Swiftboating Hillary

This winger article profiles the right-wing's supposed answer to MoveOn -- and organization called (in typical cheesy right-wing fashion) The Vanguard.

But while the organization looks more like vapor than anything else, there was this interesting passage:

Martin refuses to confirm or deny rumors that Jerome Corsi -- co-founder of 2004’s “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” which irreparably damaged John Kerry’s Presidential hopes -- has signed on for a similar effort against Hillary. The ubiquitous Corsi could not be reached for comment.

It doesn't matter whether Hillary is the nominee or not. Whoever the nominee is will get the same treatment.

These people specialize in character assassination. And like cornered, wounded animals, expect them to get even more vicious than before.

•  Hillary has already been put through the wringer.

  What else could they possibly come up with?

  by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:10:03 AM PDT

  •  They'll make something up, of course

    Or take something meaningless and turn it into a massive SCANDAL!!!!

    -dms

    by dmsilev on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:13:02 AM PDT

    •  they could just

      start talking about white-water again.

      the hate radio segment would carry the water for the 'vince foster was murdered by the clintons' and general rhetoric like that.

      and of course bill and monica would probably be a very prominent subject once again, with conservatives working themselves up into a rage over the way hillary was too weak to leave bill, or she sanctioned it, or they were in an open sexual relationship, or any other garbage like that.

      nothing is out of bounds with these scumbags.

      by wastelandusa on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:19:21 AM PDT

      •  Don't forget - Hillary is a lesbian

        I know because I heard Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage imply it.  (/snark)

        by adigal on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:27:23 AM PDT

        •  actually

          her being a lesbian would be to her credit with reichwingers, if you're taking into account the vast swath of closet-cases in that party.

          by wastelandusa on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:47:34 AM PDT

          •  Progressive homophobia?

            I'm reminded of the periodic discussions of various Repugs who "really set off [the poster's] gaydar."

            Some of those comments might legitimately be from gay people who are angry at a closeted opportunist working for the party that opposes their rights; but I've always suspected that at least as many of them are from straight homophobes who've learned that "sets off my gaydar" is the polite way to say "what a fuckin' faggot."

            The increasingly widespread use of the term "closet case" represents, IMO, a convergence between the gay community's desire to claim as many members as possible and the machismo that sees any variation from narrow gender stereotypes as homosexuality. But there are straight women who play soccer and straight men who listen to opera.

            by dumpster on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 05:49:34 PM PDT

      •  This is good! Very good!

        For if the wingers are sinking time and money into smearing Senator Clinton, and making everyone remember how much better off they were during the Clinton years, they arn't pounding on a more electable candidate.

        Senator Clinton is the best lightning rod the D's have, and is a superior Senator, however this exceptional person is not electable and you are seeing why right now.  

        This will only get worse so I propose that the good Senator allow the wingers to just go goofy!  The louder the better.

        2008 can't get here fast enough for me.

        by boilerman10 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:31:40 AM PDT

        •  That whole "unelectable" stuff

          is just pure wingnut crap.

          by KnowVox on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:00:06 AM PDT

          •  Senator Clinton elicits strong

            responses.

            Many of these are cast in stone already.

            You can throw good money after bad if you want to, but simple reminders of the clamour and hype the wingnuts dropped on the Clintons opens old sores, and quick.

            Sell her in the Midwest and I'll believe you and and your statements about electability.  But if she flops there, with the talent and cash she has, don't tell me how "electable" she is until we see what the Pubbies throw at us, but by then she will have lost the nomination.  It's the product of brainwashing, and the public was and remains brainwashed about our most excellent Senator.

            by boilerman10 on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:37:50 AM PDT

    •  If anyone can handle the pressure, Hillary can.

      She's no pushover... and has powerful friends on her side. Also with Hillary, you have anrgy right-wing men looking for any excuse to criticize her... and many of their wives quietly vote for her. I think that the attacks on Hillary make more women voters support her, so bring it on Swiftboaters.

      by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:22:14 AM PDT

      •  About the Only Argument for Nominating Her I'd...

        buy. Sadly, I'm leery of the argument because it was exactly that kind of argument that counseled voting for Kerry. You know, "electability."

        There's also the fact that she's so closely associated with the DLC, mealy mouthed triangulation based on her (mis-)perceptions of the "political center," and apparent half measures that aren't even that instead of putting forth genuine leadership.

        That's just my perception, anyway.

        by BlackGriffen on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:31:33 AM PDT

        •  I wouldn't vote for her because of Iraq alone.

          But she will still be a tough candidate to beat.

          by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:34:22 AM PDT

      •  Careful about what you wish for. n/t

        by bloomer 101 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:31:02 AM PDT

    •  You mean like Ken Starr did for 8 years?

      Hey if that weasel could turn a big bag of hot 8 into an 8 year investgation and an impeachment, just think o what privately funded goons with even less scruples can do.

