Obama Team in Rapid Response Mode...

[carpe diem]

It’s a classic example of rapid response.

The Los Angeles Times published an article this morning suggesting that Barack Obama, in his 1994 memoir “Dreams From My Father,” exaggerated his role in a movement to rid certain Chicago apartments of asbestos. Specifically, the Times suggests that Obama downplayed the role of others in the Altgeld Gardens development and enhanced his own.

By 8:05 this morning, Obama’s campaign had sent reporters an e-mail titled “About that L.A. Times Story…”, offering a five-page, point-by-point rebuttal. “The implication is false, and the article is misleading,” it says, arguing that Obama’s role in the asbestos removal campaign was key and that he never exaggerated it. Given the detail in the document, it was clear the Obama campaign had been ready for the article and was pulling material together for some time. (The rebuttal is posted below.)

It was not a given that the campaign would respond this way. A legitimate strategy would have been to assume that not many people would notice the article, coming as it did so early in the campaign, and to decide that ignoring it was the best plan. A forceful answer, in this way of thinking, would come off as an overreaction and only draw more attention to the article’s assertions.

But Democrats have paid a high price for that way of thinking. The best example is the attacks on John Kerry’s military record in 2004. Kerry and his team believed that as a wounder war hero, Kerry was immune to criticism of his service. But hard-hitting attacks on the legitimacy of his Purple Heart medals, whatever their basis in fact, succeeded in raising highly damaging doubts about Kerry’s integrity.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/rapid_fire.html#more




...this is very encouraging...

[Radical Activist]

1. Another sign that they've got their act together.

Obama has a good team already.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Not too surprising, considering...

...that most of those who brought about the Democratic debacle of 2000-2004 (McAuliffe, Carville, etc.) are on Hillary's team, busy trying to spread the notion of her "inevitability." :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

4. They'll get schooled on politics

Chicago style.

[dogfacedboy]

10. Chicago style is right.

The rest of Our Nation doesn't know crap about politics as they are done in Chicago. Very proactive, and not a minute wasted in campaigns.

[Radical Activist]

18. This reminds me of something.

"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."


(Obama '08 campaign staff)

[IronLionZion]

35. So is Obama our Eliot Ness?

Maybe we'll finally get the neocons on tax evasion!

[regnaD kciN]

2. There will be no SwiftBoating of Barack...

:applause:

[dogfacedboy]

11. It won't work. n/t

[tridim]

26. But they'll certainly keep trying

Actually I would take a swift-boating over what I'm guessing is their backup plan for Obama. Think MLK and JFK/RFK. I hate that something so horrible is even on my mind, but I can't help it since I know that's exactly how they've played the game in the past.

[Pirate Smile]

5. He may want to respond to this also - I'm not sure who she is talking about:

Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism. "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I am not one of those."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/clinton_comes_to_south_carolin.html

[ripple]

16. That's one hell of a straw man

Not particularly surprising, but disappointing all the same.

[Nedsdag]

17. Now we're getting into "Oh no she didn't!" territory.

If she did say that, hoo-boy!

:eyes: :wtf:

[blm]

22. She's talking exactly like George Bush does.

.

[bigdarryl]

30. She sounds like a damn republican i don't know what she's talking about...

i have not heard one democrat say terrorism isn't serious. once again she's being polarizing

[malikstein]

6. While he's at it,

maybe he can get his staff to prepare some concrete programmatic proposals à la John Edwards. All we here from Obama is fluff and spin. What will he do if he's elected?

[carpe diem]

14. before it's all said and done...

all of the candidates will have position papers, white papers, proposals and ten-point plans coming out the ass...and MOST of us will never read them. Ninety-nine percent of the people who will vote in the primaries and general election will never read a single paper, proposal, or plan written by ANY of the candidates. Most people will have a general idea of where the candidate stands on the issues that matter to them and will ultimately vote according to how much THEY LIKE OR DON'T LIKE the person. That's why negative campaigning works so well. It has the ablility to influence how people feel about a candidate, regardless to where he/she stands on the issues.

This 'he's all fluff' meme, is just that, negative spin. There is plenty of information out there about his proposals and his legislative history. It's just easier for some to sling spin.

[ripple]

15. Well, let's see...

He has a detailed plan for getting out of Iraq, he has a clear proposal to provide universal health care, he has introduced unambiguous ethic reform, he has taken the first step to promote full public financing for federal elections, he's drafted legislation to increase fuel effeciency standards and promote alternative fuels, he was instrumental in drafting the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act to end the genocide in Sudan, and much, much more.

If you aren't aware of where Obama stands or what he would do if elected, you simply aren't looking in the right places.

Here are a few links that might help:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

http://obama.senate.gov/

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

[caledesi]

33. Read his 2nd book...Audacity of Hope. He details his plans

for USA in detail.

