Fight the Smears, Obama Campaign

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 15:17


When launching it's "Fight The Smears" action page on their website, the Obama campaign said the following:

"The Obama campaign isn't going to let dishonest smears spread across the internet unanswered," explained campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor. "Whenever challenged with these lies we will aggressively push back with the truth and help our supporters debunk the false rumors floating around the internet."

The "Fight the Smears" website a good idea, because Democrats often face unfair smear attacks from conservative media. Eventually, all of those attacks end up on Fox News and, from there, pretty much everywhere else in our national media. It is good to fight back against these attacks. Otherwise, as we saw in 2004, they can end up costing Democrats the election. Even when elections are not at stake, these attacks can silence progressive voices in the media, and severely reduce the number of nationally effective voices for Democrats and Republicans.

I would only ask this of the Obama campaign: if you want us to fight the smears, please, for the love of God, do the same thing yourself.

When a supporter is attacked unfairly by the Republican Noise Machine, defend that supporter rather than condemning him or her.

Chris Bowers :: Fight the Smears, Obama Campaign
Give your support to the people who are attacked unfairly. Don't give your support to the unfair attacks and the people making those unfair attacks.

In this case, Obama has sided with the unfair attacks against General Clark, and the people making those unfair attacks.

If the Obama campaign really wants to stop right-wing attacks, then it needs to stop supporting them.

And if the campaign wants people to help it fight the right-wing smears, then it should stop condemning people when they face those attacks themselves.

To be perfectly honest, it is very hard to work for someone if you know they won't defend you if you were to face an unfair attack. If, for some reason, something I said became a focus of right-wing media tomorrow, it is obvious that I would be publicly chastised by the Obama campaign no matter what I actually said. And then, I would be expected to get right back to the business of helping Obama get elected.

Beyond the personal, if Obama really wants to get away from politics as usual, then please, please, please stop the long line of prominent Democrats who have given credence to right-wing smears over the last twenty years. Stop validating these smears that prevent people from feeling free to speak their mind. Stop the smears that restrict the expression of progressive viewpoints in the media. Don't expect the smears to stop if you are validating them yourself.

End of rant.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And stop bashing .. (4.00 / 8)
MoveOn.org .. what was Obama's point today? .. I mean seriously .. everyone forgot about them already .. yet he chooses to bring it up? .. Why?  Is he running hard to the right now to combat the Muslim rumors? .. to combat the bullshit National Journal ranking as the most liberal Senator?

Who does Obama win over by dissing MoveOn? (4.00 / 2)
Is there actually a constituency out there with a reasonable case against MoveOn?  Or is this just the self-destructive platitude it seems to be?  "Why yes, there are dangerously crazy liberals out there--who are out to get you--but I don't agree with them."

[ Parent ]
Good rant, Chris, (4.00 / 1)
but I think it will fall on deaf ears.

Every progressive or progressive idea appears to be expendable.  

There appears to be no cost to throwing the progressives under the bus.  Indeed, the Obama campaign sees it as an advantage.  

I agree with you that Obama still is better than McCain.  I also think this is how the campaign will be.  We better get used to saying, "but Obama still is better than McCain," because we will be saying it a lot.   No matter how far right he moves, he will not flank McCain.

I expect Obama to start talking about military action in Pakistan more to show he is tough.

And so it goes.  


MoveOn should reactivate its 527 (4.00 / 8)
and justify it by saying Obama has kicked them and its supporters off the campaign team.  

John McCain won't insure children

The justification is... (0.00 / 0)
...that MoveOn members are American citizens, free to speak, free to assemble, and free to participate in the political process.  And by and large patriotic, too, I might add.

[ Parent ]
by and large? (4.00 / 2)
by and large??????????

how about just plain patriotic. How about a group of patriots who witnessed their country hijacked by a pack of sex obsessed perverts and tried to do something about it.


