection that the VP is filling in the gaps for the presidential candidate.

People who think Senators have the "voting record problem" based on voters not understanding how laws are passed generally forget that governors have the lacking foreign policy problem.

Someone like Warner would do well to have a great film crew and photographer with him when he goes on a worldwide tour and tries to meet camera-saavy world leaders... presto! A worldly man meeting with international leaders! Roll tape!

[FrenchieCat]

45. Yep....well, Warner better get started with his National Security

education....cause that's what he'll need bad.

[snowbear]

56. Yup. Doesn´t ANYONE remember them saying the same thing bout...

.. the loser dude who was selected in 2000?

During the Gore v Bush campaign, Mr. BoOooOOooOOoOsh´s complete LACK of foreign policy experience came up ALL THE TIME.

Didn´t matter though once the Florida debacle happened..

[FrenchieCat]

60. Was that before or after 9/11?

cause I do think that it will be used as a swiftboating theme now....just like it was on John Kerry; told us he couldn't keep us safe, and he had much more experience than Warner.....but he certainly was not a General who's an expert on this matter.....and won the last war fought without losing a single soldier.

[Ignacio Upton]

87. What about Carter in 1976 and Reagan in 1980?

Their only previous political experience involved them being Governors (I think Carter only served one term) and yet this was during the Cold War. Voters didn't hold them being Governors against them. As a matter of fact, the only Governor to lose an election in recent memory is Dukakis (and before that, Thomas E. Dewey, who lost twice to FDR in 1944 and Truman in 1948). Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were all Governors.

[FrenchieCat]

92. Kewl....we can just have a few wars raging....but act

like we're still in the Cold War, where folks aren't getting blown away every single day!

[Ignacio Upton]

86. Just wondering...what if the GOP nominee is a Governor?

One potential GOP candidate that has a chance of getting nominated is Mike Huckabee. He's a dark horse, and a surprisingly articulate speaker that you could have a beer with (unlike Chimpy or Macaca who are both carpetbagger fake bubbas.)

In a Warner-Huckabee matchup, the issue of foreign policy experience won't be as much of a problem. Also, what if the nominee is someone on the far-right, like Sam Brownback? He may have some foreign policy experience, but the fact that he's a open and vocal fundie will make it hard for him to win against someone like Warner who could cast himself as a "centrist."

[FrenchieCat]

91. I saw Huckabee on C-Span, and he wasn't "surprisingly "

Articulate....but I guess we have different taste on what is "articulate"...looks like.

But I think to neutralize a potential advantage that a Democratic nominee COULD have...by hoping that their guy won't have it, so it would be alright if our guy doesn't either is pretty bad strategy...kinda of like grading on a curve, and then thinking that the guy getting the "A" is the extra smart. Cause the way I see it...say they Do nominate a Governor, I would rather NOT give them a level playing field as to have them be more competitive. But that's just how my mind works...cause I must just want to win without giving the enemy any advantages that I don't have to.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. What I have against him is that we're going to need a streetfighter in

2008, not a blow-dried anchorman with only a short political career behind him.

We need someone who is "as cunning as a serpent and as innocent as a dove," to paraphrase Jesus.

[BattyDem]

3. Al Gore - because they already hit him with all the shit they had in 2000

He'd be prepared for it this time - and he's learned from experience. If his speeches over the last few years are any indication, he's not afraid to stand up and fight!

Besides, trashing Gore would have a "been there, done that" feel to most Americans. It's old news ... and they know how ridiculous the attacks were because they're now seeing Gore for the man he truly is.

[zulchzulu]

32. Do you really think Gore is going to run?

Every interview I've heard him talk about the issue, he's said he is not going to run. When do you see him changing his mind?

[BattyDem]

38. I don't know if he'll run or not ...

but I honestly don't believe he's made that final decision NOT to run. (His usual response is "I'm not planning to run.") I think he's testing the waters while reinventing himself in the eyes of the public. He's playing it smart. Why would he say a 2008 run was a possibility? The GOP would only go after him on a daily basis like they do with Hillary.

Of course, this is just a combination of speculation and wishful thinking on my part. But the fact is ... if he WAS going to run, he's doing a brilliant job of laying the groundwork while staying out of the fray. :smoke:
So ... despite what he has said, I will continue to hope that he'll run in 2008. There's plenty of time for him to change his mind.

