Hillary Preparing to Swift Boat Obama?

Is Hillary Clinton truly considering using a swift-boat style attack on Barack Obama to fuel her comeback?

Manchester, N.H. -- A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.

At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.

I think the question for Senator Clinton is becoming how much dignity are she and her husband willing to lose before she drops out of this race.  If this allegation is true, it is complete desperation on the part of the Clinton campaign, and politics at its absolute worst.  

•  tips/flames

  Sorry, but this kind of conduct is not acceptable from any democratic candidate.   It is especially dispiriting to see that it is coming from Hillary Clinton.  

  by gobacktotexas on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:36:14 AM PDT

  •  Oh dear Lord. Bad, Bad, Bad idea

    That's all I can say to these three:

    Three groups conducting independent expenditure campaigns in behalf of Clinton - Emily's List, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - have explored the possibility of trying to put together a multi-million dollar effort privately dubbed the Anybody-But-Obama 527 Committee, but they have run into problems finding any Democratic operative willing to become the director of a campaign against the man who now is the odds-on favorite to become the party's nominee.

    Emily's List can kiss my ass before I give them another dime, if they end up engaging in this shit. It's bad enough they play queenmaker in races where better qualified candidates who happen to be men are purposely ignored and female candidates are instead endorsed. But to actively engage in an anti-Democratic 527? Fuck them. Seriously. Fuck them.

    If Huffington Post is wrong, I think it would be smart of all three organizations to come out with a press release renouncing this article and to unequivocally claim that they are absolutely not involved with this shit.

    by Pager on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

    •  Emily's list has funded reactionary women

      against progressive women and progressive men. They have only 2 issues:

      1. Female

      2. Pro Choice

      If you want your money to go to strong progressive candidates, fund them directly.

      by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:46:17 AM PDT

    •  Read the rest of the article for your answer

      Three groups conducting independent expenditure campaigns in behalf of Clinton - Emily's List, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - have explored the possibility of trying to put together a multi-million dollar effort privately dubbed the Anybody-But-Obama 527 Committee, but they have run into problems finding any Democratic operative willing to become the director of a campaign against the man who now is the odds-on favorite to become the party's nominee.

      "You might make some good money in the short term, but your chances of getting any Democratic contracts in the future, especially if Obama wins, would be zilch," said one operative. "I wouldn't go there." The effectiveness of a 527 that goes negative was demonstrated by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked John Kerry's war record in the 2004 campaign.

      Sources familiar with the discussions about the creation of an anti-Obama 527 said that some of the Clinton campaign's major fundraisers have separately been exploring another similar proposal, but have not gotten very far yet.

      "These things (527s) are not that easy to get rolling. There is a long way between talking and doing," said one source familiar with setting up 527 operations.

      The breathless HuffPo article asks a question and then seems to answer it. There is no there there.

      by dannyinla on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM PDT

      •  Yep, no one with a future in Dem politics

        would engage in this kind of political suicide bombing.

        by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:51:52 AM PDT

        •  Don't Kid Yourself

          They could find the sleeze balls to run it. They worked with Dick Morris ffs. But even IF they'd like to go nuclear the problem would be finding anyone willing to pour money into the Titanic.

          by ILDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM PDT

      •  Right.

        Emily's List can kiss my ass before I give them another dime, if they end up engaging in this shit.

        I may as well quote myself--seems easiest way to respond.

        And frankly, if they were even considering going down this road, they can still kiss my fucking ass.

        by Pager on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:56:36 AM PDT

    •  if unions want to further degrade themselves

      This is exactly what the labor movement in this country needs... becoming even further irrelevant by going nuke on someone that 70% of the country lives, on behalf of someone that 50% of the country loathes.  If Iowa proved anything, it's that the labor movement doesn't even have any sway anymore within the Dem party.  It will kill itself if it does this.

      The worst thing that Hillary can do is go negative on Obama like this.  She needs to give people a reason to vote for her, not giving Obama the ability to do the Reagan-esq "there she goes again" shrug off / flip back onto your oponent.  I seariously hope that if she loses the first 5, people start preasuring her to just drop out and give it to Obama.  However, I doubt that Hill and Bill's egos would allow them to do that.  These people are poison to our political process.

      by Nathan in MN on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:53:04 AM PDT

    •  As a member of EMILYS LIST, I agree!