[ Parent ]
Isn't this show a repeat?? (4.00 / 4)
Well I gotta say Chris your impassioned plea is from the heart and right on target. But I'm losing hope myself. I see Obama taking the high and principled road to defeat except its not really high or principled. Its just throwing your best friends under the bus over and over again until they don't get up.

Remember in 2004 everyone said Kerry had the best opportunity   of a lifetime to win... against the dumbest, most incompetent opponent in history. Kerry was up in the polls, then he was ground down by smears and rumors. Remember Kerry did respond to the Swiftboat attacks, but he was too little, too late & too lame. We've seen this story before. I'm getting more and more convinced we're going to see it again.


hear hear (4.00 / 3)
needed to be said.

It's time:the albany project.

Yes, most definitely (4.00 / 4)
Yet I seriously doubt it will any impact whatsover on the insiders in the Obama campaign

The politics of "hope" has made me more cynical than ever


[ Parent ]
The politics of (4.00 / 1)
"hope" make me "hopeless" that there will ever be real change.  

[ Parent ]
Defend Clark, and get consumed in a media quagmire? (4.00 / 2)
You gotta be kidding.

Politically speaking, you don't speak in what a lot of independent voters will perceive as a derisive tone about McCain's war record and deserve anything but a good, quick distancing.  

Chris, you are savvy about news cycles. Try and play this out. How does a hypothetical defense of Clark play out for Obama? Does anything good come of it? How does he win, or not suffer any damage? How does Obama respond to all three broadcast evening news shows highlighting the fact that McCain can't raise his arms above his head? That he endured a lot of pain to get his flight status back after the war? That the NYT reported in 2000 that McCain after he got back flight status took over a Navy air squadron plagued with problems and turned it around? Think all those factoids won't be front and center?

At minimum, another week of campaign coverage would be lost to a bunch of nonsense, and we are in a period in this campaign in which weeks matter. Or should he just take a hit over a stupid statement by a guy who tends to make stupid statements. Clark tanked his own Presidential campaign by saying in its first week that he probably would have voted for the Iraq resolution. He has a history of problems too.

Please present a credible news-cycle scenario in which Obama suffers no lasting damage by defending Clark.


How about (4.00 / 4)
"While I honor John McCain's and Gen. Clark's service to our country blah blah blah, the real issue is that John McCain continues to support a gross misallocation of our resources to fight the wrong war and ignore the problems in our country do make him unqualified to be commander in chief."  

John McCain won't insure children

[ Parent ]
And then the right and the media feed the frenzy (0.00 / 0)
by saying that Obama is dodging the issue, and yes, "Swift Boating" by staying above the fray while surrogates do the dirty work. It would go on and on: "Doesn't that seem like Swift Boating to you, George, praising McCain's service while others loyal to his campaign detract it?" "Well, it does have the aura of Swift Boating, even if it is substantively different."  This is a nasty little cancer of a controversy, and the only thing to do was cut it.


[ Parent ]
Nothing's been cut (4.00 / 5)

 Obama's rejection of Clark will do NOTHING to shut up the media about this.

 He just looks like a weakling for leaving Clark hanging out to dry.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Hmmm (0.00 / 0)
"Obama's rejection of Clark will do NOTHING to shut up the media about this."

As long as Clark apologizes (and he will), I'll take that bet. This will live on only on the right-wing blogs, where it belongs.


[ Parent ]
Ok, I'll bite (4.00 / 1)

 What particular statement does Clark have to apologize for?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Apparently (0.00 / 0)
Clark has to apologize for providing the right wing media a chance to misquote him in a way that makes it look as though Barack Obama is questioning John McCain's patriotism.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
This one: (4.00 / 1)
"getting shot down does not qualify you to be President."

Clark will say, I should have spoke much more carefully, I have nothing but great respect for Senator McCain's service...blah blah blah.

Yes, Clark was using the same construction ("getting shot down") as Schieffer, but out of context, which is where it will stay for the media and the public, it looks like Clark was saying McCain was just a crappy pilot.  No-win situation.