[peacetalksforall]

35. I agree about Al Gore. They brought it all out - shirt colors,

stiff neck, nuclear plants, his inheritance, China. No one knew enough about him then to run a good defense. The lies about his education were particulary vile and defense knowledge was not timely enough. I remember working hard to get the answers, track them, remember them. And he didn't get face time. Now, as reproted on DU, some gun owners stand behind his environment work.

The country knows that he is a good citizen.

Running Al is the best way to use a mirror. The lies will bounce right back to their mouths.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. They'll swiftboat anybody.

It doesn't matter if the candidate is as pure as the driven snow and has led a completely blameless existence; if they can't find some dirt they will just make shit up -- they'd swiftboat the Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa or Jesus himself if they were running as Democrats. So we pick the person with the best qualifications and a minimum of skeletons in their closet and get ready for the slimefest. And this time, fight back fast and hard.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I agree.

This time, no mercy.

[Armstead]

5. Anyone -- including Jesus himself -- could be Swiftboated.

The trick is how to handle it when it comes.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Jesus himself would be swift boated as a friend of prostitutes and sinners

and as an ally of Hugo Chavez.

Big Dog showed that we must strike back at the GOP when we are under attack, and to do so fearlessly.

Kerry learned his lesson and he has been doing a yeoman's job in opposing Bush's dictatorship.

[Tellurian]

48. Jesus WAS swiftboated by the Ancient Republicans

The Pharisees.. They said He wanted to be King..
They constantly tried to Trap Him...remember the coin trick?
After relentlessly ridiculing Him, they mocked Him, labeling
Him the King of the Jews!

The Republicans were there, learning at their ancestor's knee!

[BootinUp]

103. Well of course

Jesus had too many new teachings and was not part of the established religious leadership. He was a threat to the order of things.

But it might not be the best example to illustrate the point that was being made.

[Tellurian]

117. Jesus was the original victim

and the Prime example of swifting and I strongly disagree he isn't the best example.
The lesson here is, If it could happen to Him, it can happen to anyone!

He wasn't allowed to fight back; we can!

[mourningdove92]

7. John Edwards

I would like to see them try. He would kick their asses across, up, down and around.

[FrenchieCat]

96. With his tongue....I daresay!

[Leilani]

97. Like he kicked Cheney's ass in their debate?

Not likely.....

[exlrrp]

111. Agreed!! nt

.

[BootinUp]

10. I can't imagine

running Kerry again. Really.

The test of any candidate is how they deal with those kinds of issues (being attacked with old charges) and Kerry came up lacking. But to be honest he was really starting from a disadvantage because of the antiwar protesting. To many were not ready to elect someone with that history as commander in chief.

[politicasista]

14. If they did it to Gore and Kerry, they are going to do it to any Dem

And that is a fact.

[BootinUp]

17. Not sure what you mean...

that they will successfully swiftboat any Dem? Thats a little defeatist.

[politicasista]

19. The GOP controlls broadcast media

The media always loves to smear any Dem that comes out against Bush and repeat the lie that "the Democrats don't have plans."

If the General is the candidate, you can bet I will be the first to point out facts rather than play up the lies.

[BootinUp]

31. Its not that simple. n/t

[sandnsea]

22. That's what they do

That's all they do. Do you not get it yet??

[BootinUp]

27. No I don't

Are you saying there is no chance for a Democrat to win the campaign by deflecting the brunt of the attacks?

[sandnsea]

72. The question is "who can't be swiftboated"

The answer is nobody. Every candidate is going to be swiftboated, it's what they do. The question is, will the Party learn and support the candidate or continue to hem and haw and stand in the background because they're more afraid of having egg on their face than losing an election. And while much is made over the swiftboating, what about Dan Rather and the AWOL documents. That wasn't even the Kerry campaign that pushed that story, that was the left and was easily as damaging as the swiftboating. Look what happened to Dan Rather and where was anybody standing up for him? So anybody can be swiftboated until Americans get smart enough to reject it.

[BootinUp]

77. Rather f'd up. He admitted as much.

I think the rest of your post is unsupported by any evidence. When something like a swift boat attack occurs there is only so much other party members can do. The people want to see the candidate respond.