      IF Hillary runs get Ready for at least:

      • Whitewater II Electric Bugaloo  (with the central figure now conveniently dead and therefore unable to defend himself)
      • The attack of Zombie Vince Foster, featuring the theory of  every conspiracy nut who has gotten bored with JFK assasination theories and moved on.   Not to mention many more careful "Forensic re-enactments" involving local produce by GOP lawmakers
      •  'The Hillary and her "girlfriends"' whispering campaign

      and that BEFORE they bring in Bill.....

      by Magorn on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:27:09 AM PDT

      •  i can see it now

        The attack of Zombie Vince Foster, featuring the theory of  every conspiracy nut who has gotten bored with JFK assasination theories and moved on.   Not to mention many more careful "Forensic re-enactments" involving local produce by GOP lawmakers

        the republican leadership meets at the site of vince foster's 'suicide' on the eve of the election and dress up as vince foster, they do a 'die in' and lay down and pretend to be murdered.

        then the republican nominee shows up and masterbates on them laying on the ground, saying he is giving them life and bringing back what the evil murdering clinton's have thus wrought.

        then global warming reaches another notch at that point and tide waters sweep them all out into the atlantic, as they all scream about the death tax.

        by wastelandusa on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:38:27 AM PDT

  •  Yes, but

    can she survive being put through the "winger"?

    by jetskreemr on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:19:02 AM PDT

    •  What do you think...

      ...the eight years of her husband's tenure in office were, one long church picnic?

      If any right-wing bozo goes after Hillary, it will be because they are either blindly loyal to Bush & Co. or very, very stupid (possibly both).

      by Randall Sherman on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:23:21 PM PDT

  •  Reruns

    Repeat the same old attacks, changed slightly, add details.

    She's not my first choice, but I am disgusted by how the right treats her.

    by nightsweat on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:19:44 AM PDT

    •  Im more disgusted by how some

      of the left treat her .

      by indycam on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:27:19 AM PDT

      •  Fair comment and point taken

        And I'm probably one of the ones who disgusted you at some point.

        by nightsweat on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:55:47 AM PDT

        •  Na

          never seen anything from you before . Paths never crossed before afaik .

          by indycam on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:39:50 PM PDT

  •  Well *I* heard

    that a guy whose cousin is friends with the brother-in-law of the uncle of a guy who served with Hillary in Vietnam once said that She didn't really earn those Purple Hearts she has!

    Wait?  What?  She Didn't?  

    ....Well that just proves what a weaselly America-hating, Draft-dodging coward she really is!

    They don't?  Really? Hell.

    .....Well, I heard that she COULD have given Jane Fonda  a hug at an anti-war rally before they both went off to SPIT ON returning soldiers at the airport!  And I have here as proof a composite photograph of what that WOULD have looked like!

    by Magorn on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:20:39 AM PDT

  •  That is probably her greatest strength

    everything that could be said about her has been said and a ton of things have been made up about her. In the end, you have her strength to withstand it and the fact that she can be linked to Bill which looks a whole lot better than what we have now.

    by Dave from Oregon on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:23:32 AM PDT

•  I say, Let them swiftboat Hillary

  while our real candidate, whomever he/she may be, flies under the radar.

  Less time they have to pick on the nominee. (Hopefully, fingers crossed.)

  by adigal on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:10:49 AM PDT

•  I'm not exactly keen on Hillary being the nominee

  but if she is, I pledge to defend her against any of the garbage they throw at her.

  by angryandy on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:11:02 AM PDT

•  Let's hire him for the primary?

  Joking of course. We can beat her without resorting to character assasination. That's our strength as a movement.

  by who threw da cat on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:11:06 AM PDT

•  With any luck, Corsi signs on.

  The guy is a certifiable lunatic.

  by high bitrate on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:11:11 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately he has been an effective lunatic

    by mkfarkus on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:13:36 AM PDT

    •  That was before anyone realized...

      ...how much of a psychopath he was.

      by high bitrate on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:16:32 AM PDT

      •  And also before the sea change...

        Chairman Dean and the Netroots will play whack-a-mole with the Swift Boaters haids any time they have the temerity to  rise above the muck.

        DFooK

        by deepfish on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:20:22 AM PDT

        •  Also before candidates realized that

          when someone attacks you, you had better hit back.

          Note to Kerry: Thanks alot you spineless political hack, if only you still had the guts to tell your handlers to go to hell and fight back.

          by Quanta on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:30:03 AM PDT

          •  Kerry Needed the support routinely given to every

            previous nominee. He did fight back on the SBVT and did succeed in getting enough information out to debunk the charges. He has said they should have put more money behind the truth.

            I somewhat disagree with him. Ads would be taken as partisan information and given the same weight as the SBVT ads. What he needed was for ALL prominent Democrats to have called out the Republicans on a baseless smear campaign.

            Imagine if people from Jimmy Carter to every Democratic spokesman anywhere - tv, radio, print had all called on Bush to expel anyone diminishing a solemn medal awarded when a soldier/sailor/airman is wounded from their convention unless they take off their band aids and ask him as CIC to apologize to the military that reports to him for his party's insensitivity to the suffering of the troops.

            They then could have said the military awards these medals, that they were driven by doctor's reports - not applied for by soldiers. Then speak of the two more impressive awards.

            Kerry could and should not have to have lead this. He put his body on the line and suffered in a war that he did not even support. If he were the only one who complained it would have been worse than the lack of complaints. The silence likely fostered the belief that somehow Kerry deserved this lack of defense.

