Hilary Rosen says swift boaters were fair

[sandnsea]

On Tucker, she says Kerry needs to let people continue to believe the myth about the swift boat attack and quit drawing attention to it with his objections to Fox.

:wow:

Admitted Hillary supporter. I guess that just about says it all, doesn't it.

[ProSense]

1. Despicable!

Here is her bio.

Already posted.

[wisteria]

8. NBC does not like Kerry for some reason. This extends to News Week too.

But, her supporting Hillary says a lot. Sort of like shut up and let Hillary has all the PR.

[blm]

2. I just came here to post this. And this witch was one of the lame-ass Dem spokespeople

from 2004, too.

[beachmom]

3. Huh? What's the "myth"? That's it's true or lies?

I'm kind of confused as to what she meant. But this sounds REALLY BAD.

[Democrafty]

4. Same question.

Either way, though, this comment frankly sucks.

[sandnsea]

5. That's what she said

Tucker has long insisted that the attacks were completely fair, the swift boaters just have a different point of view. Usually Democrats don't let that stand. But today, Hilary laughed and said Kerry would be wise to go with the myth he was attacked unfairly and stop stirring things up about Fox.

[beachmom]

7. Oh, I see, so the "myth" is that he was unfairly attacked, even

though there was not ONE shred of evidence to back up their claims. Sorry, but that isn't a centrist Democratic position -- that is a CONSERVATIVE position. Many didn't really believe the Swifties but said it was all fair game, when they had NOTHING to back it up.

[wisteria]

6. Tucker? Doesn't surprise me he would find a Dem that agreed with repubs.

I think I will let Hilary Rosen know that I disagree with her.

[wisteria]

9. Can we find an e-mail site for her? I think her comments need to be challenged.

These people think they can say these things and get away with them.

[blm]

10. someone posted that info on my thread about this in GD

.

[karynnj]

11. We need to call on Hillary Clinton to fire her or not hire her

So, she's saying that Kerry has to endure his reputation tarnished forever - because it calls attention to it. If this is what she said, she can go to Hell.

I guess if you support an unethical couple who gave up their principles long ago - for money from cattle futures and Indonesian banks - I guess you don't see that to some their good name is important to them.

Not to mention Kerry did not lead this!

[beachmom]

12. They just repeated it, and I watched it

Basically, she said Democrats mad about this recess appointment were just being "silly", and said Clinton did it, too. She DID say what the SBVT said was ridiculous and untrue, but then she made the remark of Kerry sticking with the "folklore" that he was attacked unfairly, and "stop whining".

It is pretty damned obvious that these Democrats, or so-called "Democrats" should not be on TV. They do not further our cause. We need real principled liberals who support Democrats. Like BLM said on the GD thread, this is now recent evidence of how talking head Democrats on TV did NOT defend Kerry in August '04.

Oh, and Tucker is a "dick" (per Jon Stewart).

[ProSense]

13. Problem is that Clinton didn't do it too.

All presidents use recess appointments, but not all presidents appoint people who the Senate objects to.

[karynnj]

14. So Clinton did it too made it right

gee, we know exactly the right counter to that. "So, two wrongs make a right."

[sandnsea]

15. They further Hillary's cause

They always have. The really astonishing thing about Obama is that he did what he did without the cable pundits. They have not been reporting the crowds or the operation, the buzz has got to be out there. They reported it with Dean. I wonder if he's just going around the traditional sources and maybe using Oprah's media sources somehow.

But this event today is what I've meant when I've said Clinton Democrats CAN get info into the media whenever they want. They are the "some Democrats say". It's just that they represent a political view that most of the rest of us don't recognize.

I missed her say the swift boat stuff was untrue, probably because I wasn't listening closely until she said it was all folklore. Last thing I expected a Democrat to say.

[blm]

16. Like the incredible mainstream media on heyjohn website the very day it started?

.

[beachmom]

18. That's the main evidence that Clinton operatives were behind it.

How the HELL did some lame nothing website get in the news so fast?

[sandnsea]

19. Excellent point

Spot On.

My dear e-cousin, who was a Deanie in 2004, is supporting Hillary this go-round. WTF?? I'm waiting to hear her explanation on that. Into the mind of a Hillary supporter, creepy. :)

[beachmom]

17. I might listen to it again (it's in my DVR), but it was kind of in

the cross talk. But really, it's like she's saying the "folklore" is tenuous and could be replaced by something else. And she didn't back up the Dems in the SFRC. That's how they play it -- they say something that kinda defends the Dem, and then they say something that undermines the ENTIRE argument. It creates doubt. Reasonable doubt. And that's all the Swifties were after. They knew they couldn't prove their lies -- they just wanted people to DOUBT Kerry's heroism.

[sandnsea]

20. That was his strength

Outdoors. Athletic. Military.

They cannot let that white male nascar voter look at Democratic men as "real men". Once that happens, they might listen to the issues and they'll lose. The goal is to emasculate the candidate. Once that happens, they can keep any strays on religion and taxes and racism and other party games. But they have to emasculate the candidate first.