[sandnsea]

81. That's why we keep losing

People keep insisting one person can break through the right wing machine all by themselves. They can't. Within a few days, I guarantee you that nobody will remember anything Clinton said about what he did about bin laden and the conventional wisdom will still be the "head on a platter" nonsense. One person cannot fight them alone.

[BootinUp]

83. Where did I say "all by himself"?

You seem to want to spin what I said.

[sandnsea]

84. "see the candidate respond"

As if Gore, Cleland and Kerry didn't respond. People are all jacked up about Clinton's little rant, but like I said, it'll be forgotten in a few days. Responding to this machine requires everybody on the same page - not people sitting on the sidelines ready to snipe because their superior wisdom wasn't listened to.

And newsflash, I don't know who will be the candidate in 2008, but it won't be Clark because he starts rambling after 10 minutes and allows himself to be led around by the bloggers too much.

[BootinUp]

85. I wasn't in this

thread to promote Clark. I think its too early for that.

[FrenchieCat]

95. "led around by bloggers too much"???....you mean

Clark actually listens to what average folks like us have to say! :wtf:

Get out of town!

Too bad more don't take up that advice....cause personally, I think we are a whole lot smarter than those damned Hairdried highly paid "don't know shit" consultants who lead some around by the nose throughout an entire campaign! (trying not to get nasty....but it is sooooo very hard).

Further, rambling after 10 minutes is better than rambling for the first 10 minutes...cause after that, they tend to take the cameras away and folks fall asleep!

[blm]

113. Not after this Iraq war turned into another Vietnam and people are waking

up now to what that means.

[USA_1]

12. A More Important Question ...

Who wants to bet that when the Swiftboating begins, the Democrats will sit there and turn the other cheek and allow the smear campaign to go unabated?

Republiscums will talk shit while the Democrats will eat it up with relish.

Hate to say it but that's just the way it is.

[SheilaT]

13. Everyone has his (her) vulnerable points.

Long before we knew who the nominee would be in 2004, I was saying that they'd attack the specific weak points of our candidate. And especially if you were originally a supporter of anyone else but John Kerry, you should realize that even your favorite candidate would have been attacked viciously. Kerry had one set of vulnerabilities, all the others had other vulnerabilities. And so it will go in 2008. There is NO ONE we could nominate who will be pure and invulnerable. Simply accept from the get-go that he/she will be attacked and be prepared to defend and counter-attack.

[lwcon]

23. Point of weakness?

The Swiftboaters attacked Kerry's strength: he served with bravery and distinction on the battlefield and in his testimony about a disastrous war.

They rewrote history to make Kerry a coward and a cheat, and the Vietnam War into a noble quest.

Rove and company don't need to find any weakness in our candidates. They just need people who will lie, and a media intent on treating obviously bogus smears as legitimate facts. Especially if they come from the right wing.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[zulchzulu]

36. Good point. Rove's "genius" was to attack their strength

Look at it through that lens.

Name the candidate. Name their "strength" or "brand". Then discredit that will as much mud, lies and half-truths as possible ad nauseum through TV ads, which flood the air in major markets strategically.

If it's Warner, find a couple people who worked for Nextel that he stomped on and have them bring up a phoney charge that "sticks" or puts Warner on the defensive.

If it's anybody else, find their perceived strength and then pull out the usual bag of tricks.

[BootinUp]

49. You don't think the

war protesting muddied the waters there on his strength?

[lwcon]

70. No, I don't. Not for the reality-based world.

I've asked younger people if at any point their pre-2004 lifetimes they'd ever heard Vietnam discussed as anything other than a sorry fiasco. They said they hadn't.

The revisionist (or recidivist) thinking that declared John Kerry and Hanoi Jane the real culprits of Vietnam was pure GOP/Faux News mind-games.

Until the bizarro world of Bush, no one would have dared run on a pro-Vietnam War stance anytime in the last few decades -- especially not a draft dodger.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[BootinUp]

76. As many have noted

As many have noted, attacks will be made and in many cases from fabricated evidence. What makes an attack stick is when there is some personal information that seems to lend credence to the attack. Whether Kerry's position on Nam was right or wrong, the way he handled it upset a lot of folks and helped make the swiftboating attack stick.


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html

Check out the exit polling from Ohio and scan way down to "Trust Candidate to Handle the War on Terror" Kerry's numbers were horrible 53% did not trust him and only 40% did.