      I have been a loyal member of EMILYS LIST for ten years & have given them thousands of dollars during this time.

      However, I have NEVER backed their choice for president-Hillary Clinton (although I do think they have some great congressional candidates like Donna Edwards running in Maryland). For president, I have been a strong John Edwards supporter but have always very much liked Barack Obama as well.

      I had originally supported our former governor here in Virginia, Mark Warner, when he considered running for president. When he dropped out, then I supported Bill Richardson. When his campaign didn't take off, I have been in John Edwards' corner since April of last year. But its always been a difficult choice between Edwards and Obama. As much as I like the idea of electing Pro-Choice Democratic women, I have frequently backed men (over Democratic women) who are our loyal friends and many times who are better overall on womens' issues.  I have never felt that Hillary Clinton has the political courage nor integrity to be president. Most of all, I have also never felt that she is electable in the general election. I can't bear the thought of four to eight more years of GOP rule destroying our country.  

      If EMILY'S LIST dares to take part in any swiftboating of Obama or any other Democrat in the primary, I will never again, send them a contribution. Here this loud and clear, EMILY'S LIST!

      by VirginiaBlue on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:08:07 PM PDT

  •  Don't give money to Emily's List

    Please send your money straight to progressive women candidates. Emily's list has "jumped the shark".

    Three groups conducting independent expenditure campaigns in behalf of Clinton - Emily's List, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - have explored the possibility of trying to put together a multi-million dollar effort privately dubbed the Anybody-But-Obama 527 Committee, but they have run into problems finding any Democratic operative willing to become the director of a campaign against the man who now is the odds-on favorite to become the party's nominee.

    by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:47 AM PDT

  •  It's been coming from Camp Hillary

    for some time now.

    The 'caring concern' that Obama will be painted as a Chicago street drug dealer.

    The Muslim Manchurian candidate e-mail smear.

    The Stop-the-students effort in Iowa.

    It's been going on for a long time, but I cringed last night when Bill Clinton opened up on Obama - horrifyingly sad.

    Next are they going to do a Sister Souljah on him ?

    by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM PDT

    •  Whoops - forgot the Kindergarten idiocy

      Wherein Obama has been plotting to become president with that kindergarten memo.

      ( As if Hillary hasn't been. )

      by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:44:42 AM PDT

  •  Teh Establishment wing of the Democratic Party

    is in its last throes, if this is true.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM PDT

    •  Wheres the DLC when Clinton needs them

      by Lawdog on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:06:19 PM PDT

  •  I hope this is true, someone needs to put the

    pressure on Obama to see if he can take the heat. It would kinda suck to anoint him as the One, only to find out he is a paper lion after all, so I hope Clinton lays into him, lets see what he's made of. As far as I know he's never been tested with a real campaign before.

    by ichibon on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM PDT

•  My problem with that article

  "Sez who?"

  I'll be hard on her if it happens, but I don't quite believe it.

  by nightsweat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:36:39 AM PDT

  •  the guy seems to have a pretty solid cv

    Thomas B. Edsall is the political editor of the Huffington Post. He is also Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. From 1981 to 2006, he was a political reporter at the Washington Post. He is the author of Chain Reaction and Building Red America.

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:38:58 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, but who are his sources?

      They're all kind of shadowy. He doesn't name names.  I feel like we've been burned enough by "sources" to believe anyone without attribution.

      by nightsweat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM PDT

    •  read the whole article

      Yes he has a CV, but his article also ends with numerous denials/doubts that this will happen.

      by dannyinla on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:48:51 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for that.....

      The writer seems credible, but I don't entirely trust the Huffington Post.  Especially since they put together a column purported to be written by George Clooney, based on statements he had made.

      Still, this is something we need to be ready for.

      by lrhoke on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM PDT

  •  This guy's a "New Republic" writer

    Thomas Edsall is no friend to the Democrats.

