They destroyed Clinton

[BeFree]

Clinton was destroyed (almost) by the same tactics we see being used today.

Are we playing ourselves right into their hands again?

Are YOU helping the VRWC destroy truth and freedom?

[oasis]

1. No. Some believe they're helping their candidate.

[bryant69]

2. Further questions

Are YOU helping the OTC destroy Vanilla and Chocolate?

Was Clinton destroyed by said tactics?

What is the Square Root of a Million?

Are we playing badmiton, tiddly-winks or Rugby?

In othere words; you need to unpack this a little more--what do you mean by are we playing into their hands?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DemNoir]

3. They could not destroy Clinton, they failed

I think if Clinton could run in this election he would win,easily.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Its Better they do this now, when we can still

select another nominee, then in October when we're stuck.

[BeFree]

7. It's like this, Coldn Grey

They will do it to whoever we allow them to do it too.

We let them put a hurtin' on Bill. We were complicit. Are we gonna let them get away with using us again to satisfy their ends?

[bryant69]

8. So what should we do?

[BeFree]

9. Ignore it. Don't spread it.

But, as a purely political move -- this IS politics, ya know-- it can be successful, so I say lets use the same tactics against them.

[Homer12]

5. I don't agree

If they try the entire intern thing again, most people are going to ignore it becuase they don't want to go through this media circus again.

the GOP is desperate, they'll use any form of attack, but this John Kerry intern thing will not have legs.

[BeFree]

6. Legs

These types of dirty tricks only have legs if we give it legs. Too give it legs is playing right into the hands of the VRWC. Just like too many of us did when they went after Clinton.

[Nicholas_J]

10. Actually, they didnt destroy Clinton at all.

Theytried to impeach him, they did, but could not find him guilty.

After the Lewinski Affair was proven, on the very day, and for days after, Clintons appproval ratig were among the highest in his presidency.

Now what Drudge is stating is not only beginning to lose cohesion, Drudge is trying to Hedge his bets by moving away from comparisons to the Clinton /Lewinski Affair:

Unlike the Monica Lewinsky drama, which first played out publicly in this space, with audio tapes, cigar and a dress, the Kerry situation has posed a challenge to reporters investigating the claims.

"There is no lawsuit testimony this time ," a top source said Thursday night. "It is hard to prove."

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk5.htm

Now if you look at what Drudge is trying to do, he is using a statement "supposedly: made by Wes Clark at the beginning of this week.

But lets look at what Drudge actally has allegated...

The nature and details of a claimed two-year relationship, beginning in the Spring of 2001, between a young woman and Kerry is at the center of serious investigations at several media outlets...

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head.

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk5.htm

A close friend, un-identified in any way, even by hint of this persons relation to the intern involved in the allegations. The media is supposed to have been appriached by tis {b]friend who made fantastic allegations.

After being approached by a top news producer, the woman fled to Africa, where she remains, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Allegations that this person fled, to a rather large continent which is notably technologically backwards. making locating her a little more difficult. Plus she disappears to Africa, the continent Kerry's wife comes from.

Next, look at the media outlets supposedly investigating the allegations:

You have got ABC News, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the Associated Press. These media outlets are among the most liberal in the U.S., plus they have been the most persistant at publishing, and reminding the public of the democratic party's questioning of Bush's Air Guard A.W.O.L. allegations.

So lets say the media simpoly ignores Drudge, and in fact, nothing ever is published that verifies these allegations. What is Drudge's next story...

That the liberal media is covering up for Kerry, and suppressing the inforation.

What does this allow...

First of all, the release of these allegations comes at a very convenient time for Bush, distracting the public from the issues of his own A.W.O.L. allegations, and the fact that the Democrats are stating that the records he is presenting are not adequate proof (in fact, after a closer looks at the pay stubs presented by Bush's Press Officer, I am willing to suggest that these will soon be said to have been doctored, or even recently created documents). And a recent statement by a military officer involved with going through Bushs records to determine which ones they want to release that he observed some of these records being thrown out, has created more doubt about the accuracy or authenticity of the records Bush is presenting.

Also, so far, the media organizations that Drudge claims have investigates the Kerry allegations (in some places Drudge states that they are now investigating these allegations, in others he states they already have investigated them), have not said a word about the allegations. If they do not, as I said, Drudge can go on claiming that these media outlets are all parts of the liberal media, and they are protecting Kerry, and covering up, while still questioning Bush's military record. Allowing Republicans to make assertions about Kerry, and the mysterious disappearing intern every time democrats make an issue of the possibility of Bush being a deserter during time of war (high crime or misdemeanor, and impeachable offense, if they can make it stick. And having the media focus on it muh more than they did in 1999/2000 could bring evidence of this to the forefront if it is true, and it is focused on. Remember, in 1999/2000 all of the candidates except Bush agreed to have their military records fully opened in order to put to rest any issues about their military service. Bush refused. Now these records have suddenly become available. And they are in virtually pristine condition. Not bad for plain paper Xerox copies of what appear to be documents that were originally copied from microfilm on thermal copy paper (that old slick stuff that you made copies of magazines or book pages in the public libraries on) The payroll stub that Scott McClellan held up om TV was a black background with white typeface, photocopied onto modern plain paper photocopier paper.