[lwcon]

79. You're blaming the victim

Our media have been corrupted, and a regime of liars and cheats have seized control of the government.

That people have been fed a lot of bullshit about Democratic candidates doesn't say anything about the character of those candidates.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[BootinUp]

82. Heres a simple theory

A media interviewer develops a preference, then any material that is presented is run through that filter. Do you have a problem with that?

I do believe that the media favored Bush and presented a lot of negative material on Kerry. Why? Because they didn't like him for the job.


Is it right that they are so biased? Of course not but that is not what we are talking about. Fact is Kerry had a long history in public life and lots of ammo for the other side. A Northeastern Senator. A Northern Strategy, yeah that worked.

[lwcon]

94. Let me guess...

... is the correct answer that Wes Clark should be our candidate, because every other possible candidate has some skeletons in his closet?

And yes, I do have a problem with a media so right-leaning and corrupted that a vile twerp like Bush is projected as belonging in the same room with a war hero like Kerry or a statesman like Gore.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[karynnj]

88. That's hard to believe

How young were the young people? I have a daughter who graduated in 2003 and one who graduated in 2005. They went to two different schools both studied Vietnam extensively.

[lwcon]

93. And they grew up in a context...

... where they thought the Vietnam War was something other than a fiasco?

I'm not saying these people hadn't heard about the war. I'm saying that the prevailing wisdom from their birth until the revisionism of 2004 was that the war was a total mistake. A prevailing wisdom that was, of course, correct.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[karynnj]

102. Very true

The text books both kids used made clear that it was a fiasco. One of my daughters went to the local public school the other to a prep school - both their choice.

One source of distortion might be Hollywood - I have not seen a study that looks at all the Vietnam movies done over time and their POV, but you do have the Rambo movies that followed movings like "Born on the 4th of July", "Coming Home" and "Apocalyspe now". There was also the TV "The 60s" which made the protesters look very superficial. There was a lot of excess, but they totally ignored the very really idealism. I hestitated to write this as I never saw the Rambo movies, so I feel on shaky ground. (Has any one - far more knowledgable on movies - looked at this? It seems too obvious and too interesting for it not to have been done. Movies because they can almost get mixed up in your mind could influence people to change their prospective - which is what the whole PT911 furor is about.

[lwcon]

108. Rambo 101

The first Rambo movie was "First Blood," which melodramatized the plight of the Vietnam vet whom society neglected and abused. I don't think it was a particularly right-wing movie, though the shell-shocked Rambo does complain that someone wasn't allowing the U.S. to win the war. The bad guys are malicious cops, who treat him as an undesirable drifter, and a society that turned Rambo into a killing machine and had no use for him when they stopped the war that they told him was so important.

The sequels are excuses for Rambo -- sprung from prison for the mayhem he caused while defending himself from the cops -- to kick a lot of non-white ass. In "Rambo: First Blood Part II." he does it in a mission in post-war Vietnam, and in "Rambo III" he helps our good friends, in Afghanistan -- the mujahideen!

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[karynnj]

115. OMG!

Rambo III" he helps our good friends, in Afghanistan -- the mujahideen!

Thanks for the RAMBO 101.

[SheilaT]

100. You're right, and I stand corrected.

They attack what should be the candidate's strongest point -- or at least they did with Kerry. But then the result is that what was attacked is seen as and then becomes a weakness. Kerry was perceived as a coward, someone who lied about his service just to get some undeserved medals.

The whole point of "swift-boating" is to mercilessly attack some point of vulnerability and to lie and lie until the lie is accepted as the truth.

We shouldn't pick our next nominee based on whether or not that person is thought to be less liable to be Swift-boated. What we'll need is a candidate who will stand firm against all attacks, who will fight back, who will be willing to attack the Republican nominee.

[BootinUp]

41. All vulnerabilties are equal then?

Come'on.

[politicasista]

15. They all can. Question is will the party back them up? n/t

[Auntie Bush]

16. Wes Clark

They will try but he won't let them get away with anything. He'll "beat the sh*t out of them".

[zulchzulu]

26. As much as I like Wes...

The story that he was "fired" by Clinton could certainly haunt him in a down-in-the-dirt balls-against-the-wall campaign. Again, it's bullsh*t, but you have to consider the Repugs.

