"I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them." HRC

"I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them."

-snip
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/in/

HRC knows how R's think and operate, and thinks she can sway Dem voters to adopt their policies.

:toast: MKJ

Here anymore.

I really don't. She played the game too well.

Last I looked, she was a right-leaning corporate panderer trying to play both sides without losing her job. I don't mind being proven wrong, but she'll have to do it for my support.

to the Swiftboaters.

I remember Gail Sheehey talking about being on the plane w/ Hillary Clinton when the Jennifer Flowers story broke. And Sheehey says that Hillary did not miss a beat. She was telling people to get Bill on the phone, asking where are our people, etc. And she was talking about how she would crucify Flowers on a witness stand, pointing out inconsistencies in her story, etc.

Hillary is right when she says she knows how the right-wingers think; after all, she's lived with their constant attacks since 1991. And she's still standing to tell the story. That says something about her.

After all, she worked for Barry Goldwater for many years.

Don't tell me that she cut her political teeth on something that's repugnant to her. She's DLC, and THAT is why she's so familiar with republican tricks. She is one.

:kick::kick::kick:

She said her mother was a "silent Democrat" back then, but her father was a conservative, and so was th rest of the neighborhood. And to her credit, she realized that there was a whole other world out there when she went to college. She has spoken before about how one of her teachers took her and her classmates to go see Martin Luther King speak, and that is what helped change her political views.

And she has spoken about how being at Wellsley (sp?) during the height of the 60s civil rights movement, changed her.

She started off w/ the political leanings of her father b/c that's what she was taught. And when she realized there was a whole other world out there, she changed.

So I think that whole "she used to be one of them" is very disengenous in her case.

:shrug:

People CAN become enlightened...........

I was trying to say to the person who was taking Hillary to task for being a Goldwater Girl back in the day.

eom

I got to wear a cute outfit, go to events with lots of people, music, and food.

It was a good time for a teen-ager.

Obviously I didn't understand any of the political aspect of it nor did I have any idea of what i thought about values, government, or political parties.

It was just a fun thing to do.

Could've just as well been working for LBJ. At that time it made no difference to me.

Maybe because REAL RECORDS from the Pentagon aren't as exciting as defending against sex charges for the media. Or maybe because by now mosdt of the broadcast media is owned and operated by corporate allies of BushInc thanks to media consolidation in the last ten years.



Live links in DU's Research Forum.



April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...



Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518



Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS. Stay tough KNOWING the media is aligned with these liars.

The battle with the people really behind this group will never end. But there are veterans coming forth with a book of their own that will unmask the swifts for the lying GOP operatives they are. We need to support those vets when their book comes out. Truth matters.

in the primary debates. Undergod knows, the corpmedia will only let Kucinich get a minimal amount of airtime IF any and Kerry will have to fight to get more than that himself.

She could have been on any channel she chose in August of 2004, beat the hell out of those swiftboaters, if she's such a vicious campaigner. She didn't do anything about it, and neither did Bill. They've been silent on so many issues where we needed their voice these last 6 years. If it were left up to her, the Democratic Party would be supporting this surge.

And frankly, your story is exactly why I don't like Hillary. She knew Bill was a cheater and she didn't care. I have no respect for a woman who allows herself to be treated that way for decades. And to calculate destroying the victim like that, puke. You've sealed my suspicion of her in that regard, so thanks for that.

NOT Bill and Hillary Clinton's job. John Kerry had the primary job of defending John Kerry, and he didn't do that until way too late.

Secondly, with all due respect, I don't think it's any of your business or mine to question Sen. Clinton on why she has stayed married to Bill Clinton. That's their business. Since when is someone trying to make their marriage work a bad thing? And how was Jennifer Flowers, who had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton, a victim? She allowed her story to be sold to the tabloids so she could make money. She was no victim. Bill Clinton didn't rape her.

If they cared about winning, they could have gone on any channel and joined the myriad of people who were out there defending him. They either didn't do it or were ineffectual. It doesn't speak well of either their character or their ability, one or the other.

Oh hell yes I will question her decision to stay married to a cheater, year after goddamned year. Your telling of her response indicates to me that she knew all along, because that's a poliical response and most spouses would have an emotional response. The fact that she didn't is rather horrifying to me. Then to attack the woman?? Crucify her in court? That's just wretched. I wasn't impressed when Bill did it to Monica and I'm not impressed to hear that's Hillary's MO as well.