    He wrote an article in August entitled "Losing Strategy" that argued that the Democrats have nominated a succession of 'losers' due to the undue influence of what Edsall termed the 'liberal elite'

    I wish the author of this hit piece on Clinton had done some homework beforehand - Edsall doesn't share the interests, or the political viewpoints, of the Kossacks on this site.

    by MyOwnClone on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:44:02 AM PDT

    •  Liberal elite = DLC consultants

      Most of us here are progressives. This may be a hit piece so we should be careful but this article is consistent with other actions taken already in the campaign listed above in other comments.

      by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:49:36 AM PDT

      •  "Liberal elite" = Limbaughian term

        Sorry to inform you, but Rush Limbaugh uses this term dozens of times a day to describe anyone who is educated beyond high school, believes in progressive values, or doesn't agree with the extreme Right Wing.

        This isn't a term to describe the DLC contingent, it's a pejorative term used by the Right. It's usually used in conjunction with "latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, ponytailed..."

        by MyOwnClone on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM PDT

    •  he also has written for the Nation,

      a liberal magazine in very good standing.  

      by gobacktotexas on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:54:16 AM PDT

      •  You should be ashamed of this diary

        Don't you even bother to vet your sources?

        It took me a 30-second Google search to unearth YOUR source for this bullshit diary.

        I sincerely doubt that you've taken the time to do any kind of information search on this rumor and hearsay.

        This is the type of meandering crap I'd expect on much lesser sites, but not here. Read the comments abovethread from DKos members who are saying exactly the same thing I am, and objecting to your recirculating this pile of stinking feces.

        by MyOwnClone on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:00:40 AM PDT

        •  I don't know

          TPM is reporting it (here and here).

          I can agree that the diariest perhaps should have been a little more even-handed and reported that it's just talk at this point, and perhaps more unlikely to come to pass than not --

          But - Josh Marshall/TPM are hardly hysterical bomb-thrower types... Josh ain't Drudge - if TPM's writing about it, I think it's completely discussion worthy.

          Do I think they'll do it?  Probably not... but I think the chances that they WILL do it are probably better than the chances of an HRC comeback, and I do think and HRC comeback, irrespective of this tactic, is certainly possible.

          A 527 created strictly to attack a fellow Dem?   That's a pretty bold line to cross.   I mean - had Lamont supporters formed a 527 to attack Lieberman in the CT Primary, I can't see how I woulda stayed behind Ned... GE, when Holy Joe ran as an indie?  Sure... but not when he was technically still a Dem.

          by zonk on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM PDT

•  Oh ya, just like how Begala and Carville story

  turned out to be false, give it a minute friend.  The media is going wild speculating, let's not do it here, until we actually know things!

  by rigso on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM PDT

  •  Carville story was Fox

    Edsall a distinguished former WaPo, published author on American politics.
    Very different.

    Maybe this is a trial balloon.
    Or a lead balloon.

    So before the results are in, AFSMCE and Emily's List want to see if it's OK to go in the tank torching a Democrat who won Iowa, and maybe will win NH and SC? And an African American to boot?
    And expect no blowback?

    Can't wait to get my next mailing from EMILY's.
    AFSMCE is another story.
    I have an idea who's doing this but who knows.

    Dumb. Bad.

    by annalivia on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM PDT

•  I don't quite believe it. But

  if they ever resort to something like a "swift Boat" style attack that would be a last ditch effort to save her candidacy.

  by joy sinha on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM PDT

•  GobacktoArkansas! eom

  by Geekesque on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:38:30 AM PDT

  •  oh the irony

    I actually picked this handle because back in the day, wingers used to tell Bill Clinton to "go back to Arkansas," and I thought I would send a similar message to Bush.  Now perhaps we've come full circle.   It's really tragic.    

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:41:09 AM PDT

    •  GobacktoTexarkana? eom

      by Geekesque on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:47 AM PDT

•  Swiftboating only works in close races

  Obama looks set to crush her in New Hampshire today, and she may quit SC. It's going to have to be the mother of all swiftboatings to dent that, and as far as I know, there's nothing in Obama's background that provides for it.

  Unless, of course, they want to return to the Madrassah smear. If they do, Hillary deserves to be run out of town on a rail.

  by eugene on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM PDT

  •  They'll talk about Rezko and drugs and

    'present' votes.

    Emily's List and Hillary's henchman at AFSCME have proven to be integrity-free zones.