[ Parent ]
Done already (4.00 / 2)
I have nothing but great respect for Senator McCain's service...blah blah blah.

  He already said that. During the Scheiffer interview.

  And I'm confused. Getting shot down does qualify one to be president, then?

  There's nothing to apologize for. Wes Clark is a four-star general. I've never been a particularly big fan of his, but he carries more credibility and heft on this issue than ANY of the other actors involved. Including John McCain.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Alas (0.00 / 0)
facts are not as important as perception in a campaign.

Of course getting shot down does not qualify one to be President.

There is nothing to apologize for, on the merits. To make this go away, Clark will have to apologize. That the apology is likely to take the form of what he already said is just an elegant little example of vacuous and dysfunctional media at work.


[ Parent ]
Actually... (4.00 / 5)

 He SHOULDN'T apologize. When asked about it, just reiterate that McCain is unqualified to be president.

 The Republicans LIVE to reduce Democrats to humiliating "apologies". Which, contrary to DLC belief, DO NOT result in huge subsequent poll bounces for Democrats. They just make Democrats look like simpering wimps. Clark shouldn't give them that -- he should take every opportunity to stick the knife a little further into McCain.

 And eventually everybody but the hardest-core wingnuts is going to wonder, "Hmmm... maybe there's something to what Clark is saying?"

  The beltway mediots <> American voters.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Swift boating is lying. (0.00 / 0)
Where is the lie in what magster said? Magster told the truth, just like Clark.

Seriously, you need to quit letting Republicans do your thinking for you.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
That's what CLARK should have said. (4.00 / 2)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
News cycles (4.00 / 4)

 Defend Clark, and have the beltway mediots pile on you for a week. True enough.

 Repudiate Clark, and...have the beltway mediots pile on you for a week. And look "weak" and piss off your base for good measure.

 What particular statement of Clark's was so inflammatory anyway? CLARK PRAISED McCAIN'S SERVICE. He drew the accurate distinction that his service, in and of itself, did not qualify him to be president. If that's the case, my brother could be president as well.

 Obama's campiagn, up until two weeks ago or so, was based on the premise that the voters were smarter than the beltway hacks made them out to be. And he succeeded brilliantly with that approach -- his "race" speech, and his resistance to the gas-tax pander.

 But now Obama thinks that voters are as stupid as the media thinks they are, and can't make those kinds of distinctions. So he panders to the right.

 Which, as President Kerry will tell you, always works.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I think Obama truly believes what he said (0.00 / 0)
And I agree with him completely. Attacking McCain from the angle of his military service not being a qualification for the Presidency because he was not one of the people "making the decisions" just reeks of elitism among commissioned officers in the military.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
That's not what Clark said. (0.00 / 0)
And "elitism?"

McCain got into the Naval Academy, and avoided being thrown out for his bad grades and poor attitude, for one reason and one reason only, and that is family connections. He coasted on his family name and endangered other people's lives because of it, just like another Republican we all know so well.

There is an elitist in this story but it is not Clark.



Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
See how the right wing spin works... (4.00 / 4)
... they even have you repeating it.

What did Clark really say ... he said "He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war." Clark's point is that McCain did not have executive experience in the military. That's not a smear, it's a fact.

Obama doesn't have to agree with every word Clark said but he doesn't have to fold like wet cotton candy every time the right wing noise machine says "You must Apologize! Denounce! Jump!"

With the Reverend Wright story Obama figured out he can defuse a media frenzy by saying right away "Of course I denounce." That's not leadership that's an expedient reflex.  


[ Parent ]
Clark was inartful, face it (4.00 / 2)
Awhile ago Matt posted a clip of Clark saying much the same thing, but it was more artfully done and it did not ignite this firestorm.  That one was fine.  It's not that Clark shouldn't have criticized McCain, it is that one or two lines were inartful and provided the GOP with an opening. Plus, it became the story and detracted from Obama's overall strategy.  And it reinforced Obama's lack of experience.  And Clark didn't understand how to come back on that issue.