There are also some generals who served with him would would probably use the same Swiftboater template that was used on Kerry. Anyone who wants Wes to run should surely have talking points ready to go concerning these issues.

Wes would do well to have a firmly ready campaign response that doesn't leave him on the defensive for long explaining some of those "moments". Add that the presidential campaign is an 18-month sprint with the cameras watching your every word and move.

[snowbear]

40. I think they´d try like hell with the General..

But I also still have a haunting feeling that he would´ve done incredibly well if he had started earlier and not made the crucial mistake to skip Iowa..

As far as swiftboating .. just the fact that he´s such a strong military figure, that you´re right.. they´d bring up the issue with Clinton at every opportunity.

The good thing though.. is that General Clark isn´t phased in the slightest when he talks about it. But they´d still create major attack ads using that one event.

The only time I lost respect for Senator John Edwards during the last campaign, was when he allowed that General.. whatever his name is.. to try and diss General Clark.

I can think of something they´d find for swiftboating most on the list.. even Governor Richardson.. but it could be.. like you said.. that Mark Warner would be a little too squeaky clean to find a whole lot to rake through the coals.

Although I´m sure they´d think of something. That´s just how they are --

[FrenchieCat]

43. As many Generals that are going against the Pentagon,

Clark being retired early won't hurt him. He's making new friends, and joining with some that weren't always his friends.

Plus Bill Clinton already has come to Wes' defense. Those who wanted to swiftboat Wes Clark have already tried trotting the "He was Fired" routine.....and it didn't hurt him.....what hurt him was Iowa; not being there.

In reference to Generals, they already did their thing...and THERE WAS ONLY ONE GENERAL, Hugh Shelton who trashed talked on Wes and then decided that he had nothing else to say. The others either chose not to say anything or supported Wes Clark.

General Colin Powell on CNN - 9/28/03: "I've known Wes Clark for 20 years. He's one of the most gifted soldiers that I have ever had work for me. And beyond that, I really feel it's appropriate for me to recuse myself from any further comment now that he is a political candidate."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/28/le.00.html


Major General George Pickett on the whispers...."No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point , which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor." 'All this book leanin' is unbecoming for an officer. The yankees got all the smart ones, and look where it got them."
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/008539.html


General McCaffrey:"(He-Clark) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."


Admiral John Dalton, Former Secretary of the Navy, in a 2004 OP Ed--
"Wesley Clark is uniquely qualified to lead the nation - Today, America faces two fundamental challenges at home and abroad: keeping our country safe in a dangerous world, and restoring fiscal responsibility and prosperity for the working families of our nation. We must choose a President with experience and depth both for the domestic economy and the international arena. "


Maj. General Robert Scales responding to Shelton's insinuation while being interviewed by Fox News' Britt Hume: "Well, first of all, they are whispered. You know, Brit, Wes Clark led a 19-nation coalition, he fought a war and he won it. If you are a general in war and you have to command such a disparate organization, there are times when you have got to be hard and you've got to be decisive. I mean no one complains about Jack Welch (search) running the best…being the best CEO in the country and he was tough. But I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES: SCALES: I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual. So, soldiers in wartime have to lead soldiers into battle and the lives of men and women are at stake. And sometimes that requires a degree of flintiness that you don't need in other professions.

HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?

SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html


General Schwarkopf on CNBC News questioned about the whisper campaign....
BORGER: All right, General, I'm going to switch gears on you just for one last question, because we've been watching all of the Democrats react to the news of Saddam Hussein's capture. You made a little bit of news on our show on November 6th when you said of General Wesley Clark that he was not going to get your vote, that was for certain, because General Hugh Shelton had said that he was not a man of character and integrity. And you said, quote, "If that's the case, he's not the right man for president as far as I'm concerned." Have you changed your mind?
SCHWARZKOPF: Well, again, 'if that's the case' was a very, very important statement. You know, I don't know to this date--there's never been any attempt to explore with Hugh Shelton what he meant by that.
....I don't know what lack of character caused Hugh Shelton to say that, I don't know what lack of integrity caused Hugh Shelton to say that, and I'd like to hear more about it. And basically I just don't think that that's been addressed that much. And obviously to a lot of people that's not an issue at all."
http://ann.forclark.com/story/2004/1/8/191653/0022


Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738


General McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1047429,00.html
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html


Defense Secretary William Perry: who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a legendary Pentagon technologist who served as defense secretary under Clinton.

Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed commander of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs overrode the Army once again and made sure Clark became Supreme Allied Commander Europe, traditionally the most powerful CINC, with command of all U.S. and NATO forces on the continent.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. Douglas Macgregor: There is this aspect of his character: He is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. Gen. Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. David Hackworth: I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Andrew Young: "I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000035&lastConvSeq=9789

The fizzling whisper campaign was brought to a halt when General Shelton was called on the carpet by Hague prosecutors who were trying Milosovic. Milosovic repeated what Gen. Shelton had whispered about General Clark, after Clark testified against Milosovic. Unfortunately for General Gossip, he had to call his unfortunate comments assailing Wes Clark's character "just politics".
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/presidence4.htm#LA%20Meetup%20with%20Wes%20II
Read these for further insight:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[snowbear]

51. Thanks FrenchieCat !!

Awesome list!

Shelton.. it was SHELTON that had jumped on the Edwards bandwagon. Sheesh.. I couldn´t remember who it was!

I´m glad he later agreed it was just politics..

[exlrrp]

109. Yeah, thanks Frenchie! Great! nt

.

[phillysuse]

18. Wesley Clark

won't be swiftboated if he runs in 2008. He's learned not to take Republican
crap on Fox. It's a pleasure to listen to him make the Fox guys seem like children.

[sandnsea]

20. They all will be

It's pure arrogant delusion to think anybody is immune to it. Whoda' thunk this country would stoop so low as to smear a veteran's war record.

[SaveElmer]

25. Hillary Clinton...

No bogus charge in her past that the American people have not already dismissed. One of the few Democratic politicians truly skilled at turning Republican sleaze back on them and ending up in a stronger position!

[snowbear]

29. Hillary would be swiftboated more than all of them put together...

Can you imagine the ads they´d run..

I agree with the others.. they´d swiftboat the Pope if he was running as a Democrat!

[SaveElmer]

104. Of course they will try...

Swiftboated also implies the level of effective response...no one has the experience handling these attacks better than Hillary!

[zulchzulu]

30. Swiftboating Hillary would be the easiest for Repugs

If you don't see it, God bless you...

[SaveElmer]

105. You are blind...

Name a Democratic politician in the last 16 years who has had more unfair, sleazy attacks leveled at them than Hillary Clinton...there is one....Bill Clinton.

What is the result of these attacks...Bill Clinton leaves office as the most popular President in a generation, and Hillary is elected to the U.S. Senate...

Sorry, no one handles these attacks better than the Clinton's...this last week is ample demonstration of that fact!

[Blue-Jay]

55. Why do you think the 'pubs have been predicting her

winning the nomination for the past two years?

A: Because they WANT that to happen. They will savage her.

[SaveElmer]

106. Please...the same ridiculous argument...

Hillary is the front runner right now...if the Republicans truly wanted her they would keep their mouths shut. Excessive praise of any Democrat from Republicans raises the suspicion of Democratic activists (worked on you). No, they do not want to face another CLinton in the race...

[Blue-Jay]

114. You should stop insulting people who disagree with you.

It's very rude.

[Tellurian]

65. The swiftys would make something up..

Or worse...use the the Trap theme..
Like Al, hosting a fundraiser at the WH-
Al, using a gov telephone calling contrib-

No matter how innocent or trivial
It ends up the Goodyear Blimp..

So pick your candidate..and lets start a
Swifter Club..(lawful combatants)

[Stinky The Clown]

33. Yassee ..... here's the essential truth about swiftboating ......

It starts by just purely making shit up.

Then you fling the shit.

Then you get some other shit flingers to attest to the fact that your shit isn't shit.

Then you repeat.

Then you get on teevee and tell the story of how the shit you made up could be true.

Then you get even more shit flingers to swear your shit is real.

You cloak it all in arcane minutiae and tie your opponent up in knots trying to debunk minutiae, all the while watching the sheeple lap up the shit. By the time its debunked, no one cares and you have shit all over you.

And it will work every time you're up against a group with no scruples and a deep love of shit.

The sure fire counter?

Fling the first turd.

[zulchzulu]

37. Tom Harkin has beat 9 Repugs when he has run by doing this...

As soon as you know you are running, the first thing you do is ATTACK your opponent. Attack early and attack often. His theory does work.