            What is infuriating is that Kerry as a 25 year old, who was extremely athletic and fit, suffered these wounds, well aware that but for luck the angle could have been worse, his hearing was damaged and he has had nightmares years later. Yet these bastards implied he was barely in battle. Where were McAuliffe and the rest of the Democrats?

            Kerry had every reason to be proud for having been tested and shown to be willing to risk his own life rather than not help a man who almost certainly would have died. For his other medal, he used his intelligence and solicited information from anyone in previous ambushes, worked out and sold to 2 of his peers a way to avoid these ambushes that the swiftboats were exposed to, then had the guts to implement it and came out of an ambush with no one in any of the 3 boats killed. This was what these people couldn't defend?

            They had the Navy records and a tape where they could hear that Nixon investigated him 2 years later (when events were recent) - and found he was a war hero. Those two things alone should have been more than enough. What's weird is the RW still won't believe it. What I suspect is that among the high level of the party elite you have as many chicken hawks (or chicken doves) as the Republicans do and the vast majority of them were too cool to honor someone who consistently did the right thing and had a nobility of character they lacked.

            Consider what they had to defend in 1992. The entire party had to defend Clinton on evading the draft. A certain war hero gave him a lot of cover, I think by pointing out that by 1968, it was known that the war was not winnable. The problem, which was smoothed over was that Clinton - after getting help by a ROTC leader, wrote an incredibly mean-spirited letter to him when after the lottery he was no longer endangered by the draft. Reneging on his promise to join was understandable in that time frame (though 2 years earlier, the extremely well connected Kerry didn't consider it when told he couldn't delay enlisting), but the bigger problem was the letter where Clinton spoke of "loathing the military" which a disgusting way to treat a man who helped him.

            The party also said that the womanizing was in the past. Ignored was the fact that when the rumor surfaced he told the woman to lie to reporters. When she didn't, he denied it and attacked her credibility and character - and continued to do so when she produced a tape of him telling her to lie. (The tape proved 2 things to me then - he had an affair and was lying and she KNEW he would lie and attack her.)

            Terry McAuliffe, Carville, Begala et al had no problem defending Clinton on these tawdry issues and now pride themself that they did it so well. Yet when Kerry was the nominee, they failed to defend him on something where there was never any reasonable doubt that he not only had nothing to apologize for or explain, but he had acted in an exemplary fashion.

            The goal of the SBVT was to make Kerry's status  questionable to open questions into his integrity and character. This is why the party should have been proud to defend something that was very easily defended rather than explaining why Clinton's infidelities didn't matter. (Kerry provided the proof - so this charge of not fighting back should be aimed at the party as much as at Kerry.)

            The same values that led him to be the hero he was in war, led to his leadership in ending the war, become a strong prosecutor, an excellent Lt Governor and a Senator with stron credentials in foreign policy, stopping terrorism (BCCI) and economics(Finance committe). Kerry tried to make this point with "call to service" theme and in his acceptance speech - but he likely needed to have other Democrats repeating these things. Many cable TV Democrats, notably Carville and Begala, likely did more harm than good.

            Frankly, I would rather defend a man of proven integrity and character, than a man, with major problems in these areas or his wife who has at least some problems in these areas.

            by karenc on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:48:13 PM PDT

            •  There was another player in the swift-boating.

              Yes, of course the Democrats should have defended Kerry more effectively. But the news media should have investigated the charges, and their sources, and reported how flimsy they were. They should have made the transparent phoniness of the Swift Boat claims the story. Network anchors covering the Repug convention should have reacted with disgust at the band-aid gimmick. They didn't, because they weren't disgusted; they quite admired the "hard-nosed" tactics deployed to get their guy elected.

              Certainly whoever is the nominee will be subject to the "just make shit up" approach. How many in the MSM go along with it again will depend on how many of them are True Believers and how many mere opportunists (now smelling Repub blood in the water).

              by dumpster on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 06:29:30 PM PDT

              •  I agree 100% and even 4 years earlier there

                would have been more media analyssi. A large part of the print media did investigate the charge and write that it was baseless.

                TV had this bizarre idea that (as on global warming) they have to show both sides - when one clearly had no merit.

                What I hate here is that there is second order victimization of Kerry going on here.

                1. This was a baseless attack - he put out facts

                now

                2. people say he didn't fight back, he should have done (X). For many X, he did - he went before cameras and disputed it. He did call on Bush to renounce it. He did call on Bush to have a debate on what each of them did.

                But the Terry McAuliffes and others and the media - who did nothing - prefer to blame Kerry.