It's not exactly the same thing MoveOn did.  They were silly with that "General Betrayus" stuff.  MoveOn especially committed a cardinal error by allowing themselves to become the story.  But Clark just went too far with the line about "doesn;t make you qualified."  .  And it is not quite true that the right will pounce on anything, because Clark got a pass on his original criticism.  He just pushed it too far this time, and probably is off the VP list as a consequence.  

Sure there is a double standard for Dems.  I'm not defending it.  But people who want to be Dem talking heads have to be aware of this and choose their words carefully.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
I see your point ... (4.00 / 3)
... but what Clark said was correct.  The truth should matter.

McCain on the minimum wage

[ Parent ]
Haven't you got the memo? (0.00 / 0)
The "truth' is what Barack Obama says it is, no more and no less.  who do you think you are to assume you may think for yourself?

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
I didn't read that squadron story, and I was prepared to  vote for the McCain of 2000 but I DID NOT GET TO THE POLLING PLACE.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
Congress (4.00 / 4)
I think we've essentially got to give up on Obama (other than working to defeat McCain) and re-focus our efforts on making the Congress more progressive. We've got to get Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer and others out of the leadership. We can't look to Obama to lead the progressive revolution.

Boxer for Majority Leader (4.00 / 1)
n/t

[ Parent ]
That, and media reform (0.00 / 0)
No question that this Clark affair is unfair and sensationalistic.  This kind of thing will always happen until we do something about corporate media, and Presidents and top contenders for the office will disappoint us until media are not as vacuous. I don't think we should blame Obama for this, though, for reasons I stated above.  

[ Parent ]
Yes and also ... (4.00 / 1)
...if Obama can come through with getting us out of Iraq, installing national heath care and crating an energy policy good for the environment, in some ways all of the other stuff becomes less important.

McCain on the minimum wage

[ Parent ]
He needs to get elected first (4.00 / 4)

And he's doing everything possible to prevent that from happening.

His campiagn is making Dukakis look like JFK.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I feel betrayed (4.00 / 2)

 The man currently running for the presidency under the Democratic ticket is not the man I voted for in the primary back in March.

  THAT man was bold. THAT man had a vision. THAT man didn't run and hide from confrontations. THAT man went after John McCain AND Hillary Clinton -- and prevailed.

  I knew that man wasn't all that progressive, but I got a vibe from him that he wouldn't run the usual cowering, defeatist campaigns that so many of his Democratic predecessors had engaged in -- usually to an ignominious defeat. He gave me the impression that he was going to do things differently than John Kerry did. And he actually did some concrete things that suggested that he was not in thrall to Beltway "wisdom" -- he embraced the fifty-state strategy, and he kept Howard Dean as party chair. I thought the days of Democrats shrieking and running under the covers at the first Republican raised eyebrow were over.

 And I bought into that man's campaign, despite the knowledge that he was far from perfect on policy issues. Because he wasn't going to curl into a ball every time a beltway mediot harrumphed.

  Well, someone kidnapped that man and replaced him with this sniveling milquetoast wimp whose number-one priority seems to be to not offend the beltway mediots. Gone is all the aggressiveness and self-confidence that initially drew me to Barack Obama -- in its place is a shell of a beltway politician who's been imbibing bad advice from the same gaggle of hacktacular beltway consultants who destroyed John Kerry's campaign.

  There was the FISA cave. That was bad enough. But now the Democratic presidential candidate is defending his Republican opponent against ACCURATE statements made by a highly respected Democratic spokesman.

  This is just absurd. I wasn't kind to Hillary Clinton during the primary season, but I seriously doubt she would have stooped to THIS.

   If this is the way the Democratic Party is going to be represented this election season, then I want my primary vote back. "Change", my ass.

   Barack Obama is just another DLC wuss. Just what we needed.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


Let's Hear from Hillary (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't kind to Hillary Clinton during the primary season, but I seriously doubt she would have stooped to THIS.