[BootinUp]

46. I agree until

"and it will work every time..."

Part of successful politics is the confident image of the candidate, the trustworthy image that is perceived. Its when a majority believe the candidate over the shit flingers. Its more than just policy and attacks. Not to say your analysis isn't correct much of the time. But there are exceptions.

[Tellurian]

57. Yes! The One who flings the FIRST Stone Wins!

BC proves the theorem works.
Wallace erred disastrously..
in forgetting who he's dealing with.

The Old Rule applies..
Hard to prove a negative..

[Tellurian]

62. Hold On..

What was this dynamic called before swiftboating?

[BootinUp]

63. How come it didn't work in '92?

[Tellurian]

67. Rove was unavailable

too busy attending lectures at
a Faustian Junior College.

[BootinUp]

69. Sure hes good

But Papa Bush had some good shit flingers too.

[Tellurian]

74. What I see is the concert is breaking up

and some of the key players have found a better way.

[Sparkly]

42. None. BUT....

I think the term "freshly swiftboated" matters. I think "fresh" attacks are easier to refute than those that have stuck to the wall nationwide -- much as I admire and supported Kerry and Gore.

I've long said it's a matter of what the ammunition is against the Democrat, and what the grounds, territory, and ammo are for his/her defense. (And of course, later, what ammo there is against the Repuke whoever it may be -- as a certain clown said, "fling the first turd.")

And I think these dirty, negative, "swiftboat" strategies can NOT be overestimated!!! They are real, and they hold sway! (Unfortunately, they cause people to drag themselves to the polls complaining about "the lesser of two evils," but so be it.)

So the "best chance" to me is not about the "best chance of not getting freshly swiftboated," as you said, zulch. I think ANY will get it -- people coming out of the woodwork screaming, "I worked with him/her and she/he is EVIL!" etc... It's about the defense -- the terrain, the landscape, the ammo from his/her biography, the appeal to voters in other ways... Strength, conviction, intelligence, etc. won't matter as much in the general election as in the job itself (and the primaries). The fight against the Repukes is one involving image, persuasion, stereotypes, soundbytes, and lots of ammo on defense (as well as offense).

[zulchzulu]

54. "Fresh" vs. "Stale" swiftboating

For me, having a candidate dealing with "fresh swiftboating" indicates a couple problems. First, a really well-run and visionary campaign knows the dirt that will be used on the candidate and hopefully has well executed responses and action plan to quickly negate and debunk the charges followed up with charges made against the opponent that quickly puts them on the defensive.

"Stale swiftboating" would be old charges by an opponent that hopefully are well ready to be executed as attacks back in a well media-layered action plan. If they drop a grenade, you drop a nuke right back at them. It would also include several fronts of attack on the opponent that hopefully puts them on the ropes.

Stale swiftboating charges hopefully would have been throughly debunked and talking points would have been documented and made easily available to the targeted voting public.

Swiftboating Gore or Kerry on older charges would be less viable than new attacks on candidates most of the American public would barely know. Some may even include Hillary in the "stale swiftboating" category, although I see her candidacy as fully realized in Falwell's recent statement that she would be a great unifier for the "Religious Reich".

[Sparkly]

75. I think you have more faith in the intelligence of the electorate than I

I think the past memes stick, and nothing can undo them, among the general populus. The further they've spread, the greater the "damage," so to speak.

I agree that every possible candidate needs to know what the rightwing might use, and have counters ready to fire. (And also that our campaign needs to have no qualms about firing at whoever the opponent is! I say "our campaign" on the model that the candidate doesn't do the actual hurling of turds, but obliquely refers to the dirty work others do.)

All of the smears against Gore and Kerry have been debunked over and over again -- but nonetheless, they hover in the air, unfortunately, like the smell that lingers when a candle's blown out.

I think it's first, a great candidate. (And I do believe Gore and Kerry were great candidates!) Second, a campaign that does NOT heed the typical "free advice" from the right: "Stay positive! Don't go negative! Don't sling mud! Voters don't like that!"

They need to battle the MEDIA full-tilt, in every forum possible, including the internet and the grassroots (which Dr. Dean fully understands). That includes maximizing the energy on forums like this one.