    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:41:23 AM PDT

    •  Sounds like they'll have trouble flogging it

      Three groups conducting independent expenditure campaigns in behalf of Clinton - Emily's List, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - have explored the possibility of trying to put together a multi-million dollar effort privately dubbed the Anybody-But-Obama 527 Committee, but they have run into problems finding any Democratic operative willing to become the director of a campaign against the man who now is the odds-on favorite to become the party's nominee.

      "You might make some good money in the short term, but your chances of getting any Democratic contracts in the future, especially if Obama wins, would be zilch," said one operative. "I wouldn't go there."

      by bumblebums on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:42:50 AM PDT

      •  Chris Lehane is looking for work. eom

        by Geekesque on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:19 AM PDT

        •  Mark Penn? n/t

          by annalivia on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:52:36 AM PDT

    •  Maybe lorelynn can run it.

      by clonecone on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:24 AM PDT

  •  That's incredibly naive thinking.

    She has a huge war chest and if there is one thing we know about the Clintons', it is this--they don't go down without a fight and a nasty one, at that.

    by Pager on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM PDT

  •  They got McCain in 2000 on a pure lie

    (namely that McCain had fathered a child with a black prostitute)

    Smears don't have to be true to be effective, especially when they invoke racist fears.

    And if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate Obama, they're going to find out big time exactly what this is all about.  That's why I believe they should nominate John Edwards instead.  He can survive.

    by CA Libertarian on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM PDT

    •  With Republican voters

      Any similar smears against Obama would backfire badly amongst Democrats and independents - and they'd wind up bolstering Obama's claims to be a new and different kind of politician.

      That's one big reason why Hillary is done - if she fights back with negative attacks she only makes Obama stronger. It's over for her. She should drop out now before she burns bridges.

      by eugene on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:58:01 AM PDT

      •  People aren't that different

        I realize you'd like to think that, but look at what happened to John Kerry.

        You can try to take the moral or ideological high road, but Obama is heading down an uncharted path here.  I don't think we can afford to take that chance.

        by CA Libertarian on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:01:39 AM PDT

        •  John Kerry is not a good example.

          He was a good man, but he had tepid support from the Democratic base in that election, and he had nowhere near the groundswell of enthusiasm backing him that Obama seems to have now...among both Dems and independents.

          This is not to say that Obama will or won't be successful in countering Swiftboating in the general; I suspect, though, based upon the previous efforts at smearing, that he will make out all right. But I think we're looking at a fundamentally different kind of candidate than Kerry. Each new attack on Obama seems to reflect less upon him and more upon the perpetrator of the attack.

          Moreover, I like to think we've learned something from 2004. I'm sure each of the top candidates has thought extensively about how to shore up their vulnerabilities in the face of a 527 attack.  (Simply not waiting for the attack to gain traction would be an improvement upon Kerry's '04 strategy.)

          by Dale on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:48:27 AM PDT

•  Huffington Post?

  You know as someone who liked Kerry in 04, I find the cheap use of swiftboat terminology troubling.

  by bam bam on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:40:58 AM PDT

  •  from wikipedia

    Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used (primarily) as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.

    definition seems to fit

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM PDT

    •  Wikipedia sucks ass then

      I'm sorry swiftboating was a whole other league beyond mere attacks, and to say all attacks in politics equal swifboating is an insult to intellectual honesty in political debate.

      "Vince Foster's murder", "Barack's Madrassa", "Edwards exploiting his son's death or wife's illness" "John Kerry killed an unarmed kid in a diaper"- that's swiftboating.

      by bam bam on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM PDT

•  Let's judge her on what she does...

  not what someone is alleging she might do.

  I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but she's running a pretty reasonable campaign. I haven't seen much in the way of personal attacks by ANY of the Democratic candidates. (If they have been tried, they probably haven't gotten much traction. Even the crap about Obama's middle name went nowhere...thankfully.)

  by Rayk on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:42:51 AM PDT

•  Not a surprise.

  I just wrote this in al Fubar's diary in response to someone who promoted the "Obama needs to be vetted" tale that justifies ANY attack that happens moving forward:

  Yeah, I love the hurling of Rovian smears under the guise of "This is what the Republicans will do to him. He needs vetting."