Did you somehow conveniently forget that Bill Clinton went back on the campaign stump to campaign with and for John Kerry, just WEEKS after his heart surgery? He very well could have taken the attitude that he just had heart surgery, and he would sit this campaign out. He did not. He went back out there when clearly he didn't have his complete strength. And not only did Bill & Hillary speak out for and campaign for John Kerry, their daughter did as well.

But again, when it specifically came to the Swift Boat attacks, I still believe the primary responsibility for responding, rested with John Kerry. The attacks were against HIS performance in the Vietnam War and on that swiftboat. So HE was the one (along with his crewmates) who knew the real facts. Bill and Hillary Clinton were not on that swiftboat in Vietnam with him.

And again, you are not married to Bill Clinton. It's not your responsibility to question why Hillary stayed in her marriage. The only 2 people who really know what go on in a relationship, are the 2 that are in it. And how do you know she did not have an "emotional" response to the Jennifer Flowers story? She was responding on a plane in front of a journalist (Gail Sheehey). Do you think that would have been an appropriate time for an "emotional" response? I think not. That time would have been at home alone with her husband.

His response has been laid out here completely, on numerous occasions. He responded. His crew responded. Retired military responded. People like Wes Clark responded. Unfortunately the media didn't give them any air time. Bill Clinton would have gotten air time, as would Hillary. Too bad they chose to sit it out. That was their decision. I love all these people who say 'their guy' would have destroyed those swiftboaters, when if you get the true facts on the table, they either didn't try or didn't succeed when they did. The only ones revising history are the ones who continue to ignore the media's complicity in the 2004 election.

As to the affairs, I know plenty of people who empathize with Hillary and that's their choice. I just don't. You said her first instinct was to destroy the woman, that says it all about her character, as far as I'm concerned. Know you're married to a womanizer and then destroy the women when the truth is told. Real class there.

I'll never forget he gave some response to the Swift Boaters after 12 Midnight, after George Bush finished giving his acceptance speech at the GOP Convention. This was way after the attacks by the Swiftboaters had already been launched, like months before.

I was like, you're responding to these attacks at 12 midnight when most people are probably in bed and not even watching?

And again, how did you expect Bill and Hillary Clinton to respond to the swiftboaters when they were not even on that boat with John Kerry? John Kerry has the facts about what happened on there, not Bill or Hillary. The fact, though, is that Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton all campaigned for Kerry, but you fail to ackowledge that.

As for the Jennifer Flowers situation, Hillary Clinton was not talking about destroying her personally, for crying out loud. Gail Sheehey simply said Hillary was talking about how she would handle her on a witness stand if she was under oath, and she would be pointing out inconsistencies in her story.

we're ready for a woman Pres, just not ready for Hillary.
EDIT
Maybe AG would be good job for her.

joy if it was Barbara Boxer!

AG? She is too close with the corporations to be a good AG IMHO. We need a Feinstein, Spitzer or perhaps Fitgzgerald for AG.

investigate, prosecute, and imprison those who have done such stupid things with our military and brought such pain to the Iraqi people.... we have literally caused their country to be demolished... I will vote for anyone who will prosecute the current criminals in Washington.

"little boy"?

was EXACTLY on his mind. Yes, I would call MANY of them little boys.

And I have. This is the big league, no holds barred. If men can be called effete, she can be called 'little girl'. We can't run around whining 'they're mean' at this stage of the game.

between refering to a male candidate, or any candidate for that matter, as effete and specifically refering to a female candidate as a "little girl". I have never heard anyone refer to a male candidate as "little boy" and a guaran-damn-tee you if someone refered to Obama as a "boy" there would be screaming about it. Do one would DARE do that...but women are fair game. It's pitiful.

than "little girl", or at least equal. No they probably won't call Obama boy, but they'll do exactly what they did to Harold Ford, which was worse than 'efette' or 'little girl'. None of it's right, but it is politics. I think putting ourselves in someone else's shoes isn't always easy.

This is sexist. *sigh* :crazy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3163068&mesg_id=3163401

she thinks a little too much like them for my tastes.

an electoral victory. How Hillary could do what Gore and Kerry couldn't - overcome repuke vote fraud - and be officially declared the winner - remains a mystery. And that's assuming a close election. In Hillary's case though, I don't think the repukes would even have to resort to the usual dirty tricks at the ballot box. I think she'd lose in a landslide. Repukes hate her. The corporate media will be gunning for her. Make the swiftboating of Kerry look like a schoolyard prank. Progressive Dems distrust her. Who's going to work their ass off for DLC Hillary?