And they need to recognize that all these "warnings" mean NOTHING -- unfortunately, negativity is what SELLS and the RNC has built itself upon it. No fears, no hesitance, no qualms, no worries about "high roads" and "low roads" -- keep the candidate above it as necessary, but fight like HELL with whatever works below that.

I think we've got great potential now -- even knowing it's merely the potential to begin to reverse the damage of this administration (damage that's going to last well beyond all of our lifetimes).

We CAN take it back, we HAVE to, and I believe we WILL. From there, it's all uphill, for decades to come.

[savemefromdumbya]

47. Gore

because they stole the Presidency from him

[ComerPerro]

50. You can swiftboat anyone for anything

[BootinUp]

52. Do 51% percent always believe it?

I'm intrigued by this line of debate.

[ComerPerro]

53. That depends.

You need to be very well funded, get lots of media facetime without ever being seriously questioned or challenged, get a book deal, and tell the kinds of lies that a lot of people want to believe.

That's the only real challenge to Swiftboating.

[BootinUp]

58. So then the candidate's

ability to deal with issues that are raised, you know how (s)he handles the controversy, and magnetism has nada to do with it?


I think something folks here forget is that the media is not a monolith, but made up of people each with their own brain. If people covering the politics do start showing favoritism its probably becuase the candidate appeals to them in one way or another. Now in some cases it may be organizational pressure. But why do DU'ers think its normal for them to like one candidate more than another but that doesn't apply in the GE or to people that cover politics?

[ComerPerro]

59. Problem is, only a handful of people

get to decide what stories are aired, and how they are spun.

[BootinUp]

61. I agree with that.

It also makes my point more valid.

[wisteria]

66. The Republicans will attempt to swift boat any of our candidates.

If they can't dig something up, they will make it up and spin it. All of our candidates must be able to fight it off and sling it back at them. Maybe, the question should be who is tough enough to take them on and can anticipate their moves before they make them. Someone strong enough to stand for something and stand up for their beliefs. A person who is comfortable taking unpopular stands when necessary and knows their own mind. A true sensible leader. Experience in dealing with them and taking them on would be a big plus in my estimation. For me, that narrows the list to Kerry and Gore. My personal choice is Senator Kerry though.

[martymar64]

68. Briasn Schweitzer

I'd like to see those pendejos try.

[JohnLocke]

73. Clark & Feingold

[snowbear]

80. Wow.. those two names look good together..

Clark / Feingold

[Rowdyboy]

78. They can try to "swiftboat" Wes Clark but they're shit out of luck.....

Wes Clark is not John Kerry. He has repeatedly proven that he WILL NOT BE SILENCED or talked-over by right-wing interviewers. He WILL make his point, plainly and with precision. Thats a talent we shouldn't overlook.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. Nobody is immune

The Republicanites can dig up dirt on anyone, and if there isn't any, they just make stuff up.

[midnight]

98. I think to rectify this situation is to take it head on and hand it right

back to them with a bigger dose of their own medicine.

[annabanana]

99. "swiftboating" is our word now. .

It means lying in order to sink a candidacy. It can be identified BY that word.

[mtnsnake]

101. Definitely Hillary

Been there, done that, it's all old boring news. She always comes out on top when they go after her. Not only would they get their asses handed to them on a silver platter if they go after her in the national spotlight, but she'd welcome the chance to hand it to them personally. Swiftboat her and it brings her brilliance to the forefront. That's one of the reasons why they're so afraid of her.

[Totally Committed]

107. Every Democratic Candidate (or Possible) can be "Swiftboated"

The point is and will be, what will they do about it? If they plan to do the patented DLC Roll-Over, they are wasting our time and effort and shouldn't bother to run. If they will energize the RW base as Hillary is guaranteed to do, and THEN do the patented DLC Roll-Over, then she DEFINITELY shouldn't run, because she is UNELECTABLE at his point.

I am unwilling to put up with a Republican administration again. So only REAL Democrats... ones with hearts, minds, and souls fully in place to work with their "balls" should run.

Any Democrat who thought that voting for the Torture Bill would preserve their viability should be shown otherwise, too.

I think that about covers it... no DLC Roll-Overs, no gutless wonders, no Corporatist shills, and no torturers need apply. Then, we fight like hell.

TC

[Tiggeroshii]

116. Obama

[SoCalDemGrrl]

118. Everyone on earth can be swiftboated cuz its based on LIES