2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Clinton camp is at it already the swift boating Jim Webb has started
Someone in her camp said Webbs video of him saying he's forming a Presidential exploratory committee look like he was a hostage. According to Tweety
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
delrem
(9,688 posts)It isn't even close.
still_one
(92,189 posts)Kerry, and Howard Dean.
MBS
(9,688 posts)And in the classic Rovian M.O. of attacking Kerry on his strengths and shamelessly lying about those strengths (in Kerry's case, it was slander about his distinguished military service, which the Swiftboaters resented because of his subsequent protests against the Vietnam war. Several of the perpetrators had kept Kerry on their permanent enemies list since the moment he joined the protest movement).
That was one of the most disgraceful moments in American politics, and one for which our country paid a heavy price, with the re-election of W.
Another one -- not exactly swift boating, but the first, sordid Republican "October Surprise" -- was Nixon's deliberate sabotaging of the Vietnam peace talks to ensure Humphrey's defeat and Nixon's election.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist
http://truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/13994-how-richard-nixon-sabotaged-1968-vietnam-peace-talks-to-get-elected-presidenthttp://truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/13994-how-richard-nixon-sabotaged-1968-vietnam-peace-talks-to-get-elected-president
Not that those low moments in the 2008 primaries (fellow Democrats spreading false rumors about Obama, etc, as noted elsewhere in this thread) were not disgusting, too. Not that there is not potentially more of this stuff ahead. But the comments about Webb (so far) are small potatoes compared to the above.
still_one
(92,189 posts)be similar to someone complaining about the color of his tie, or how he combs his hair, it is not significant
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The Clintons have cultivated surrogates who are willing to say whatever they are told to say, and that will be a systematic evisceration of any opponent that is perceived to stand in her way. Keith Olbermann pegged it correctly when he said she ran against Obama like she was the Republican and he the Democrat.
Examples? Okay.
Clinton NH Co-Chair Bill Shaheen: Did Obama sell drugs?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Shaheen_Did_Obama_sell_drugs.html
Clinton surrogate says Obama is really from Somalia.
http://americablog.com/2008/02/clinton-surrogate-says-obama-is-really-from-somalia.html
Top Clinton surrogate, Ed Rendell, attacks Obama on Rev. Wright.
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/top-clinton-sur.html
Robbins
(5,066 posts)The email sent out which got the obama is a secret muslim started likely came from Clinton people.
I haven't forgotten what clinton people did in 2008.Other dems who supported obama in primary fight may forget but not me.
Obama may have made some decsions I don't like but that doesn't make me love Hillary.She would be far worse than Obama on issues i am opposed to obama on.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Please, be real here. You are WAY over-reacting.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)People who support their candidate and speak in favor of them??
https://www.google.com/#q=Obama+surrogates
https://www.google.com/#q=kerry+surrogates
Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)Lol these Clinton bashers and haters can just stuff it really, they are of the super elitist left, know it all crowd. They can't stand the fact that it is the Clintons (speficifically Pres.Bill Clinton) who have brought the Democratic party out of the wilderness ( having lost 2 consecutive presidential elections in a row; all landslide lossess.)
rury
(1,021 posts)the wilderness. He started pushing it to the right with DLC Third Way bullshit.
I have had my fill of the money-grubbing, Bush-loving Clintons.
Hillary will NOT be getting my vote if she runs!!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... especially on the national level.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Keep repeating the shit because it just makes you smell.
Denis 11
(280 posts)However the Clintons currently are keeping the faux news fools busy, which is a good thing.
Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)Robbins
(5,066 posts)Democrats even doing republican landslides in presidential years still could win congress and on state level.
Bill Clinton pushing party to right was GOP's best friend 1994 moved congress and states to Republican.ANd he was more cocnerned with working with them than with 99 percent.
Obama acting likee the corporate wing cost democrats all gains it made in 2006 and 2010.The GOP will now have biggest majority In house since 1948 and the senate will be like it was in 1990's solidy republican
Hillary will be even further right than obama on war and corporate policies
The republican party is on verge of becoming permeant ruling party in country.The clintons would rather do billing of corporate america and work with Republicans than fight them.
