I seriously do not know how Obama is going to deal with all the smears and all the disgusting

[glowing]

things that are written about him.. Don't ask me why I get e-mail dump from my 80yr old grandma...who is voting for Obama.. I guess she just forwards everything without thinking.. and there are a lot of these older people who click and send without a thought... I'd like to know who originated this one:


Subject: Fw: Pearly Gates

At the Pearly Gates, St.. Peter is checking up on the people waiting to
enter Heaven. He asks the next one in line, 'So, who are you, and
what did you do on Earth?'

The fellow says, 'I'm Barack Obama, and I was the first black to be
elected President of the United States.'

St. Peter says, 'The U.S.? ......... A black President? You gotta be
kidding me! ..... When did all this happen?'


Obama says, 'About twenty minutes ago.'


(absolutely disgusting)

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. The same way both Clintons did, Kerry did, Dukakis did...

[jefferson_dem]

2. Only better...

:)

[DailyGrind51]

14. The Clintons, yes. Dukakis and Kerry, however, decided

to "take the high road", thinking that the American people were too smart to fall for slander. They were wrong and they lost. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had a very effective rapid-response team to deal with smears and potential smears. Betsy "fuzz-buster" Wright investigated rumors and quashed them before they went public, and James "attack-dog" Carville went after slander mongers directly, often dishing dirt about those who bad-mouthed Bill.

[Bullet1987]

18. Which is why Obama needs Biden

[blm]

29. baloney - Kerry hit back but Dems refused to back him up. Clinton used his summer2004 booktour

to show solid support for Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war at the very time Kerry was attacking those decisions.

Clinton was lucky to run in 92 after honest Dems like Kerry and Gonzalez spent Bush1's entire term uncovering his illegal operations. That is what allowed Clinton to win - Kerry had Clinton protecting and supporting Bush2, especially during his June/July book tour and the very highprofile interviews that were part of that tour.

Big difference, eh?

People here want to pretend that 2008 is like 2004, except Obama HAS high profile defenders on his front line, especially John Kerry. The best known Dems in 2004 were publicly siding with Bush. They threw a bone to Dem party every now and then and acted their roles at convention time, but they used most of their cache in 2003-4 in support of Bush's decisions.

[merh]

32. Thank you

As another DU noted in another thread, some of the folks here who give clinton the reaganesque adoration are just plain spooky. They distort reality to suit their need to believe in some one great and powerful. Reagan wasn't the great and powerful Oz, Clinton wasn't and Obama won't be.

I do believe Obama will do a terrific job, the way he runs his campaign has convinced me of that. And I believe Obama is a better man than Bill Clinton is - he has more heart and conscious and concern for others.

It wasn't until lake October that Clinton actually made a few campaign appearances for Kerry, just prior to the November election.

[karynnj]

24. You ignore the change in the media in 2004 vs 1992 and let

you let the MSM off the hook for what was in reality a media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. There was then a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008.

You say that Senator Kerry refused to say a single word on the SBVT. In fact, the immediate reaction was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out.

That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

But, even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html
click on little photo of the Senator.)

Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? Many people on the Obama team came from Kerry's team and Kerry himself has been a top adviser on this.

In addition to it being obnoxious to blame Kerry for attacks against him, there is also concern that it makes us over confident. Kerry, after all, did a brilliant job fighting the SBVT and the intern affair lie in the primaries. Obama is not yet in the general election. Obviously, his own campaign is less willing to write the 2004 swiftboating off as having been successful because of failings of Senator Kerry - that was their stated reason to go outside campaign financing. With the media working for Bush, Kerry needed money to get a counter message out - and it was money that he would have had to take from what would be needed in the fall. (As it will be mentioned - the $15 million left over was from the primaries and could not legally be used after the convention),

Obama with the money to respond and a country where over 80% now say we are on the wrong tract will likely have a FAR easier election with a media likely to be somewhat more balanced.

[HardWorkingDem]

27. Come on.....in the day of FauxNews and USAToday...

when have you known the average American voter to sift through reams of the printed word?

Kerry blew it and even admitted it. Dukakis.....well, he was a great lesson that even Kerry did not learn, but at least the Clinton's and Obama have learned.

Hell, Obama has an even better "rapid response" team than the Clinton's did.

[blm]

30. Bull - Had DNC done its job Kerry would be president today. RNC stole that election for Bush.

Kerry accepts responsibility like a man while cowering assholes like Clinton and McAuliffe blamed him to cover their own negligent asses as they sat on their hands as stewards of the Dem party for years, allowing the RNC and GOP to gain control of every level of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted - and did so in TOO MANY STATES.

Chairman Dean has worked 24/7 to rebuild collapsed party infrastructures in states left to neglect by previous party chairs loyal to the Clintons.

[HardWorkingDem]

33. I seem to recall...

a quite tepid Kerry response when it came to defending himself. And I know I recall quite accurately because all during the Kerry campaign I was quite astounded because of the previous "rapid response" examples of the Clinton campaign (which they learned to use because of the previous Dukakis campaign).