  Kind of like performing a public service, eh?

  I ain't buyin' it.

  Especially is they start with the racial stuff, which I suspect they will, though not from the campaign itself, obviously.

  I predict they'll play a few nasty race cards but this stuff will come from a secretive 527 (or perhaps even more than one). And the claim will be that the 527 is really a Republican group.

  And should that come to pass, how sad it will be that a desperate Democratic candidate camp would use a racial attack against a fellow Dem.

  We'll see. Unlike you, I am NOT looking forward to it.

  Watching a bitter Bill Clinton speaking at Dartmouth yesterday leads me to believe that there is actual hatred directed at Obama for having the audacity to challenge Hillary.

  I always said the Clintons would go down hard and ugly and try to take their leading opponent with them. The reason being, the Clintons have ALWAYS been more about themselves than they have ever been for the party.

  This will be incredibly ugly and I fully expect that they will viciously play the race card.

  We should make sure that it is clearly known that anyone backing these shady 527s are endorsing racial slams against Obama.

  Way to go, "Democrats!"

  by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM PDT

  •  Where are the racial slams?

    I missed that in the diary. Are you referring to Shaheen or some other specific info on the 527s I missed?

    by Jim J on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM PDT

    •  Groups are looking into forming 527s.

      The scare tactics of "America will never vote for a black man" will be similar to the tenor of Shaheen's remarks, of that you can be sure.

      Whether or not these groups get formed in time to have an impact on Feb. 5 is still up in the air.

      by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM PDT

      •  OK, I'm talking specifics

        not trying to lecture you, but I'm sure you know it's a serious charge on many levels to say Hillary is coordinating with 527s on racial slams. Is that specifically what you're saying and if so can we see some further evidence of this?

        BTW, not saying it could never happen.....

        by Jim J on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:58:43 AM PDT

        •  It hasn't happened, the article says

          they're "looking into it" or something.

          by hollywood politcaljunkie on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM PDT

          •  Is it too much to ask

            that we have an actual credible source?

            Guess it is....

            by Jim J on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM PDT

            •  I'm not sure I get your point.

              You're right, she hasn't done anything yet.  But it's pretty clear they are exploring ways of going negative to take down Obama.  That can take a lot of forms, maybe it will focus on policy, maybe it will get personal, maybe it will involve independent 527s.  I'm not sure how you can have a "credible source" on something that hasn't happened yet.  What we are talking about is speculation right now...but hey, half of what gets discussed on this site is speculation.

              Anyway, there's been a lof of reporting that one option they've been exploring is to focus on Feb 5th and go negative on Obama over the next month to take him down.  What form that takes remains to be seen.  I hope it doesn't take the personal attack form or the form discussed in this diary.

              by hollywood politcaljunkie on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:08:21 AM PDT

        •  I never said she is coordinating with 527s.

          That's against the law.

          I am saying groups are looking into forming 527s to take on Obama. And these are Democratic groups and Democratic money aligned with Hillary.

          I remember when a shady 527 ran the Dean-morphing-into-Osama ad. That was Dem-on-Dem sliming as bad as anything Rove ever did or the Swiftboaters did.

          Folks aren't afraid to do it because the quarterly financial reporting doesn't come out until after the primaries are over.

          by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:03:20 AM PDT

          •  OK, fine

            but would it be OK to hold fire until there's proof of such a thing?

            Is the preemptive strike really necessary, and doesn't it put the lie to the whole "let's unite in post-partisan bliss" message that is clearly the dominant one right now?

            by Jim J on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM PDT

            •  You're right.

              But I will not be surprised when the real nastiness starts.

              I'll save these predictions just so I can be Nostradamus-like later.

              by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM PDT

    •  It will be about raising doubts, nothing blatant

      Hillary's entire strategy is about raising doubts about Obama so that people will return to the 'safe' candidacy she wants to represent. So she'll get the word out, never from her mouth, that we should worry about Obama's appeal in Southern red states, because whites there will never vote for him. And contrast that with friendly polling that will suggest that she, on the other hand, can win there.