Obama is running a very clever campaign:

1. He knows he has 2 years...so he isn't going to reveal what his plans are. They are in his 2nd book, but, repugs won't read it....so they don't KNOW him. It's very frustrating for them...they must revert to superficial things and lies (e.g., Muslim, madrasa when he was 6, empty suit, big ears etc) REAL PROFOUND

2. So he waits until everyone is all fired up about him...runs a very clean and non-bashing campaign in the beginning, then he will get deeper into his plans for USA.

[liberal N proud]

7. I would prefer to see them hit right back that do what previous Dem candidates have done

At least we know they are listening and doing something in the Obama camp

[AX10]

8. Already is shows that Obama is better than the usual Democratic...

candidate.

[Ninja Jordan]

9. He seems like our best hope to derail Hillary.

[IndianaGreen]

13. I hope so, I am counting on him to save us from a Hillary debacle n/t

:-)

[PresidentObama]

12. Good to hear. They've got their bases covered, and are ready n/t

[JNelson6563]

19. I'm the first recommend??

This board should be totally celebrating this. Someone who's willing to take it to 'em.

Rock on Senator! :toast:

Julie

[ripple]

20. Oops! Thanks for the reminder! n/t

[PresidentObama]

21. DONE!

:toast:

[mnhtnbb]

23. I think Obama might be prone to exaggeration. I began reading

his book, "The Audacity of Hope" last night. Right on page 2, I read this out loud to my husband:

After two terms during which I labored in the minority, Democrats had gained control of the state senate, and I had subsequently passed a slew of bills, from reforms of the Illinois death penalty system to an expansion of the state's health program for kids.

Wow. Singlehandedly, Obama passed a "slew of bills". One slight word change in that sentence, and it reads VERY differently. Had he said he introduced or sponsored bills which were passed by the newly controlled Dem State Senate, it would indicate much more willingness to share the glory.

He then finishes the paragraph with two more sentences in which either 'I' or 'my' appear SIX times.

My husband's response (he's a shrink) was to ask, isn't he an only child?
Only children are very often raised with a sense that they are, indeed, at the center of the universe.

[carpe diem]

28. he has a younger sister named Maya...

and below is a list of the bills and resolutions he sponsored in the Illinois legislature (looks like a 'slew' to me):

SENATE BILLS State of Illinois, 90th General Assembly
SB0398 OBAMA MUNI CD-TIF-DEFINITION-BLIGHT 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0399 OBAMA MUNI CD-TIF-AFFORDABLE HOUSING 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0472 OBAMA CREDIT REPORTING FAIRNESS ACT 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0574 OBAMA MUNI CD-ADMIN ADJUDICATION 97-08-22 S PA 90-0516
SB0575 OBAMA JUV CT-JURIS FACTS-TECHNICAL 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0576 OBAMA TELECOM EXCIS TX-$3MIL-SCHOOL 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0577 OBAMA INC TX-JOB TRAINING EXPENSE 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0578 OBAMA INC TAX-EARNED INC CREDIT 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0579 OBAMA IDFA-MINORITY FEMALE BUS LOANS 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0755 OBAMA WELFARE REFORM-ACCOUNTABILITY 97-07-08 S PA 90-0074
SB0756 OBAMA PUB AID-JOB TRANSPORTATION 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0757 OBAMA CARE FACILITIES-RETALIATION 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0758 OBAMA MEDICAID AFTER AFDC TERMINATES 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0836 OBAMA CHGO ST UNIVERSITY LAW-TECH 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0837 OBAMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE-DIRECTORY 97-08-22 S PA 90-0521
SB0971 OBAMA MUNI CD-ADMIN ADJUDICATION 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0986 OBAMA JUVENILE COURT ACT-TECHNICAL 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1183 OBAMA $CHICAGO COLLEGES-JOB PROGRAM 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1435 OBAMA DHS-INDVIDUAL DEVELPMNT ACCNTS 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1514 OBAMA PUB AID CD-CHILD CARE-RATES 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1545 OBAMA INC TX-INCR-INDEX PERS EXEMPT 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1546 OBAMA TAX CR-DED-EXEMPT-SUNSET 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1619 OBAMA PUB AID CD-CHILD SUPPORT PILOT 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1644 OBAMA PUB AID-CHILDCARE FOR NON-TANF 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1648 OBAMA MULTI-OCCUPANT BLDG ELECT RATE 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1671 OBAMA PUB AID-WELFARE TO WORK 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1691 OBAMA CRIM PRO-INVENTORY SEIZED ITEM 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1850 OBAMA CAR INS RATE TASK FORCE 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1863 OBAMA TELEMARKETING REGISTRATION ACT 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1864 OBAMA UTIL ERND INCOM TX CRDT NOTICE 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1939 OBAMA DHS-TANF-ADDITIONAL CHILDREN 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE

SENATE RESOLUTIONS
SR0080 OBAMA MEMORIAL MILDRED B STEWART 97-05-21 S RESOL. ADOPTED
SR0110 OBAMA 11/1/97-ISLAMIC COMMUNITY DAY 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS
SJR0048 OBAMA CON AMEND-HEALTH CARE COVERAGE 99-01-12 S SESS SINE DIE
END OF INQUIRY 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/sponsor/OBAMA.html


SENATE BILLS State of Illinois, 91st General Assembly
SB0165 OBAMA INC TX-POVERTY EXEMPTION-2K 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0166 OBAMA INC TAX-EARNED INC CREDIT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0339 OBAMA INC TX-BASIC EXEMPTION AMOUNT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0561 OBAMA HEALTH CARE SURROGATE 99-11-18 S TOTL VETO STNDS
SB0565 OBAMA LTD LIABILITY CO-REGULATION 99-07-29 S PA 91-0354
SB0680 OBAMA DHS-TANF-JOB SKILLS TRAINING 99-08-19 S PA 91-0624
SB0681 OBAMA MEDICAID AFTER GRANT ENDS 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0684 OBAMA PUB AID CD-CUSTOMER SERVICE 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0686 OBAMA H ED FOR REAL OPPORTUNITIES 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0882 OBAMA PUB AID-TANF-PLAN-DISABILITIES 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0883 OBAMA TRANSPORTATION TO WORK ACT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0929 OBAMA ENT ZONE-EXTEND LENGTH 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB0930 OBAMA MENTL HLTH-LOCL PLANNNG COUNCL 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1055 OBAMA CHECK ACCEPTANCE FIRM ACT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1181 OBAMA DISABLED-ATTENDANT MIN WAGE 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1256 OBAMA $ICC ELEC DISTRIBUTE POLICY 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1257 OBAMA POWER OUTAGE 1000 CUSTOMERS 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1280 OBAMA SCH CD-SUS-EXP-ALT SCH REQD 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1324 OBAMA STATE POLICE-CULTURE DIVERSITY 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1334 OBAMA COMMNTY SRVCS ACT-EMPLYEE COMP 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1407 OBAMA PUB AID-CHILD SUPPRT-PASS THRU 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1408 OBAMA MEDICAID AFTER GRANT ENDS 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1413 OBAMA CHILDRENS HLTH INS ADULT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1489 OBAMA PREDATORY HOME LOAN ACT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1506 OBAMA PAYDAY LOAN 15% INTEREST 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1583 OBAMA BIDI CIGARETTE ACT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1594 OBAMA INC TAX-EARNED INC CREDIT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1606 OBAMA FAIR PRICING OF PRESCRIPS ACT 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1644 OBAMA GRANT RECOVERY-SPEND DEADLINE 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1663 OBAMA AGING-CARE ATTENDANT PAY 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1710 OBAMA MEDICAID-NONRESIDENT PARENTS 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1711 OBAMA MEDICAID-RX PRICES-MEDICARE 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1712 OBAMA PUB AID-TANF-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 00-06-02 S PA 91-0759
SB1713 OBAMA PUB AID-DOM VIOLENCE COUNSELNG 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SB1943 OBAMA $LABOR-ENFORCE EQUAL PAY 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS
SJR0013 OBAMA CON AMEND-UNIVERSAL HLTH CARE 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SJR0024 OBAMA THURGOOD MARSHAL MEMORIAL FRWY 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SJR0026 OBAMA AMEND EXEC ARTICLE-IL CONST 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SJR0051 OBAMA REGULATIONS ON TRAIN NOISE 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SJR0075 OBAMA SUSPENSION-CONT-ENHANCED 911 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
SJR0077 KLEMM SUSPENSION-CONT-ENHANCED 911 01-01-09 S SESS SINE DIE
END OF INQUIRY 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/sponsor/OBAMA.html


"$" in brief description denotes an appropriation bill.



He appears to have been VERY busy! I think , when you're trying to sell yourself in a job interview (running for office), you emphaize your own accomplishments, i.e. "I did this and I did that". It's not the time to hide your light under a barrell. The interviewer (the voting public) needs to know what you've done (prior experience) to be considered for the job.

[Qutzupalotl]

29. Thanks jg!

Good info. Yes, he seems to have been busy.

[mnhtnbb]

34. Apparently he has TWO half-sisters; one from each parent.

Yes, that's a slew of bills. But he didn't single-handedly get them passed--which was my point.

[Ethelk2044]

42. Sisters

What does his sisters have to do with anything.  So what he
has two half sisters.   You are just nick picking just like
repugs.