                Nice way to repay the guy for the risks he took and the wounds he suffered.

                by karenc on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 04:27:07 PM PDT

            •  thought-provoking

              Up until I read your post I too would have simply faulted Kerry and his team for not responding with enough vigor, but what you wrote changed my mind.  I agree with Kerry that they should have put more money behind the truth given the circumstances at the time, but I think you are dead right about the shameful lack of solidarity among Democrats.  If all Democratic leaders had spoken loudly in one voice on this matter - which, given the facts of the situation, is a no-brainer - (1) he wouldn't have needed to spend more money (2) it would have been the right thing to do morally for a man who has given so much to the country and (3) it would have been an opportunity to demonstrate respect for veterans in general.  Too many of our electeds and talking heads were caught up in playing the MSM's "horse race" obsession (commenting on how the Kerry camp was handling the charges, rather than the validity of the charges themselves); many of them also got caught up in factional jostling and lost sight of the big picture.  Thanks for the eye-opener.  

              by Ciccina on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:10:36 AM PDT

              •  Thank you for the kind comment

                The reason I took the time to write it is the party is dceiving itself when it places the blame on Kerry. He accepts his share. From what I've seen the rest of the party doesn't. Nor, does the media who played it as a good story.

                The next candidate will face something similar - the scary thing is that they had so little against Kerry. He has been clean through a long public career. He was clearly expecting to have to answer on the anti-war stuff where he was actually very respectful and reasonable.

                by karenc on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 04:37:03 PM PDT

      •  which is to his credit

        with most conservatives.

        by wastelandusa on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:23:42 AM PDT

  •  It worked last time

    "The guy is a certifiable lunatic."

    Even so, Kerry lost.  That stuff works.

    by davej on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:18:51 AM PDT

    •  It worked on Kerry

      but Kerry was to much of a political hack to go with the gut reaction of every human being when they get slandered like that.

      by Quanta on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:31:51 AM PDT

      •  I'm still furious about Swift Boat

        ...and not just at the Republicans.

        This time around, we deserve a Presidential nominee who won't sit there quietly while the right-wing scum cut his balls off and pass the Dixie cup around for everyone to see.

        In 2008 I want to see some Republican blood on the streets.  And a nominee who is willing to help spill it.

        by timoth31 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:02:40 AM PDT

        •  How pathetic

          Maybe some of that anger should go to the pathetic party officials who found it easier to defend one candidate against proven womanizing than to defend the proven distinguished record of a war hero and man who has demonstrated his integrity for 4 decades.

          by karenc on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:53:08 PM PDT

          •  You have a point, but all the same

            responsibility starts at the top.  Bob Kerrey was quietly urging John Kerry to tear some heads off when Swift Boat came out.  And politically, that would have been the smart thing to do (Frank Rich calls Swift Boat an example of the "bitch slap" political technique.

            Sure would have been nice to get a little help from the very guy I was trying to defend from my mouthy, insolent Republican acquaintances back in 2004.

            by timoth31 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 02:05:11 PM PDT

            •  The why the hell did Bob Kerrey not get out there

              and do it himself. He is one of the people who OWED Kerry that. He actually knew Hoffman - because Hoffman was his superior as well. His comments on Hoffman in his book are far more negative than anything Kerry ever said.

              John Kerry was incredibly supportive of Bob Kerrey when the story came out that Bob had led a group of Seals who killed villagers. Kerry wrote a very thoughtful editorial which beautifully described the terror that the soldiers felt and how that leads to (but doesn't excuse) these terrible tragedies. Kerry made sure that Bob Kerrey had people to support him as he went through this.

              There were few people in a better position than Bob Kerrey, with his medals, to have LED the cry that this was an outrage. He knew Kerry better than almost anyone in the Senate. (It would also have helped if Kerrey did not inaccuartely dispute Kerry saying that Bush let OBL get away when he was surrounded at Tora Bora.)

              Outrage or righteous indignation is always more affective coming from someone other than the victim.

              Consider that when McCain was attcked by Bush, John Kerry got every Senate vet to sign a public letter defending McCain. All I can say is that Kerry is a better friend to others than they were to him. He is by far a better person than Kerrey or McCain will ever be.

              by karenc on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 03:07:14 PM PDT

•  "The Christian Coaltion"

  ...is the real right-wing MoveOn (it predates MoveOn.)

  by Eric J in MN on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:11:54 AM PDT

•  nice

  I'm not a fan of or a foe of Hillary Clinton running for POTUS. I was discussing this with my brother yesterday & he said I must be the only person in America to feel neutral about her...

  Your point is well taken.

  by velvetdays on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:12:37 AM PDT

  •  No.

    There are more of us.  I'm generally accused of being pro-Hillary because I counsel fairplay towards her, but the truth is that I understand that the Swiftboating she has been subjected to since the early 90s has affected so many people on the left.

    by rserven on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:13:24 PM PDT

•  I think it will generally backfire

  if they up the Swiftboat ante. Much of the public is wise to this type of slander in the wake of 04/06.

  Subtlety is in order. THe public cant know theyre being manipulated as brazenly this time around. Remember, loads of them probably feel like asses for voting for W. THey may feel duped, even.

  by ablington on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:12:50 AM PDT

•  Target the smearers

  Reduce their credibility as much as possible as we gear up for 2008.  Richard Mellon Scaife, Clinton's old adversary, is up to his old tricks trying to smear Obama.  As long as these bastards have access to (or in Scaife's case, control) media outlets, this pollution will spew out.  Let's challenge it as much as we can.

  by Nuisance Industry on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:13:13 AM PDT

  •  Swiftboating Corsi

    There's plenty here to use against him — his anti-Catholic remarks, slurs against Muslims and affiliation with Ken Blackwell offer some hints about how this guy's past could be used to embarrass the GOP, which will be struggling to distance itself from Bush.
    