I just love how so many around here seem to pass the responsibility buck around so easily. And this is not a defense of the Clinton/McAuliffe years, so don't take it as one and mold it into one. To this day, I feel the Clinton's weakened the Dem party while strengthening their own careers.

[blm]

36. You recall what corpmedia wants you to recall. Try the DU Research Forum and read the data

in the swiftliar response thread. THAT is ACCURATE INFORMATION and is proof that media DELIBERATELY ignored Kerry's counterattack on the swifts, refusing to broadcast his speech to Firefighters Convention where he called them out as liars and challenged Bush to stop HIDING BEHIND THE SWIFTS and come out and publicly debate their services - corpmedia couldn't find any news there, eh?

And, yeah, the Dem party and many of its best known faces BLEW when it came to providing back up for the nominee - backup that Clinton got in spades in 92, especially from Kerry. You proud of the way Clinton reciprocated? Clintons didn't want Kerry in the oval office with access to BCCI documents any more than Bush did. Bill's legacy would be seen accurately - as the protector of Poppy Bush and his cronies' sceracy and privilege throughout the 90s.

You know he did it - are you proud of it and the consequences of that protection?

[HardWorkingDem]

38. BS....

I can't help it if the Kerry campaign did a terrible job defending himself. Nor do I need to go to the DU Research place either. Especially when I have seen Kerry speak himself that he did a terrible job defending himself against the swift boat liars. And the same as his campaign staff.

And I don't need someone telling me I bought the corporate media line, either.

[blm]

40. Research Forum has the ACCURATE DATA and you ARE a victim of corpmedia distortion and your refusal

to ignore the facts of the data in favor of the media distortion makes you not much better than the media distorters - you are CHOOSING to further their lies and tactics instead of even opening a thread that contains the FACTS as they existed then and still do now.

[karynnj]

34. Sorry but in my experience

there are far more people who believe many of the Clinton lies than believe the SBVT. Almost as soon as 911 happened, the RW shows blamed Clinton for actions taken (or not taken) in the 1990s. There was NO response for FIVE years. Those charges were not only in the FRW, they crept into the MSM at the time of the 911 hearings. Not until the ABC movie, Path to 911 played was there an effort to fight these charges. Then Clinton's most notable response was to attack Wallace for asking the question in a red faced, finger wagging tirade. I think the action of people here, who all sprung to Clinton's defense was more productive than Clinton's own actions.

I do think that Obama learned from 2004 - and he is able to use 2004 to justify opting out of public financing. In 2004, there would have been a hugh political price to pay had Kerry, the author with Wellstone of the better campaign financing bill, done so. He couldn't argue what had not yet occurred. He did float the idea of "promising to accept the nomination" rather than accepting it. McAuliffe and other DNC people - rather than support it as dealing with an unintended flaw in the McCain/Feingold legislation then in its first year, they mocked it. Kerry did not have the money that Obama will.

In addition, many Obama people are Kerry people who flocked to Obama when Kerry opted out - in addition - from Obama's first email on smears, it was surrogate Kerry who led the charge to get people to respond to the viral email by returning the truth via the same method. What Kerry admitted was that the SBVT did hurt him and he was willing to analyze what was done and what the alternatives were and to try to figure out what could be done if it happened in the future.

There is an element of being a results merchant in saying Clinton was more successful on this than Kerry. The campaigns were not run in equivalent times - this is not duplicate bridge. Clinton was against a President who was below 40% for most of 1992 - falling to 33% on election day. Kerry was against a President near 50%, who was measured at 60% in December 2003. Not to mention, abortion was not that big an issue in 1992 and the country was not traumatized by a President who raised terror levels for political reasons. 1992 and 2008 were MUCH easier years. It is very likely that ANY Democrat would have won 1992 and that it was unlikely that ANY Democrat could have won 2004. (In addition, even if you assume that Kerry, for what ever reasons, had trouble personally responding, why were the REST OF THE PARTY not using the stuff listed to defend him. After all they all defended Bill Clinton for his infidelities in the White House for over 4 years. Would it have been harder to defend a man for actions that deserved the medals he got? He risked his life to save someone - Bill Clinton risked his reputation for a few minutes of illicit pleasure. I know which one is easy to defend and which one required a shower after defending.

I listed what Kerry did versus the SBVT, now here is my memory of Clinton and the draft. When the charge first came up it was that Clinton dodged the draft and he said he didn't recall ever getting a draft notice and that he was lucky to get a high lottery number. I KNOW it was a big deal for the kids I went to college with. Then the Col who got him out of the draft in return for a promise that he would (after Oxford) do law school in Arkansas and join ROTC - that was intially denied. Eventually his snarky letter reneging on the deal was put out. He eventually admitted things and was defended by various Democratic vets, notably John Kerry, who had also defended him in the primaries - even though he was closer to Tsongus and Kerrey. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5197294)

How was that better? The difference - a media that said that it was ok - in fact, taking Kerry's argument that those who dissented out of principle were also acting out of patriotism. This could have been Clinton's argument from the beginning adding that he did pull every string he could to avoid fighting a war he didn't believe in.