[depakid]

36. I have also noticed this tendency

Seems to me that he's shown a sense of self importance that he hasn't earned- which is going to show up down the line in exaggerations and impolitic statements.

Only time will tell, of course- but with a rapid response team in place, it's easy to put things out there without clearly thinking them through.

A good example of this was when he quipped back to Ozzie PM John Howard to basically put up or shut up by sending 20,000 troops to Iraq.

Now, if he'd thought about it- he'd realize that's about 1/2 of Australia's army. It left him open to a legitimate riposte from down under, which made him look uniformed in my book. He could have said 10,000 or 8,000 and made the exact same point.

He got away with that one- largely because Americans are too ignorant and ethnocentric to know or care about Australia. However, if and when he repeats that sort of thing under the media microscope- on an issue closer to home, it's going to get him into trouble.

[Hard_Work]

38. ummmm, no.

"A good example of this was when he quipped back to Ozzie PM John Howard to basically put up or shut up by sending 20,000 troops to Iraq.

Now, if he'd thought about it- he'd realize that's about 1/2 of Australia's army. It left him open to a legitimate riposte from down under, which made him look uniformed in my book. He could have said 10,000 or 8,000 and made the exact same point."

Not at all. The issue being talked about was sending 20,000 troops to Iraq. Not "send a representative portion of the military". 20k (actually 21k) is a specific number, so this is the number that should have been addressed, not 8-10k. Gimme a break.

[Ethelk2044]

43. Rapid Response

He did well with responding to Australia.  What he should let
things go.  I don't think so.  He should fire back and fire
hard to make sure fools quotes comes back and slap them in the
face.

[Clark2008]

46. And your husband would be incorrect to make such a broad-brush

judgment.

I'm an only child and I've never considered myself the center of any universe.

It depends on the parents, the situation and the, quite obviously, the money parents can spend on said only child. Only children aren't spoiled, either, despite pop science's assertion. Believe me, for example, if something is broken or missing in the house, your parents know who did it and expect you to own up to it.

Heck, look how spoiled Bush is and he's not an only child.

Just wanted to defend only children. Back to your regular-scheduled Obama bash :hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

24. Obama is doing a great job of handling the media.

Well done.

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. Excellent.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. good for him. Something Kerry and Gore could have used.

we would have won by even larger margins.

[blm]

31. Just to keep the record straight....

See...it won't sink in no matter how many times you say it, if MOST of the media refuses to air your counterattack. All links are live in the Research Forum here at DU.



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.

[depakid]

37. Oh they'll air it if the Dem candidate says something impolitic

or stupid in response.

Moreover, they'll do it while running cover for the far right.

[DeepModem Mom]

32. K&R!

[fuzzyball]

39. HRC 45%, Obama 12%....says it all

And this is NOT one isolated poll...it is the AVERAGE
of a dozen polls. Obama has a long way to crawl out of
this hole.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[Radical Activist]

40. Eight years as first lady and she can't even get 50%

Pretty sad. This early in the race is not a good time to be first in the polls.

[Ethelk2044]

41. Polls

It is too early to be worried about a poll.  We have well over
a year.  She will drop in the polls and he will rise and vice
a versa.   When it get two to three months before election
then the time is to start quoting polls.

[fuzzyball]

47. I love watching my horse leading by 8 lengths at start of a race

and finish just as strong.

[thoughtcrime1984]

44. Laughable

Yup, it's a runaway. Let's just inaugurate HRC tomorrow. 12%?? Keep believing it.

[fuzzyball]

48. If Obama was 45:12 over HRC I am sure you would be

dancing in the streets with a big placard showing
poll numbers. Now that your candidate is lagging badly,
ofcourse all the 8 polls are bah humbug. Yeah right!!

[thoughtcrime1984]

49. Sure buddy, whatever.

The Billaries can claim victory now if they want. We shall wait to see the actual results, though. It seems like the right thing to do.

[Ethelk2044]

45. Recent Poll Hillary not Leading by That Much

February 19, 2007 
There’s little change this week in the Democratic nomination
contest. Senator Hillary Clinton (D) continues to lead with
28% of the vote from Likely Democratic Primary Voters
nationwide. The latest Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 poll
shows Senator Barack Obama (D) still in second place with 24%
of the vote. Former Senator John Edwards (D) has support from
11% and former Vice President Al Gore (D) weighs in at 10%. 

While Gore still attracts more support than many who are
actively seeking the nomination, the Democrats’ Election 2000
nominee indicated again last week that he has no intention of
running for office at this time. Therefore, unless something
changes, Rasmussen Reports will no longer include the former
Vice President in our ongoing tracking of this race. 


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary.htm