    If '08 Democratic candidates in states with large Catholic communities started, for example, saying "Our friends the Republicans have hired an anti-Catholic bigot ... ," that could become a meme.  Dems are just beginning to learn how to put Republicans on the defensive, but that's what needs to happen.

    by Alvin K on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:31:04 AM PDT

    •  That's a very good idea. An attack

      is of course the best defense.

      by tigercourse on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:33:19 AM PDT

      •  I'd say attacking Romney

        and McCain, and all their other losers is a much better strategy.

        Jerome who?

        by NYFM on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:33:33 PM PDT

    •  Why "swiftboat"?

      We should go after them with truth!

      Given that "swiftboat" means using smear tactics and outright lies, we need to be careful and document the issues we raise. But my expectation is that it wouldn't be hard to find real dirt.

      We've seen it time and again -- Rethuglicans point and scream the most at those things they have seen in themselves.

      by mooncrow on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:09:07 AM PDT

      •  Point taken

        ... but I don't care what you call it.  The idea is for even their offhand comments and blog postings to be treated as though they were billboards.

        by Alvin K on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:21:21 PM PDT

  •  Well Mark Twain once said

    "It is not very wise to argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel and Paper by the ton"

    of course,  Old Sammy Longhorn didn't know about the internet, and therefore realize that even the person who has tons of paper to burn can be outshouted by someone who has data-packets by the billions at their disposal.

    so to answer Seneca's age old question:  Quo custodiet ipso custodes?  

    We Do,  brothers and sisters.  Thanks to the electronic media, and distribution nodes like Kos, We have the power to roar back almost equally loud, each time they try to sneak a smear or falsehood into the public realm.  

    Something tells me this time  we'll need to be relentless about watchdogging though.  For the vast right-wing smear machine this next election may as well be Armageddon

    by Magorn on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:38:29 AM PDT

•  Character assasination

  The only thing Republicans can actually accomplish.

  by woodka on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:13:19 AM PDT

•  Will they even have to?

  How many people on THIS site will rip into Hillary?

  We're doing all their research for them, we're just making their jobs easier.

  Can we all PLEASE try top keep the primary character assasinations to a minimum?

  by nhcollegedem on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:13:36 AM PDT

  •  You know, just because I think Hillary is

    wrong on the war, and would be too friendly to corporations, please don't characterize that as ripping into Hillary.

    I see Swift-Boating as taking absolutely any nonsense said, or totally false accusations, and speaking as though they are true.

    Big difference.

    by adigal on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:29:39 AM PDT

    •  I wasn't accusing YOU, personally

      I was making a broad observation about the community as a whole.

      I'm not a Hillary supporter, i've made several pointed arguments against her candidacy.  But you have to admit, this community has on occasion used the kind of venom against Hillary usually reserved for Senators named Leiberman.

      by nhcollegedem on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:35:30 AM PDT

  •  Yep.

    They could do oppo research right here.

    by Five Thirty on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:33:16 AM PDT

  •  Your right

    We've done all the research for them so Hillary is a dead candidate so she can't be our candidate.  Problem solved.

    by Quanta on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:34:11 AM PDT

•  How many Sky Is Falling diaries

  will we get blaming stupid Democrats for nominating someone so vulnerable to these sorts of attacks when they start rolling out middle of next year?

  by withthelidoff on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:14:09 AM PDT

•  If this doesn't make the weaker

  prospective voters run for the cellar screaming "Politics is soooo dirty !" I don't know what will.

  Shit.

  by murphy on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:14:22 AM PDT

•  If Corsi uses his prior MO

  of turning a candidate's strong suit into a weakness, he would be forced to somehow argue that Clinton is not intelligent.  Good luck with that.  

  by tipsymcstagger on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:14:44 AM PDT

•  Like I said lots of times,

  The Swiftboaters will sink Hillary in a quagmire of accusations. She'll loose bad.  

  She just can't run because of her baggage.

  To me she's way to Conservative anyhow.
  She's Bush Lite and that's another avenue of attack for the Swiftboaters.

  by CoyoteMan on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:14:51 AM PDT

  •  She isn't Bush lite. Again, some more, I can't

    take it much longer, please make it stop, she is one of the most liberal Democrats we have.

    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:16:49 AM PDT

    •  too bad I cannot recommend this again and again

      by Dave from Oregon on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:27:27 AM PDT

    •  which is why she's defended the iraq war?

      no matter what you say in hillary's defense, there's no way you can get around the fact that she supported THE most corrupt and disasterous war in the history of this country.

      by wastelandusa on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:28:37 AM PDT

      •  I'd actually say that the Indian wars were

        our most morally corrupt ones. But you're right, her position on the war (and many other Democrats postions) was very wrong.

        by tigercourse on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:31:10 AM PDT

        •  Agreed

          I agree, the Indian wars were more morally corrupt.

          A solid second place for most morally corrupt would be the Mexican American war, where we annexed over a third of Mexico because they had the nerve of objecting to us inserting US Citizens into the Mexican state of Texas, who then revolted and siezed Texas from Mexico.