I hope Gore steps up. We need him more than ever.

in leadership positions with subpoena power. My hope is we can achieve a fair elections unless some contollin g members of the Dem party attempt to block it. We have been through so much, it's time to put an end to corporate dynasties and evolve into a great DEMOCRATIC nation.

Probably the same people who worked their ass off for DLC Kerry.

And DLC Gore.

And, of course, DLC Bill Clinton, her husband.

And before you say who lost those last two elections, there's a lot of people who think they were stolen.

I can't think of another candidate who would be more devisive, though. This is a Dem board and Hillary doesn't have a lot of fans here. If Dems aren't enthusiastic and repukes hate her, how can she win?

Just looking at the electoral map, where are the votes going to come from?

by elements to the left (sometimes, well to the left) of the mainstream Democratic Party.

DU has been consistantly wrong in who it supports, when it comes to winning. Kerry was (and still is, by many) hated on this board. I would say that being unpopular on DU is a positive sign for any candidate.

Where are the votes going to come from? Well, the same places Kerry's came from. Kerry won, remember?

Any Democrat who runs also stands to pick up votes in the mountain west, an area that is steadily turning blue. Virginia is in play, as is Florida, now that Jeb is gone. Hillary could be strong in Arkansas. Two more years of Bush, and this next election will be a landslide, no matter who is on the Dem. ticket, IMO.

That said, it doesn't mean we have to blindly support every Dem candidate and are free to voice our opinions on who we prefer to represent the Dem Party.

why are there posts in support of 3rd party candidates at all?

you've just proven my point...

from DU rules:

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

otherwise they're allowed to stand.

Don't believe me, ask Skinner.

have some fans here - though not many.

It's certainly not a foregone conclusion that Hillary could win every state Kerry won. I think against McCain, California would even be in play - and I say that as a Californian.

First of all, with Bush tanking, the Republican Party will be determined to redeem themselves and run a candidate who has been critical of Bush for a while. Chuck Hagel is tailor made for that, I don't know why he isn't in it yet.

Second, Arkansas doesn't like Hillary as much as they like Bill, and they don't all like Bill. She's no guarantee in Arkansas, Wes Clark likely is. To be perfectly honest, Wes Clark is the most likely easy win, if we've got one.

Third, she'll have as difficult a time winning Virginia or Florida as any other Dem. She's not a southerner by any stretch. And she won't pick up any western states against McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Hagel. You know how much she's hated, get real.

Fourth, I don't know anybody who is excited about her run. Those of us who were excited about Kerry, were truly excited about Kerry. I see more true excitement for him, still, than for Hillary. Now what does that say about her?

I've said it before. If she wins, what the hell do I say about her? I don't know what she'll do on Iraq or war in general. She probably won't do universal health coverage. She hasn't changed her view on trade agreements. I don't know her track record on energy policy. She won't stand up for the little guy on economic issues, as was seen with the bankruptcy bill. What the hell is there for a Democrat to campaign on??

:thumbsup:

And you consider yourself a fairly moderate Democrat, no?

I'm a smidge to the right of the far left, in my personal views. But willing to go to the slightly left of center to get things done. Single payer is probably the best answer for health care, but I'd try anything that would allow everybody to go to the doctor. I am completely pro-choice, yet I completely understand any parents' desire to be informed that their teen-age daughter is getting an abortion. I tend to see many sides of an issue. A lot of the time, I just present those arguments at DU because I think some people on the very far left never consider them at all.

I have two major issues with Hillary. One is completely personal, I can't stand the way she has dealt with Bill's affairs. The other is the war, I think she is the one that pushed the war in order to earn her 'defense cred' so she could run for President. Purely political and she's as much to blame as Bush. The Clintons have the power in the party to move issues one way or another. They didn't use it to stop the war, and they easily could have.

The question is, will the Republicans be smart enough to nominate him?

I'm just assuming HRC will do well in Arkansas, with a "favorite daughter" scenario. I could be wrong... Her husband still has coattails, I think - in fact, that will most likely be a big part of her appeal everywhere. It will be a "two for the price of one" deal for a lot of voters.

I wasn't specifically referring to HRC's chances in VA and FL, as much as to any Dem's chances there, which I think will be improved over 2004.

Hillary will have the same problem's in the west that any northeastern or east coast Democratic candidate will have - but, it seems to me that Guiliani and Romney will be in the same boat, so I don't think that they will have any advantage over her there. McCain would be a different story, of course, but he really seems to have jumped the shark with his support of the surge and his over the top war-mongering lately. I'm beginning to think McCain may not be a factor.