[karynnj]

21. Well Bill has none - and Kerry can't be better than him

except as a hero, patriot, and decent human being he is so far beyond Clinton it is not funny.

[MBS]

34. Ditto n/t

[MonteLukast]

25. Oh, if Kerry had the power the Clinton Dems have...

... America would be a LOT more progressive.

[MonteLukast]

24. Ah, "stop whining." The common phrase of...

... the aggressively callous.

[karynnj]

28. Yet they whine incesantly if anyone says anything negative on Hillary

They were over the top on the Obama/Geffen thing.

It seems pretty stupid that they called the Hillary/1984 U tube swiftboating, when:

- It is not swiftboating (it makes NO charges, much less degenerate lies.

- It works ONLY if you have a negative reaction to Hillary.

If they can whine for hours on MSM that an individual was mean to Hillary, it seems Kerry should be able to fight for his own good name.

Their double standard is amazing - just like BC having a temper tantrum is "teaching Democrats to fight back" and Kerry rationally and calmly skewering the RW is "inappropriate".

[Dr Ron]

22. What does she know?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/obama-is-no-threat-to-hil_b_32299.html

Back in October she had this post at Huffington claiming, Obama is No Threat to Hillary. Obviously she didn't have the 1st quarter 2008 fund raising figures in yet.

[JI7]

23. what a piece of shit

and these are the same fuckers who attack and make fun of Dem officials when they lose. yet they don't see themselves as being at fault for it with these type of comments.

[MBS]

26. totally disgusting n/t

[TayTay]

27. These people are hypocrites

Last year the Clinton camp said that the appearance of former President Bill Clinton on Fox News in a combative apearance with Chris Wallace, "taught the Democrats how to fight back." Apparently "fighting back" just means agreeing with the Clintons. "Fighting back" on the part of other Democrats, to Hillary and Co, is a meaningless exercise.

This is exactly what is wrong with the Clintons, they are not reliable Democrats and turn their backs on others whenever it is convenient for them to do so. Then, they whine about their treatment. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. I have continuing issues about the conduct of Bill Clinton in the White House and his arrogance and selfishness in his conduct with an intern. The Clinton camp thinks that even mentioning this thing that did happen is wrong and an attack. However, when someone attacks the good name and reputation of another, they believe it should just be shrugged off. The blantant self-interest and lack of support for other Democrats is nauseating.

This is yet another example of how the Clinton think the Democratic Party is theirs to do with as they see fit. It is not and they are hypocrites of the highest order for their idiotic support of those who malign Democrats.

[karynnj]

29. Not to mention the number of hours they whined about the 1984 Utube

on MSM!

[Mass]

30. This reminds me of the 04 campaign where some well-intentioned people wanted Kerry to stop speaking

about VietNam and were saying that he brought the attacks by talking about his service. These were the same ones who are now saying he did not answer quickly enough, BTW.

[Mass]

31. OT, but did anybody read this criticism of McAuliffe's book.

I know this is a RW column, so of course to take with precaution, but this seems spot on.

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07apr06.mcauliffe.adventures/

[beachmom]

32. The transcript is up:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17982233/

Bashing Pelosi, too:

HILARY ROSEN, NBC ANALYST: It wasn‘t Nancy Pelosi‘s finest moment.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Yes.

ROSEN: And there is plenty to do the week where all the focus should be on keeping the showdown with the president on having accountability in Iraq.

CARLSON: Well, that‘s a good point.

ROSEN: I think that there are a lot of Democrats who want to see Nancy Pelosi push back on the president, push back on this foreign policy.

And it would have been a fine trip, had she not miscommunicated the Israeli message. I think that would—I think that sort of was the problem.


I'll just post the entire Fox portion:

CARLSON: President Bush yesterday appointed St. Louis businessman Sam Fox to be U.S. ambassador to Belgium. It has been decades since Belgium was a key player on the international scene. That‘s not counting, of course, that country‘s excellent waffles, beers and particularly French Fries.

The rub is that Mr. Fox gave a lot of money to see Mr. Bush reelected in 2004 and some of that money helped finance the so-called Swift Boat ads, aimed at Democratic nominee John Kerry. Well Congress was prepared to reject Mr. Fox‘s appointment on those grounds. So President Bush waited for a recess and sneaked Fox into the key position of ambassador to Belgium. Will there be any price to pay for that move?

Back to discuss it, MSNBC political analyst Hillary Rosen and writer of “The Sleuth” on WashingtonPost.com, Mary Ann Akers. Mary Ann, tell me if I‘m missing something. I don‘t think anybody has shown that Fox is somehow not equipped to be ambassador to Belgium, whatever qualifies you for that job, apart from giving money. The opposition to Fox seems to be based entirely upon his contributions to the Swift Boat ads.

AKERS: Absolutely. That was the initial opposition, because he give 50,000 dollars to the Swift Boat ads to the campaign that helped doom Kerry‘s presidential ambitions in 2004. So democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee rallied around John Kerry. They all decided they would vote against him. Bush withdrew his nomination just about 45 minutes before the committee sat down to vote on him.