          I'd say the Iraq war ties for third with the Spanish American war, where we probably blew up our own naval vessel, killing 266 sailors, to spark an opportunistic land grab of territories (eg. Puerto Rico, Philippines, Cuba) from an already overextended Spanish government.

          by figleef on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:30:58 PM PDT

      •  And continues to support funding for the war

        Right?? Or am I wrong here??

        by adigal on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:31:19 AM PDT

        •  Don't most Democrats still support funding

          for the war, not the surge?

          by tigercourse on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:34:30 AM PDT

          •  Aren't most democrats wrong about that? nt

            by Quanta on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:37:38 AM PDT

            •  Probably.

              by tigercourse on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:41:18 AM PDT

          •  maybe, but just imagine

            how much more visibility democrats could have had if she had decided from day one to follow her morals and judgement and come out blazing against bush and the war.

            she is SO visible, like her or not, and would have given a huge amount more credibility to the anti-war movement had she decided to take that course.

            but she didn't.  for whatever reason, she went to the middle.

            and EVERYBODY is paying the price now, for decisions like that one made by almost everybody in a position to actually have stopped what was happening.

            it's shameful, pure and simple.

            by wastelandusa on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:41:55 AM PDT

    •  Liberal???

      I am a liberal.  My parents are liberals.  My friends are liberals.  My professors are liberals.  Hillary is no liberal.

      by Quanta on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:36:50 AM PDT

    •  Oh, really? So where was she in helping

      to filibuster Alito?  Why didn't she help lead the cause instead of lamely voting nay to cloture after Kerry had been slaughtered in the media, and everyone knew it was a done deal?  

      Where was she in supporting Kerry/Feingold last June?  Where has she shown ANY leadership on Iraq?  This press conference yesterday, she merely parroted what Kerry has been saying for more than a year.  Too little, too late, Ma'am.  She sure has been keeping her mouth shut while others in the party did the heavy lifting.

      And just this past week she said she didn't want a provision in the ethics bill which barred family members of elected officials from lobbying, supporting Harry Reid's lame position.  Where was she in voting for REAL ethics reform?  While the likes of Kerry, Obama, and Webb voted for the DeMint bill which was in the same EXACT language as Pelosi's bill in the House, Hillary voted against.

      You're just taking the most cautious and politically easy votes, labelling them liberal, and saying she's "one of the most liberal members" of the Senate, when with the IMPORTANT votes, the most IMPORTANT matters of our time, she punts.  Don't even get me into that NY Sun interview where she endorses torture in the "ticking bomb scenario", a strawman right wing tactic to urge Americans to be okay with torture.

      There are more examples.  One of the most liberal senators.  Whatever.  Good luck with that.

      by beachmom on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:36:56 AM PDT

      •  You're wrong,

        She did join in the filibuster of Alito.

        by tigercourse on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:40:26 AM PDT

        •  I said that in my post

          I said she lamely voted nay to cloture (that means she voted for the filibuster) but that was only AFTER it was going to fail and Kerry had been mercilessly pummelled in the media.  She did nothing to help out, and let him get slaughtered.  Of course, there were a lot of "some Democrats" anonmyous sources in the NYT saying Kerry was an embarrassment to the party for attempting the filibuster.  Gee, I wonder where those sources came from?  Only Adam Nagorney knows.

          by beachmom on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:45:32 AM PDT

  •  It isn't about her

    I call this the "being afraid Rush will say something bad about you syndrome."  My point: Rush WILL say something bad about you, get used to it and don't let it rule your actions.

    The point is that they will $smear ANYone who runs, and by election time we'll all hate the candidate.  So we have to build supporting organizations that are able to fight back.

    Kerry was a WAR HERO and look what they were able to do.

    by davej on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:22:30 AM PDT

  •  No she won't.

    She'll win by a huge margin.

    by Margot on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 02:36:44 PM PDT

•  Just what are they gonna do to Hillary ...

  They haven't done already...???

  I can see it now:

  "This stunning new RE-ENACTMENT of Hillary murdering Vice Foster..."

  by jgkojak on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:15:26 AM PDT

  •  They will do anything

    and everything they can dream up . It does not matter if its true or not , just can they get people to latch on to some mud they are flinging , can they get anything to stick .

    by indycam on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

  •  They would likely not go after Foster

    I assume that as CORRUPTION was found to be with Iraq the biggest issue, they will go through any deals she and Bill had on anything and will then show it in the worst light. Whitewater was shown to be simply a bad investment, but there were other things that were mentioned.

    There were issues that were raised and not dispelled in the 1990s that I will not list because they were not proven but I doubt I am the only one who remembers this - and I do not listen to RW radio and mainly read the NYT then. Things raised in the more laissez faire 1990s, may be given more scrutiny in the current environment. I think that we need a very clean candidate - and if there is merit to any corruption issue - she should not run or explain and defned any of these in the primaries.

    I hesitated to write this

    by karenc on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 02:10:53 PM PDT

•  Fight

  How does one fight this.

  I mean swiftboating in general. Not swiftboating Hillary.