While I certainly acknowledge that HRC has high negatives, I do know people who are enthusiastic about her run. Quite a few people. I need to explain something - I'm originally from upstate NY - one of the reddest counties in the entire state - a place where Barry Goldwater won back in '60. I have a lot of relatives back there, in fact, there are times when I think I'm related to half the county. :) Most of those people didn't vote for her the first time she ran - but, she won them over. She won them over by going around upstate and learning, in detail, the political concerns of her constituency. It was the first time any Dem. Senator from NY had bothered to learn about, much less pay attention to the concerns of rural upstate. You have to understand, there is a huge difference between upstate NY and NYC - the money and the votes are downstate, and there have been plenty of Democrats over the years who just went for that and wrote off the upstate area.

This makes me think she has a chance, if she wins the nomination, of winning people who don't like her now over to her side. I also believe that she would be a good president.

Look - I'm not advocating for her as much as trying to correct some of the assumptions made about her on this board - much the same as I did for Kerry.

For instance - she has changed her view on trade policy - her position, IMO, has evolved much the same way Kerry's has. She voted against CAFTA. A week before x-mas she made a statement in support of universal health coverage, so there is hope there. Although she didn't vote on the Bankruptcy Bill, because her husband was in surgery, she made a floor statement before the vote explicitly stating that she didn't support it and would have voted against it. She has a lifetime 95% ADA rating. So, you see, a lot of what stands for common knowledge vis vis Hillary's position's on issues here at DU is just plain not true.



I still honestly don't know who I'll support in 2008, but she could very well be our nominee - and the kind of disinformation being spread won't help her any more than it helped Kerry in 2004.

She voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill and I'm not certain she would have voted differently in 2005. I haven't heard her have any sort of vision of the changes needed in our trade policy. I just listened to her announcement, I heard her say affordable health care, not universal coverage that is a right. Those are the little differences with her that make me not trust her.

I think upstate New York is not the west, and certainly not the south. If she learned the value of meeting with people in the reddest areas, then why is she fighting Howard Dean? Oregon isn't San Francisco either, but certainly more open to candidates from anywhere in the country than say, Montana is. Kerry has a history with environmentalists and protesters too. We turned almost all our Nader voters, I don't think it'll be the same for Hillary because the history isn't there. You give Oregon any of those choices against Hillary, especially with Smith running, and we could lose.

Giuliani projects self-assurance, which the west likes. Romney will be favored in Utah, which will spread out from there. Same for McCain in Arizona, unless he destroys himself on Iraq as he currently is. Depending on Iraq, I can see any one of them being extremely difficult in the Rocky Mountain states particularly. Hagel being the most difficult, we agree there.

I understand what you're saying about not creating an image that we have to deal with in the GE. Some of this far left Black Panthers stuff is exactly that. But pointing out her more centrist leanings wouldn't hurt her in the GE, see Lieberman, but that is the reason I don't want her there.

IMPORTANT group and that is the ones who are border line repugs and dems...the people I know who might consider voting dem (and did by the way in Nov) would NEVER vote for her. For whatever the reasons are, she wouldn't win..not with all the money in anyone's warchest....she has waaay too much baggage (whitewater, Vince Foster, for starters...)they'd eat her alive./


Today did go down in history for sure...it's the day the repugs have been waiting for. They wanted her and now they got her (at least until the people get to speak) and the mudslinging is about to begin in earnest just as it has with Obama.

ie corporate interests!

for the non-DLC, anti-war Democrat who gets the nomination. I think she is a very talented political operative, but I'd rather she were not the candidate.

Since you're of the same mind as most of them.

She has far to go, no doubt. I'm anxious to hear from each of the Dem candidates. We have a real shot at the presidency, and a slate of especially capable candidates.

Let the best man, or woman, win. :kick:

There are all the other cities and towns across the country of which she has no clue on how to win.

That includes trying to have it both ways on the war and flag burning.

IF Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will happily support and work for her in the General. I have many issues with Hillary, first and foremost being her IWR vote. But, she is a moderate to liberal Democrat, and as such 1,000 times better than any Repuke the idiots on the "other side of the isle" will put up. The fact that she would be the first female president is a plus also.

And the person I live with is the grandson of a three star General during WW II, and he agrees with me that Wes Clark has got it ALL.

Man, I'm going to be glad when the primaries are over and she's not the nom.