Here is missouri we see evidance of how useless centrist dems are.The clintons are no better than Nixon,McCaskill,and McCullogh
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)In Presidential elections between 1968 and 1992
1968 - Democrats lost 5 house seats, 5 senate seats, 5 governorships
1972 - Democrats lost 13 house seats, won 2 Senate seats, lost 2 governorships
*1976 - Democrats won 1 House seat, lost 1 senate seat, won 1 governorship
1980 - Democrats lost 34 house seats, 12 senate seats and 4 governorships
1984 - Democrats lost 16 house seats, won two senate seats, lost 1 governship
**1988 - Democrats win 2 house seats, Democrats win 1 Senate seat, Democrats win 1 governorship
Amazing that in the election of 1976, the first National election since Watergate and a near-impeachment of a Republican president, Democrats were flat.
* Democrats won the senate back from Republicans after 8 years on the back of the DLC. The Democrats who won 8 senate races, for a net gain of 1, included moderates Barbara Mikulski (a participant in the DLC’s National Service Tour that year), Harry Reid (who recently said Democrats have to “swallow their pride” and move toward the middle), Conservative Democrat Richard Shelby, DLCer Bob Graham, DLCer Kent Conrad, and DLCer Tom Daschle.
Going centrist keeps losing the house which may now be lost for decades to come.
Democrats lost senate seats both times Bill CLinton was running for president.
1968 to 1988 dems still were better off in house,senate,and states than now.
we are on verge of permeant republican majority due tot riangulation and corporate friendly dems and clintons are too busy sucking up to wall street and paling around with Bushes.Meanwhile too many dems are silent while members of base are being killed and would rather protect police and prosecuters.
The clintons need minoritys and liberals to vote too even though she still cares more about paid speeches than country.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Are you disputing anything I wrote?
You first said someone was ingnoring 'fact' but here you go making things up.
1. Going centrist keeps losing the house which may now be lost for decades to come.
INCORRECT.
Democrats have lost the House 3 times since the 1930s.
1946: 54 House seats were lost as Truman continued the New Deal and proposed even more sweeping economic changes.
1994: The House was lost based partly on two liberal issues - Health care and gun control (along with long-time retirements in districts that became Republican.) The House was won back in 2006 with over 30 House New Democrats and Blue dogs.
2012: The House and Senate were lost after Affordable Care Act, which remains unpopular.
THOSE are the facts.
Dispute them with evidence but please don't come back spouting your opinions and skewed views and calling them facts.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)Truman's surprise victory in 1948 running against do nothing congress won back house
Truman's unpopularty and unpopulary of korean war lost house in 1952 but dems were able to take it back in 1954 which they kept
till 1994 even during nixon,reagan,and first bush landslides
The house was only won in 2006 due to unpopularty of bush and iraq war
losing house in 2010 could now mean it is in republican hands for decades to come.
Wall street and neocons win in 2016 even if hillary wins.Like bill clinton whe would sign much of what republican congress pass.
Nafta nd other free trade deals,wellfare reform,telecommunication act,DADT,DOMA,and dereguraltion of banks show exactly what kind of president whe would be.Add to that iraw and syria.
Bill Clinton never helped other dems win much it won't be any different with her.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Um... so? Truman's surprise victory had much to do with many Republicans staying home, believing Dewey's election was a forgone conclusion. If Truman's policies were so popular, why was the election so close?
Truman's unpopularty and unpopulary of korean war lost house in 1952 but dems were able to take it back in 1954 which they kept
till 1994 even during nixon,reagan,and first bush landslides
Nope. Again, your explanation defies historical fact. Truman was unpopular, yes, but why? Wasn't he supposed to be some amazing progressive? If he was, he should have won landslides according to your reasoning. Was he unpopular because of the war? Nope. Truman did several things near the end of his term that was real unpopular like firing of Gen. MacArthur for insubordinate remarks about the conduct of the war, his 1952 seizure of steel mills to prevent a strike by the steel industry (which was overturned by SCOTUS), and rumors he had communists in his administration.
The Korean war was NOT Vietnam or even Iraq. In 1950 only 20% thought it was a mistake, while 65% said it was not a mistake. In 1951, 49% thought the decision was a mistake, while 38% said it was not, and 13% had no opinion.
In mid 1951, 42% felt the war was a mistake, while 47% said it wasn't. By January 1953, soon after Eisenhower elected, half of Americans said the war was not a mistake while only 36% said it was (Source: Gallap)
Democrats lost the Senate to Reagan in 1980 (as shown above), and lost double digit house seats in those years.
There is absolutely NO evidence of anything you're saying. But I've seen it repeated on 'progressive' sites often.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)Truman didn't win republicans just stayed home.Some say if it wasn't for perot bill clinton would never had won.