      All these crap diaries that are about 'let me slur Obama as a public service now, because I'm previewing what the Republicans will do' are simply more of the same, just trying to scare us into thinking that only the vetted Hillary can win. Problem is, we're past all that noise. Hyping the awesome power of the rabid Republican attack machine only serves to remind people that Hillary is the one leaving the most chum in the water for the sharks. So like everything else she's tried, it bounces back and blows up in her face.

      by bflaff on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:43:16 AM PDT

•  Title is a bit misleading

  It would be more accurate to ask "Hillary supporters preparing to swiftboat Obama?"

  Unless you know that Hillary Clinton is coordinating with this group, in which case you should contact law enforcement authorities.

  I don't know if it's much of anything to worry about, though -- swiftboating only works if the media play along, and right now they're being pretty kind to Obama.

  by Bill W on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:43:51 AM PDT

•  She may attack

  If it's not a blow out today and it's closer like some of today's polls, she's going to go after him.

  Swiftboating is using non-issue personal lie attacks.

  Going after policies and attacking is fair game.

  But I wouldn't believe the tenor of this article.

  The Republicans will do the swift boating when Obama is the nominee.

  by GregNYC on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM PDT

  •  good luck convincing black people

    who are the base of our party with thaat shit. Hillary is not going to be president it's time for her to deal with it.

    by nevadadem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM PDT

    •  OH!

      Here we go with the Hillary is Racist and black people all hate her now argument.

      Nevada step out of here and get a reality check.

      You have no credibility with me after hearing some of the nasty Hillaryhater rhetoric coming out of your mouth.

      by GregNYC on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:42 AM PDT

  •  Rethuglicans will do the swift boating regardless

    of who is the Dem nominee.

    by pat bunny on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM PDT

•  Bullshit diary.

  The source of this diarists' information is Thomas Edsall, formerly of the Washington Post and currently on the editorial board of the Huffington Post. Oh, and he came to this position via a stint at the New Republic Online.

  It took me a 30-second Google search and a brief reading of his NRO hit piece on Democrats entitled, "Losing Strategy" to determine that Edsall isn't a friend to the Democrats.

  Why didn't the diarist do the same 5 minutes' worth of research that I was able to?

  by MyOwnClone on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:48:12 AM PDT

  •  You've done something that everyone should do

    And that is to take a look at the source.  I wish everyone did that around here.

    by dannyinla on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:52:57 AM PDT

  •  and he also has written for the nation

    did this guy, a former pullitzer prize nominee, and current journalism professor, make up all of this out of thin air?  Is that what you are suggesting?  I understand the TNR generated skepticism, but on the other hand we aren't talking about Bob Novak here guys.    

    by gobacktotexas on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:56:55 AM PDT

    •  Just searched the Nation archives

      It turns up one article... 28 years ago. Including that in is bio is to help perpetrate a conjob that he is somehow lib-friendly.

      The Battle of The Budget

      Edsall, Thomas B. | May 10, 1980 issue

      by dannyinla on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM PDT

  •  Yep. Neocons throwing sand at faces.

    Remember the Novak article about Clinton "agents" and their double-secret dirt on Obama?

    by pat bunny on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:19 AM PDT

    •  see my comment directly above (n/t)

      by gobacktotexas on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:03:41 AM PDT

      •  I doubt Edsall is himself the sand thrower.

        However, I'd like to know who's telling him this.

        by pat bunny on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM PDT

  •  right but

    he may have gotten a leak.
    Some of his stuff in the past was pretty good. And he has good contacts.
    He's won a Pulitzer. I own one of his books on inequality, written during the Reagan years.
    Maybe he turned right, maybe. But even if he did he has much more cred than Fox.

    Someone in HRC's camp could be leaking it to see what happens. That doesn't mean they speak for the campaign.

    In fact if it is a leak there is probably internal dispute within camp HRC about strategy. Earlier there was a dispute about Iowa and a leak that HRC would not go to Iowa. Then she had to. Probably shouldn't have as it turns out.

    by annalivia on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM PDT

  •  As I write above

    TPM has 2 posts up on this, one a rather lengthy discussion.

    I don't think there's a blogger out there more even-keeled, objective, and forthright than Josh Marshall... if Josh thinks it's discussion-worthy, then I think it's got a bit more credence than silly rumor mongering.