So, the clearest difference I see in their methods - was Kerry worked to get the truth out ..... while Clinton attacked the messenger and lied even when telling the complete truth could work.

[JVS]

3. Uffda!

[babylonsister]

4. Maybe she didn't understand what she sent. And I'm

pretty impressed your 80-yr old granny uses a computer! Delete/delete/delete...

[zanne]

6. So am I! Kudos to granny! nt

[1Hippiechick]

16. I vote that Granny did not grasp that it was Heaven, but focused on the congrats....

And congrats to Granny being computer literate -

[1Hippiechick]

17. AND...if more senior citizens accessed the web, they would see all the deceit in broadcast news, and

that would help with O's election, don't you think?

[Peacetrain]

5. He (Obama) is handling it better than

anyone before him.. He takes it head on..It would have been no different if Hillary had gotten the nod.. they had it piled up to the ceiling to go after her through Bill.. Just looking at how he handled his campaign..managed the money..managed everything that was thrown at him.. reassures me that he is the guy we need in office at this point in time..

[treestar]

7. People will start to hate the smearers more

I recall feeling that way about Bill Clinton. He'd had all this smearing, but when I saw himself, and when he and Hillary were holding hands with Chelsea to walk into the convention, that the smearers were the bad guys. We know they are doing it for political gain. The average American is a moran about the issues, but when it comes to emotional types of things, will always vote their emotions. The dynamic is that when they see the fine-looking Obama family, they will love them and thus dislike the smearers.

[lojasmo]

8. Handily. I'm not worried.

[endarkenment]

9. Clinton did him a perhaps unintended favor.

By going whole-hog kitchen sink negative all over Obama for three months she pretty much put the Obama campaign through training camp for the Big Ticket Event. I don't think that was her intention, her intention was to win, and it was total hell here, but the campaign has seen pretty much all there is to see and learned how to handle the 24/7 craptacular.

[Kokonoe]

13. It also gave Obama credibility with independents.

Obama can stand on his own,
and I still wonder if our great democratic president from the 1990's,
will support Barrack Obama for future generations to appreciate,
himself on a video recording.

[kentuck]

10. I received that one also.

Sick and scary.

[glowing]

21. That one bothered me the most.. it was setup like a joke.. ha ha..

assasination is just so damn funny....

[Blue_Roses]

11. Ugh! that one is horrible...

I get those kind of emails from my BIL and I finally responded yesterday...

[bunkerbuster1]

22. Did you post your response anywhere?

If not, I'd be interested in reading it, if you're willing to share.

[Blue_Roses]

28. No, but I'll PM it to you if you like.

:hi:

[monmouth]

12. Remember that Barack and Michelle have been living with this disgusting

bit of prejudice and slurs/smears for a lifetime. Perhaps not every day, buy it was always there. Jealousies because they were able to take advantage of those benefits from the Civil Rights fights, etc. Can you imagine Michelle at Princeton just knowing the little conversations behind her back about the "affirmative action" student, etc.

They are prepared and they now have us to fight this tripe from the first appearance on a page. I don't let a day go by, an e-mail without a "reply to all" (they really hate that) slamming these bigoted racists...

[livetohike]

15. I respond to them with a "reply all" button

The only way to counter this stuff is to respond politely with some facts and links. What really amazes me is the number of people who know I am an Obama supporter and they send me this filth anyway. But I think many people just send things along without even reading it or thinking about who they are sending it to.

[DangerousRhythm]

19. UGH.

I got that one too! :(

[Beacool]

20. Welcome to Bill and Hillary's world.

They have been trashed by all sides since 1992.

:shrug:

[rodeodance]

23. It's looking the away isn't it!!

:yoiks:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. He seems to be dealing just fine with it. If anybody ever sent me that shit

it'd be the last time they ever sent me that shit.
I seriously do not know why you people put up with such bilge
from so-called friends & relatives.

[HardWorkingDem]

26. I'm with you and with so many Pollyanna's out there who just..

seem to think all the just and right actions behind Obama will be enough to stop them, I come back to something I've learned and continue to repeat about politics...

there is few things more frightening than that of a cornered, conservative, white male when it comes to the fear of losing power.

Now, I'm not saying they will do or advocate the one thing so many are afraid of, but they will resort to almost anything to protect that power. Thankfully, McCain's wife is a drug addict and that sort of offers some protection for Obama's own admitted drug use, but they will be pulling some rank stuff and we haven't seen it all yet.

Wait until it gets closer to Nov and these people really start seeing there is a great opportunity for them to lose and lose big.


Sadly, what needs to happen is a lot of people wearing rose colored glasses need to have them slapped right off their faces, because it is going to happen.

[liberalfella]

31. It's different now. We have progressive media outlets

Such as HuffPo and TPM, which are being very effective in fighting right-wing smears.

[AngryOldDem]

35. I think we get what Obama is up against....

...without having the e-mail as proof.

Sorry, but that just turns my stomach. I know you had no part of it, but I see no value in reposting it. JMO.

[rucky]

37. Stay sane this election year: Avoid cable news. n/t

[GreenTea]

39. He needs a bulldog for VP like Wes Clark - who accepts no bullshit from republicans!