  Thanks;

  by krwada on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:15:52 AM PDT

  •  The key question

    Well we had a small degree of success with Patriot Project by getting the word out about the tactics, giving interviews to local press, etc.  But that was a very small and minimally funded organization and it dried up after the election.  Yes it was able to blunt some of the swiftboating attacks and expose who was behind them.  It helped a little bit.

    So my thought on your question is that I think we need to build up our infrastructure of full-time supporting organizations that are capable of reaching the public, getting the word out, building support and trust for progressives in general.  This way candidates would have a much easier time.  There would already be demand in place for the things progressive candidates represent.  That is how Republicans do it - they ride a wave of pre-positioned public support created by the conservative infrastructure organizations, and all the pundits, speakers, talking heads, etc. that they support.  With this going on BETWEEN elections, sometimes all their candidates have to do is point and shout "liberal, liberal" to win.

    But building these organizations takes money and many funders are still convinced that their money should go to candidates and election-time activities.  It's a mindset problem.  We have to change the mindset from elections and candidates to movements before we will be able really make this difference.

    by davej on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:31:13 AM PDT

    •  Great reply!

      Thanks! What you describe cannot be built in a day. I certainly hope people, 'our people' move in this direction.

      Thanks again.

      by krwada on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 01:38:58 PM PDT

    •  Great answer and I think you are right

      In addition to the Patriot Group, whose leaders sound awfully familiar from Kerry's 2004 campaign, I think John Kerry himself deserves a lot of credit for fighting the swiftboaters.

      It was extraordinary to me that the last Presidential nominee volunteerilly put himself in the attack dog position for at least 2 vets running for Congress for the first time. Patrick Murphy likely would not be in Congress without Kerry's incredible defense. What is sad is that had many Democrats done the same for him, he would be President Kerry.

      by karenc on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 02:16:52 PM PDT

•  can you really blame them

  for preparing for another 12 months of constant swift-boating?

  i mean, a) they clearly have no morals or allegiance to honesty, b) it worked so well last time, and c) conservatives still have as strong if not a stronger presence in the media now (glenn beck having multiple shows, cable networks hiring multiple cons and zero liberals, etc etc).

  i mean, basically they have no other choice.  we just have to learn to work around it.

  by wastelandusa on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:17:10 AM PDT

•  The Fight Is Not Over

  I fear that many people think the fight is over because we took the House and Senate.  They think they can relax.  They think the urgency to build and FUND organizations and continue to work 24/7 is diminished.

  Today the Senate Republicans blocked ethics and lobbying reform.  So the corruption money will continue to flow to the Republican Party -- and fund swiftboating efforts at election-time.  

  The fight is only beginning.  They could come back strong.  As Digby says, we need to drive a stake through the heart of the Republican corruption/$mear machine.

  by davej on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:17:43 AM PDT

•  No heads in the sand

  Hopefully this time the nominee won't try to ignore them.

  by roubs on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:18:17 AM PDT

•  Whenever I see "Vanguard"...

  I am reminded of the old-line CPC-ML (Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)). They were more of a religious cult than a party, identified with the ideals of Enver Hoxha and the Albanian Communist Party, and the word on the left was that their really expensive looking red banners and megaphones were provided by RCMP snitch money.

  One of their more rousing anthems wasa to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and went something like...

  "We're the vanguard of the masses/It is our destiny to lead..."

  Come to think of it - boring, grey, rigid, doctrinaire and cultish lockstep followers of a failed ideology... looks pretty familiar.

  Vanguard suits them.

  DFooK

  by deepfish on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:18:47 AM PDT

  •  It's the name of a White Supremacist movement.

    Gee, what a shocker that the Republicans picked it up.

    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:24:20 AM PDT

    •  I was about to post that

      The National Vanguard is the supremacist movement.

      How fitting.

      by Jeffuary on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:28:08 AM PDT

      •  Vanguard...Vanguard...

        We should ask them if their website can be read across the entire country and then when they say yes we can suggest that they rename themselves The National Vanguard.  Freakin idiots; they just cannot resist throwing in a few choice racist codewords.

        We should Googlebomb them so that whenever someone tries to go to there site they get redirected here:

        http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/

        by Terrapin on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 02:40:46 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention "Worker's Vanguard"

    the Sparticist League (Trotskyist) paper here in the States, for many years. I don't know if they still print the damned thing.

    It was also known, with well-earned contempt, as "Workers' Vampire."

    by Kimball Cross on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:57:48 AM PDT

  •  At least they're honest enough to admit it

    "Yes, we here in the Republican Party want to thank Karl Marx for coming up with the phrase 'vanguard party'.  We think it perfectly sums up our own philosophy of governance."

    Did you think it was just a coincidence that Sean Hannity has appropriated the phrase "enemy of the state"?  Did you think it was just a coincidence that George W. Bush appropriated Stalin's phrase "those who are not with us are against us"?

    You don't know how lucky you are, boys . . .

    by Thomas Kalinowski on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 04:37:03 PM PDT

•  Swiftboating - the new McCarthyisim

  it needs to be dealt with the same way - head on.  "At long last, have you no decency?"

  by calebfaux on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:18:53 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely.