    If you want to debunk - that's fine... but I'm not buying the "bullshit diary" line.

    by zonk on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:24:31 PM PDT

•  I hope she does it

  One of two things will happen:

  1. She will take him down.  If that happens it means someone else will be the last one standing, who still has a chance of being viable in November.  See, nothing Hillary can throw at Obama can be nearly as bad as what the Republicans are certain to throw at him.  So if Obama can't survive a boating from Hillary, he has zero chance of surviving the Republican treatment, which will also be amplified by the media which will turn on him once the generals are on.

  2. He will survive, which makes him a lot more likely to also survive that same Republican swiftboating mentioned above, if he is nominated.

  Ancient Greek(?) saying: between the Dem Nomination and the White House, the gods have placed the General Election.

  Obama better EXPECT to be swiftboated and he better be ready for it.  Or else he is still smoking crack.  (You DO know that he smokes and deals crack, don't you?  Also, he legally changed his name to Obama just before he ran for Senate.  It used to be Osama.  And he singlehandedly masterminded 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, the Lincoln assassination, and he betrayed Jesus to the Romans.  Plus he ate my baby.   Well, you get the idea).

  by clyde on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:50:30 AM PDT

  •  actually, his name used to be

    Barry O'Bama.

    He's actually Irish.  And a Catholic.

    Don't tell anyone.

    by Jerry 101 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:00:21 AM PDT

    •  His brother's name is Al

      and he plays the banjo.

      by clyde on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:03:47 AM PDT

      •  on his knee? nt

        by dannyinla on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:07:52 AM PDT

  •  So , you are saying

    in 04 the dems made a mistake cus they did not have their own 527 run the swiftboat campaign against kerry back in November,December and January,04?

    You are saying that we need democratic 527's to actually fabricate damaging attacks on our prospective candidates before the primaries take place?

    So, what exact lies should they throw at HRC,Edwards and Obama right now to test them? This is how you want to identify our nominee?

    by Hawkjt on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:31:47 AM PDT

    •  You bet your ass

      Kerry walked down the garden path to the GOP swiftboating in 2004 because he was the one who DIDN'T get clobbered during the primaries.  Dean and Gephardt took each other out in Iowa and Kerry was left with the nomination which he proceeded to squander.  Yes there is some danger of the same thing happening again, Hillary and Kerry doing mutual annhilation without Edwards taking damage, but Edwards at least knows what he's up against from 2004, and is already under media blackout.   HRC, for that matter, has gotten it nonstop for the past 16 years.  

      In 2004 if Dean had stayed viable after Iowa and gotten nominated, he'd have certainly beaten Bush.  Maybe Gephardt would have too, though I didn't pay as much attention to him, and I don't really remember who else was running other than Clark.

      Trial by fire.

      by clyde on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:19:32 PM PDT

  •  I totally agree

    You Obama-ites are in la la land.

    Skipping along from rally to rally in the land of gum drop trees...... not knowing what is ahead.

    Once Obama gets the nomination, the re-thug-licans  wingnuts will bascially try to lynch him with everything mentioned above, AND MORE....

    Hillary? Hell, everything that can be done has already been done to her. She is tested. She is ready.

    Obama? He is a wildcard, who knows what will happen.

    I hope I am wrong, and will support Obama if he is our nominee, and cross my fingers for him.

    by Nature Guy on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:03:18 PM PDT

    •  Hey

      Bring it on.

      I think it's a pretty shitty thing for one Dem to do for another (hell... I don't think anyone 527'ed the hated Howard Dean in 2004) - and I'll lose an awful lot of respect for HRC and Clinton legacy... to the point of being glad they get relegated to the dustbin of Democratic history.

      That said, I'm confidant Senator Obama will parry the attacks as artfully and successfully as he's done since mid December.

      The attacks on Obama the man don't particularly bother me.  Attacks on his record don't particularly bother me.  Attacks predicated on nothing more than some shadowy fear of what the GOP will do?  Those bother me - if only because I'm tired of the GOP driving the conversation.

      So like I said, bring it on... Obama'll be fine -- just be ready to quite rightfully attacked as the only Democrat to 527 one of our own.

      by zonk on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:32:33 PM PDT

•  (a) Won't work;

  (b) will help immunize Obama for the general election;  &

  (c) will reduce the value of Brand Clinton.