So the nomination was withdrawn. The reason Democrats are so upset right now: one, they would be upset if Bush were going to use a recess appointment, no matter what. They are doubly upset, and they say it is illegal what Bush is doing because the nomination was withdrawn. In other words, it wasn‘t pending. And they are citing law that says it is illegal for the president to do a recess appointment when the nomination is not pending.

CARLSON: Let‘s get back to the core of this. And that debate will continue, there‘s no doubt, Hillary. But it turns out, I guess, and this is the part of the constitution that I‘m not that familiar with, but it‘s unconstitutional to appoint someone ambassador to Belgium if he‘s hurt John Kerry‘s feelings. That is the single criterion here, have you hurt John Kerry‘s feelings.

ROSEN: This is sort of a silly fight for Democrats. You know, Bill Clinton made several recess appointments for people that the Senate wouldn‘t approve for these kinds of important posts. My friend, Jim Hormel, was recess appointed as ambassador to Luxembourg. It‘s a prerogative of the presidency to do these thing things for people. I think it‘s a little disingenuous for them to object.

CARLSON: But can you just say, I don‘t like how you voted in the last campaign? I don‘t like who you supported, and that‘s you‘re not fit because you were my enemy in the last campaign to represent our nation in the all important nation state of Belgium?

ROSEN: Well, I think John Kerry and his colleagues on the committee are perfectly entitled to vote against this guy.

CARLSON: Of course they are. But they usually dress it up. They‘re like, you know, he‘s just unfit. Now they are just like, you know what, he contributed to ads that made us mad.

ROSEN: Well, they didn‘t say that‘s the reason. They said they thought that Belgium was potentially a hot bed of some future—

CARLSON: Belgium deserves better.

AKERS: But they didn‘t hide the fact that they were upset about his role.

(CROSS TALK)

AKERS: The bigger issue is 527 groups, in general, 527 groups, such as Swift Boat Veterans, that don‘t have to disclose their donors, their funding, anything, and that became the big debate in the Foreign Relations Committee. You know, look, you were part of something that was destructive government and politics. Sam Fox said he thought 527s were destructive.

CARLSON: Destructive? It‘s destructive to air your political views on television? It‘s destructive to have political views that the majority doesn‘t agree with. I mean, what the hell does that mean? The Swift Boats were a bunch of Vietnam veterans who had a view about John Kerry that was totally legitimate, and some how it‘s destructive. I know that‘s not your argument. That‘s theirs.

ROSEN: Regardless of—we don‘t have to redebate—

(CROSS TALK)

ROSEN: But they are just ridiculously untrue. But John Kerry would be wise to stick with the folklore that the Swift Votes was an unfair attack on him, and the more he brings up this issue this week, the more people are going to say, you know what guys, stop wining.



Then they moved on to bashing Edwards on that e-mail business, which I thought was no big deal.

[karynnj]

33. part of her problem is that she is not very coherent

and doesn't know what "folklore" means. She does say right before that that they were completely untrue. Her next sentence is a disaster because it implies that it was NOT true that Kerry was attacked unfairly.

So there are 2 issues;
1) If it is important to dend Clinton's record against an ABC movie that played once, why should it not be important to defend Kerry's record after an attack that was likely 1000 times as large?

2) If you translated it to her issue and said:

"It is totally untrue that gays can't do work as well straights. But the (gay organization) should stop whining about people who say otherwise and accept the folklore that gays are great workers."

she would scream - and rightfully so.


But it really may just come down to - how does this impact Hillary - Oh, it doesn't, then why is he bothering with it.

[sandnsea]

35. Others are defending Pelosi too

Even Matthews defended Pelosi, allowing for the possibility that she actually was told Israel will talk to Syria, and then denying it publicly afterwards. Rosen throws Pelosi under the bus, then gives herself away by bringing up Hormel, then throws JK totally under the bus. This is the kind of Clinton miscalculation that continues to hurt us. Hormel was appointed because he'd been blocked because he was gay, it was an altruistic move. Yeah Democrats!!! The Clintons are so politically STUPID that they allow this altruistic move to be characterized exactly the same as Bush appointing a political crony. Forgetting Kerry, that's how we keep ending up on the short end. The second someone says Clinton did it too, they cave. Pelosi and the Dem Party need defending?? Who cares, it's all about Hillary avoiding confrontation of any sort - unless it's an attack on the left to prove her centrist cred. They clearly don't care who is ridiculed because she calls it a "silly fight" and folklore that it was "an unfair attack" and whining. Seems pretty clear to me that this is another slam on anybody who doesn't bow to the queen and her agenda.

[beachmom]

36. Mark Shields threw Pelosi under the bus on the News Hour last night

calling her trip a "mistake". I couldn't even finished watching the segment, I was so mad. What alternate universe is he living in? Problem is, a lot of people (like my parents) believe the MSM conventional wisdom, and will be against Nancy on this. If the Right attack only, the damage is limited. But when the inside the beltway pundits pile on, it hurts us with the American people. I just hope people realize these elitists don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[beachmom]

37. Take Two:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3204400