Thermal paper does not retain anything like the kind of contrast that the documents shown did. This kind of photocopier paper lost contrast immediately when exposed to heat (leave something you just copied in a warm car for an hour, and the entire page turns black. In about a year, the constrst between the white lettering and black background diminishes , with the background getting a sort of charcoal grey, or even lighter. Sometimes it turns a light sepia, or even tan.

The documents show looked like thermal copies made very recently from some sort of microfilm/fiche, and then photocopied onto regular photocopy paper. I think democrats are going to want to see the originals.

Anyway, Drudge has just set up a situation in which Bush (pr more likely, his campaign staff to make Bush look like he is not personally engaging in dirty politics) can bring up the disappearing girl, the liberalmedia coverup, and not need to be bothered by petty details like proof. An evn nicer touch is the fact that the information about Kerry comes from someone who worked for Kerry, but was let go (Chris Lehane), just like a disguntled ex Bush staffer write a nasty book about Bush (PaulO'Neill) SOrt of adds an iraonic touch.

So what do we have. Info the media that was supposedly given to them sometime in November/December 2003,which they do not seem to have acted on, or related in any way to the public. An allegation that Wes Clark made an off the record statement in front of a dozen reporters, verified to Drudge by three of them, but not confirmed by any of them in Drudges Report, or in their own media.

Kerry has rather confidently stated that there is absolutely nothing there, and a number of political pundits have already noted that he would not havve said this of firmly if he had anything toreally worry about.

After Wes Clark speaks today with Kerry, a clearer picture of what the situation with on Clarks supposed off the record statement was will become available. Which is why I beleive Clark would not say one thing to the media yesterday, as he nad Kerry wish to say everything at one time in one place to a group of reporters, rather than Clark having said things to several different reporters at differnt times yesterday. Which usually results in reporters reporting completely different things for each reporter spoken to. Saying the same thing to three different reporters and hour apart each always results in three totally different speeches being reported.

I think this is more an attempt by Drudge, a rather conservative little sleazebag, to take a great deal of heat off of Bush, especially about his military record, which would be the icing on the cake right now, with his credibility at rock bottom.

Drudges ongoing reports are filled wi things like "A top source revealed" and so on. So far, in the five or six updates he has posted, there has not been one credible source, or even indication of a source, or anything that even point in the direction of a source, or who the intern was, or who the friend who blew the whole story was. This is so much like the Linda Tripp/ Monica Lewinski story. Too much of a coincidence.

[nomaco-10]

11. How can you destroy somebody by revealing .......

the truth as long as they've done nothing wrong or immoral. I am so sick of hearing the meme that whenever either side (dems and pubs) start dishing the dirt it's always somebody else's fault. The public sees thru most of it and it generally backfires.
I think at some point in time it's going to have to come down to personal accountability with anybody running for POTUS. Somebody needs to write a handbook and give it out to all candidates. Contents would include, it's OK if you smoked pot 30 years ago, but not if you did cocaine within the last 10 years. It's possible that you can have had an affair in the past, but we recommend atleast 20 years unless you have the charisma of Bill Clinton and even he pushed his luck in the end. It is adamantly suggested that you are not currently involved in a clandestine relationship, especially if said partner is young enough to be your daughter. It's very beneficial to have served in some capacity in the military even if it's the National Guard, but do try to show up.
Personally, I have to wonder why any decent person would even want to run for POTUS. My candidate has been vilified and marginalized for weeks. You know it has to take a terrible toll on your family. Wifes are raked over the coals for their hairdos or they're too involved or not involved enough, kids are ridiculed for normal teenage behaviour and held to a higher standard that would land most kids in a looney bin or a bar. I wouldn't do it to my family. Hell, even the family pet is exploited.
As far as Bill Clinton is concerned, I don't like what was done to him, but Bill made a mistake, when Monica flung her skirt up over her head and flashed her thong, Bill should have called "Oh Betty, I think we have a personnel problem here". End of story.

[John_H]

12. I hope they destroy Kerry the way they destroyed Clinton

In '98 we picked up 6 seats in the House when the Rethugs were counting on their coup d'etat getting them 20-30. Clinton's approval rating was 23 pts higher the day he got "impeached" and 18 pts. higher the day he left office than Chimp's is today.

The Rethugs just don't get it. Nobody in america is as outraged by fucking as they profess to be. People just don't care. In fact they get outraged when others get unfairly slimed by Church Lady hypocrites.

[kenny blankenship]

13. Is Kerry ?

"Are YOU helping the VRWC destroy truth and freedom?"

..and free nookie?

Not hardly.

I'd say the one who cannot exercise zipper control is to blame if the VRWC does a Clinton-type hit on him. Unless Kerry lurks in these fora, you're talking to the wrong people altogether.