  (a) & (b) are all good. (c) will be regrettable.

  by Bill White on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:52:14 AM PDT

•  if this is done Obama

  will bolt the party and run as an independant and win............go out with class Hillary!

  by nevadadem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM PDT

•  I doubt this is true

  First off in order for a candidate to have a swift boat effect there would have to be something incredibly negative from there past.

  Everyone knew of the Kerry problem long before the election, in this case, there is no silver bullet.

  I really hate when I hear everyone use 'swift boat', 'blank-gate', and 'rovian' tactics, because often times they are completely mischaracterizing what those tactics where.

  For Hillary backers to run negative ads through a 527 is more likely, but they won't have anything near 'swift boat' style.  Its just not there from all we can tell.

  by NickC on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:08:04 AM PDT

  •  The diary did not post this quote

    direct from there source link.  BTW, there source is the Huffington Post, which is not always accurate, and is strongly in favor of Obama.

    "These things (527s) are not that easy to get rolling. There is a long way between talking and doing," said one source familiar with setting up 527 operations.

    I think what we have here is a reporter trying to make news rather than report the news.  Having said that I fully expect the Clinton campaign to go negative if they go on to the big states.  This talk of a 'swift boat' operation though is overblown I think.

    by NickC on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:13:42 AM PDT

•  I hope she does

  it will make him a better candidate in the general if he fends off everything the Clintons can throw at him.

  by duha on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM PDT

  •  Well

    I personally like nice politics, but I agree with the fact that it would be nice to know if Obama can really be tested.  I don't want another Kerry.  If I had to pick though, I'd take nice politics.  If McCain wins, we may actually have the most civil election this country has had in years.

    by NickC on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:11:26 AM PDT

•  Clintons will pay with their LEGACY

  among Democrats mind you, if they swiftboat Obama.

  That'll be on top of losing the race.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM PDT

•  Barack Obama, an equal opportunity candidate

  Barack Obama, an equal opportunity candidate.

  It's obvious that Obama is not white enough and certainly not black enough.  He does however presents himself as an equal opportunity candidate.

  There's a piece of him for the white color conscious voter and a piece of him for the black color conscious voter.  It would be nice if race was not a factor but let's not kid ourselves; we are all not so blind.

  For the first time, African-Americans are presented with a candidate who shares their heritage and has a legitimate chance to be nominated and eventually elected president of the United States.

  Obama is not an ordinary candidate.  He is specially gifted and standing head to head with Hillary, is far superior both in judgment, character and intellectual endowment. He also has sufficient relevant experience to make good decisions where others like Hillary failed.  Moreover, he will do more for blacks than Hillary will ever do.

  Blacks should not allow themselves to be held back by fear and self doubt and be misguided into voting for Hillary instead of Obama.  If  Iowa can do it, why can't they?  

  Blacks are intelligent enough to know that simply being black is no grounds to be supported. Heaven knows there are enough ineffective black individuals parading as leaders out there.  Obama without a doubt is as qualified a candidate for the White house as there is on the campaign trail.  

  The tag teams of Bill and Hillary Clinton have mounted a serious negative campaign to diminish the stature of Obama.  They have introduced the race and gender cards in an effort to bait and destroy him.

  They have also turned loose all the big media dogs to intensify their attacks on Obama.  In other words, the Clinton machine is in full war mode and will take no prisoners.

  This is the moment for African-Americans to stand for something.  This is the time to make their vote count.  If they capitulate to the Clintons and allow themselves to be duped into selecting Hillary, then they will be for a long time relegated to the bottom.  The Latinos are coming.

  Blacks should not allow themselves to be pimped by the Clintons.  They should free themselves from mental slavery and exercise wisdom by giving Obama victory.  They should reject any so called leaders who may try to persuade them from doing the right thing.  

  Blacks should cease this moment and set a new course for their future.  Let's face it; Obama is the closest blacks will ever come to having a black president.  Bill Clinton is not black and never was. Remember also that Hillary is no Bill and therefore, doesn't deserve any blind allegiance.

  Help defeat the Clinton machine, select Obama and set the stage for change.  That's the challenge to blacks

  by Wordtodawise on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 02:17:54 AM PDT