People praising clintons makes it harder to blast the record of truman.
NAFTA
DADT
welfare reform
the telecommunications ACT of 1996
DOMA
repealing glass seagull
The clintons have never done anything to help dems win even in 1992 and 1996 dems lost senate seats both time
Bill clinton defended bush in 2004 on iraq and told kerry to come out for the state initivates banning gay marriage
on middle east and corporate issues/free trade there is no difference between clintons and republicans
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)I've always said, as has most historians, Republican turnout was lower in 1948. A university of Michigan study after the election found more stayed home, proportionately, than any other recent election. One estimate was 2 - 3 million Republicans stayed home due to overconfidence. Every poll showed a blowout for Dewey.
NAFTA
DADT
welfare reform
the telecommunications ACT of 1996
DOMA
repealing glass seagull
Which of these contributed to the '94 loss in the House?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The one that helped screw the pooch on the ACA. Thanks Bill!
Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)For any Liberals or aspiring liberal politicians to win elections against the Republicans, we would not be having this conversation. The congressional Democrats of yesteryears were hardly liberal stalwarts or liberals themselves. Most of the congress members were of moderate or should I say of "centrist" persuasion kind of democrats, and some of them were conservative Democrats. Reflecting the representatives congressional districts that were either pretty conservative or conservative leaning districts.
MBS
(9,688 posts)
karynnj
(59,503 posts)I would say that none of the things you list ever rose to the same degree of insidiousness that the SBVT this. One thing all have in common, including the first, is that it is ONE Clinton ally dropping a negative story - either completely made up or which (in the case of Wright) was really guilt by association. What was hard to defeat in the SBVT is that there were something like 200 people (most who never met him and were not in Vietnam at the same time and place) all telling related (through contradictory) stories - all claiming they were vets who "knew" him and not Bush people.
I think these Clinton attacks are on the bad side of what is unfortunately pretty common in primary races. There usually are not deep policy differences between the primary candidates so any differences are highlighted and negatives are exaggerated. Many later Republican charges often first heard in the primaries. Famously, Gore brought up Horton; Hillary brought up the idea that Obama was not "one of us".
Compared to any of your links or the SBVT, this Webb one is mild. Jim Webb, incidentally, himself wrote an oped that swiftboated Kerry in 2004 because he was still angry that Kerry said then that the war could not be won.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I meant insidious because it's tantamount to a below-the-belt whisper campaign (although done before a microphone on national TV!). When cornered, they gave the obligatory yet anemic mea culpa, faded into the woodwork, only to rear their ugly heads again in the campaign when they thought the public had forgotten.
The SBV were partisans willing to perjure themselves over and over again to one end and that was to destroy Kerry's candidacy for POTUS. Nothing subtle about this; it was overt and it was ugly.
Nice to see you. Happy holidays to you and yours.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)have done anything. Yet whatever insinuations made are still there - and harder to destroy because the attack was so low key. Insidious is the right word.
Happy holidays to you and yours!
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)and who was that rich snobby PUMA that said those racist things?
and lots more.
No way. She is dirt if she thinks she has to resort to that sort of thing. DIRT.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)He quit the senate after only one term in office. Is he promoting a book or something?
former9thward
(32,002 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Look at how some of the Clinton supporters are acting already even before she has announced.
Repugnant 
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I would certainly not vote for him in a primary for dogcatcher.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)than many of the conservatives here like disgraced Gov. Ultrasound, Ken Cuccinelli, and George Macaca Allen who Webb defeated. Don't know why he left the Senate, very disappointed at that but while in office he pushed for a new GI Bill, tried to make significant reforms with prisons and the criminal justice system but his bill didn't get enough votes for the filibuster Senate. Met him at a law school symposium on prisons and LE which focused much on the huge nos. of minorities incarcerated in the US. He campaigned hard for Obama in 2012 like Clinton, the explainer in chief.
Webb's very intelligent, has a diverse background, is no conformist and is a fighter not a quitter. We could use him in politics, esp. here in VA, warts and all. Dislike what negatives I heard but hope those were in his past. My family and I couldn't be more supportive of liberal issues and stances since we're racially and ethnically diverse and include feminists and gays. Currently there's not much out there on the national level for VP position if that's what he's after. Martin O'Malley of MD is competent, so is Mark Warner of VA, either would be suitable for HRC. But like many I'm looking for a less establishment candidate in these times.