    Attack the attackers. Show the world what a bunch of lying, hypocritical morons they are. Play offense. Get mean, attack, and don't let up.

    We will win the battle of ideas if we don't allow our ideas to buried in bullshit. ATTACK!

    by LightningMan on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:22:51 AM PDT

  •  Decency, and anything republican don't belong

    together; no matter what they call it.

    by Phil S 33 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:27:06 AM PDT

  •  Offense is the best defense. nt

    by Quanta on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:40:33 AM PDT

•  Yep -- that's what I've been trying to

  tell everyone.  I'm tired of Kerry getting all the abuse for being attacked with full out lies, when you can be damned sure it's going to happen again and again.  Given how Clinton failed to stop Path to 9/11 from airing, it is simply foolish to think any other Dem, especially the Clintons who have real baggage, will be immune from the attack.  Or that they're somehow going to be much better preventing the lies from getting a full airing on cable tv.  You can be sure it will happen.

  by beachmom on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:19:35 AM PDT

•  Interesting...

  

  How can you have more new comments than total comments? :P

  by PsiFighter37 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:19:56 AM PDT

  •  I've noticed this bug before

    When I write a diary, the number of comments that show up on the main page fluctuate +/- 1.

    Frequently, when I have a tip jar, it shows zero comments.

    by nhcollegedem on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:24:18 AM PDT

  •  It has to do with the point of time that you

    log on to it---first log-on shows "comments-xx". Second log-on will show "comments-xx", then note how many more "new" comments there were since last log-on.  

    I think.

    by Phil S 33 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:30:13 AM PDT

•  Was that a press release

  or an article?  In my experience wingers think blog spam is viral marketing, and that's the tech savvy ones.

  by gregflynn on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:21:13 AM PDT

•  Try googling "national vanguard."

  It appears the RNC is courting the White Supremacist vote.

  by Geekesque on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:22:24 AM PDT

•  Someone needs a dictionary.

  The ubiquitous Corsi could not be reached for comment.

  Someone needs to tell the writer of that site the actual meaning of the word ubiquitous. If he were indeed ubiquitous, they'd be able to find him for a comment.

  by Blank Man on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:22:43 AM PDT

  •  I noticed that, too. Maybe the writer was trying

    . . . to be ironic.

    BG
    __________________________________________________

    by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:28:00 AM PDT

•  The Vanguard?

  Reminds me of those guys in "Animal House" who wear the ROTC uniforms with turtleneck sweaters.

  by Bill White on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:24:01 AM PDT

•  Hmmmmmmm

  We never did get the final word on Vince Foster, did we?

  by Rasputin on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:24:39 AM PDT

•  Congress needs to pass a bill...

  ...making it a Federal crime to knowingly, repeatedly, widely disseminate false personal information with the intent to influence an election.

  That said, I think the impact of the swiftboating of Kerry was made much more effective by his inept response to it.  Hilary would never be so stupid.

  The playbook for responding to swiftboating is now well established and reasonably effective.  The Webb campaign in Virginia is a classic example.

  by noble experiment on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:24:55 AM PDT

•  And the thing is, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert,

  Howard Kurtz, Blitzer, and all of the other Media Heathers will, as or more likely than not, be complicit.  Instead of ripping into these character-assasinnating bastards, they'll gleefully go along with it all.

  BenGoshi
  _____________________________________________________

  by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 10:25:33 AM PDT

  •  Exactly... it's not just Corsi. How about Koppel?

    Many people make the mistake of pinning the blame on the Corsis of the world, but neglect to point out the complicity of the major media.

    Let's go back a few years to this Ted Koppel/Jeff Greenfield piece on Nightline - reprinted from Salon.

    Even more damning was a "Nightline" report broadcast that same evening. The segment came very close to branding Hillary Clinton a perjurer. In his introduction, host Ted Koppel spoke pointedly about "the reluctance of the Clinton White House to be as forthcoming with documents as it promised to be." He then turned to correspondent Jeff Greenfield, who posed a rhetorical question: "Hillary Clinton did some legal work for Madison Guaranty at the Rose Law Firm, at a time when her husband was governor of Arkansas. How much work? Not much at all, she has said."

    Up came a video clip from Hillary's April 22, 1994, Whitewater press conference. "The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work," she said. "It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about." Next the screen filled with handwritten notes taken by White House aide Susan Thomases during the 1992 campaign. "She [Hillary] did all the billing," the notes said. Greenfield quipped that it was no wonder "the White House was so worried about what was in Vince Foster's office when he killed himself."

    What the audience didn't know was that the ABC videotape had been edited so as to create an inaccurate impression.

    [...]

    ABC News had seamlessly omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, as well as the cut, by interposing a cutaway shot of reporters taking notes. The press conference transcript shows that she actually answered as follows: "The young attorney [and] the young bank officer did all the work and the letter was sent. But because I was what we called the billing attorney -- in other words, I had to send the bill to get the payment sent -- my name was put on the bottom of the letter. It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about."

    ABC News had taken a video clip out of context, and then accused the first lady of prevaricating about the very material it had removed. Within days, the doctored quotation popped up elsewhere. ABC used the identical clip