After her performance in the primary? Seriously? I have no doubt she would stoop to this and anything else she needed to stoop to. She would just be more mealy about it.

Hey we don't have to speculate. Clark stood faithfully by Hillary during the primary. Let's see if she returns the loyalty and defends Clark.  


[ Parent ]
I don't understand why criticizing Obama for this inspires such a strong reaction. (4.00 / 5)
I posted this over at DKOS:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

I got an earful of people who think I'm off base to criticize Obama for failing to stand with Clark's statements.  I don't get it.

Obama is missing a golden opportunity to reframe the national security debate while pulling out the rug from one of the only perceived strong point McSame had with voters.  

Obama undercut a great potential surrogate in Clark.  I'm not angling for Clark as VP (would prefer Edwards) but Clark wouldn't have been half bad himself.  Kiss that goodbye.

Obama looks weak to many people for having to back down on this.  He would have looked strong by contrast, had he stood by Clark.



Shooting your own allies (4.00 / 1)
because the media told you to does not look like a winning strategy to me, either. But what do I know? I'm a dirty MoveOn member.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
After reading Marc Ambinder (4.00 / 1)
I am not sure that Obama wants to go there. The more the Obama campaign talks about McCain's military record the more it reminds people that McCain served in the military in any capacity and Obama did not. Even Bush could not attack Kerry's military record directly. Useful stories in the NYT discussed how when McCain came home from Vietnam he went to the Army War College and wrote a paper on the lessons of Vietnam which may still influence him and afterwards, when he had a choice of what he would like to do, he became a Congressional liaison and then married Cindy and prepared to run for Congress himself. It would be possible to show that McCain's experience related to planning a war is more of the nature of being on the Armed Services Committee than anything he did in the military itself. Obama did well to subtly mention in his speech that still fighting Vietnam in your own mind does not say anything about how patriotic you are.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

Another useful story (0.00 / 0)
Today's NYT on dropping the ball in Pakistan. The Obama campaign can legitimately ask how flexible McCain can be against terrorists who are changing their locations to places other than Iraq.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
I think Obama was rigth about this and Clark was a little bit out of line. (0.00 / 0)
We shouldn't pretend like McCain is qualified based solely on his experience, but we also shouldn't disparage his military service. I'm starting to think a lot of people who are taking shots at Obama about this one didn't watch the video. The moment I saw Wesley Clark say that stuff I said "uhh oh." The way he said it really didn't come off well. It sounded elitist toward lower ranked military going on about how McCain "didn't make any deicisions."

What Clark said might be true and most of us here probably agree with him. But it is just plain stupid to try to attack McCain from this angle. Somehow it worked for the Republicans with their "Switfboat Veterans" but dollars to donuts says this would just totally backfire on Democrats.

Besides do we really want to let the Swiftboat-ees to become the Swiftboat-ers? (I don't mean to equate Clark's answer with a Swiftboat attack on John Kerry but some of the similarities are there) Especially since Clark seemed to emphasize the getting shot down part a little bit too much for my taste. Implying maybe to some people that him getting shot down proves hes not smart enough, or something. Or that because he was the one taking orders and not the one giving orders than he shouldn't tout his service.

At this point I think 100% of the public knows about McCain's service, I don't know why he keeps repeating it every speech. He is running the risk of looking like Rudy Giuliani when in actuality McCain's service was a lot more honorable.  

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


This is not working (0.00 / 0)
No one has "disparaged" McCain's service in one of our other endless wars of choice. Why do we continue to let the Republicans establish the rules of the game?

"Somehow" it worked for Republicans? "Somehow"?!?!

THIS IS HOW!!!

Democrats cowering in fear of offending someone is how the Republicans got away with it. McCain keeps talking about his military service because he knows that people, apparently like yourself, will give him a pass on everything he's ever done because he's a "hero".


[ Parent ]
Not at all. I don't have to agree with anything McCain ever said to respect his service. And I think it is important to show this respect in order to win over swing voters. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox