Kerry promised Tim Russert twice that he would release his military records and twice broke that promise.
Kerry STILL has not released all his military records. Why? Because he is OBVIOUSLY hiding something.
He did not serve with honor. He wasn’t a hero, he was the ugly American.

The term swiftboating seems to be a little cliche and overused now. Swiftboating to me seems to be a term to describe taking a truthful criticism of your opponent and exaggerating it for larger effect. The added bonus is it covers up one of your weaknesses. For ex, some of the Swiftboat Veterans criticism of Kerry was valid, but they exaggerated their claims for larger effect. This is hardly a GOP only trait. (See the 1996 “GOP wants to starve children” campaign).

I think there is plenty of criticism about Obama that the Clinton campaign can bring up, from his numerous votes of “PRESENT” on controversial issues, his questionable land purchase, and others, but I find it humorous they continue to criticize him on the Iraq War, when Hillary has had 10 different positions on the war herself

Obama is finally starting to hit back and be more aggressive, and I hope he continues to do so. I think he should make a bigger issue of Hillary’s “leadership myth.” She recently stated she has over 30 years of experience and is ready to lead on Day 1. Really, 30 years? If she has 30 years of experience, why are we just hearing about it now? Why weren’t we told of her intimate involvement from 1992-2000, before now? The ironic trait about her “leadership” is that it was so impressive, that while Bill was President, she was only involved in the positive things that happened (economy, etc) and not with any of the controversial or bad decisions (pardons, etc). What a coincidence! What leadership!

It is interesting watching Bill Clinton and the Clinton campaign become unhinged and unglued about Obama. To me, they essentially assumed this was their nomination, and didn’t expect to fight for it, and are more pissed than anything that Obama had the audacity to attempt to take what they think is rightfully theirs. From calling Obama’s Iraq record a “fairy tale,” to playing the race card, to suing about the caucus process in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama (I know it wasn’t them directly, that we know of), to disenfranchising caucus-goers in Nevada by closing the doors before the scheduled time, it has been interesting to watch. The debate last night makes it seem the acrimony between Obama and Hillary is getting ratcheted up. I hope Obama keeps the pressure up because a fight with Obama on ethical lapses, changed votes, etc is a battle the Clintons can’t win. I agree Steve that it is hardly “Saint Obama vs. Swiftboat Bill,” but I would say it is “More Saintly Obama” vs. “Less Saintly Clintons,” personally. But since most people probably don’t look at it that way, I think Clinton would have to be the odds on favorite to win the nomination.

Sadly I am not too impressed with any of the candidates from either party and find myself hoping Mayor Bloomberg and/or Ralph Nader will get in the race, just to make it interesting.

Enjoy your blog Mr. Lessig

There was also a previous Factcheck.org article on the N.H. Debate (Jan 6) Clinton vs. Obama where Clinton “tars Obama with flip-flopping on the war in Iraq” (similar but not identical to the attack at the top of this page) where Factcheck’s conclusion is: “Score this one for Clinton, though it’s not a home run.”

It all seems like rather petty political sins or mistakes to me, but it’s not Saint Obama vs. Swiftboat Bill.

It’s not worth it for me to go into point by point and I hate to defend the Clintion’s tactics, but a standard Clinton tactic to be factually correct (Obama did change his website removing his anti-war speech) while implying something that may or may not be true (Obama changed his website because he changed or decided to downplay his anti-war position). For all we know, Obama, like many new senators, might not have even been closely checking his own website leaving the work to some assistant or his website could have been updated for more current news, but Obama can certainly answer such questions.

I could maybe be persuaded by your argument that what Lessig
describes is not “swiftboating”. You write:

“Swiftboating to me refers to a tactic so sleazy that no one reputable wants to take credit for it, not something the Clintons would do themselves”

On the other hand, this seems to be just a semantic distinction, and you don’t bother to refute — or
even address — Lessig’s main point other than to criticize terminology.

And you write:

“But the way this post and other Internet ravings are going, “swiftboating” is now becoming a standard insult/reply for any negative/comparison campaigning to cast aspersions on the accuser.”

Your “sematic” argument doesn’t imply this latter assertion. Lessig writes — I think
persuasively — that whatever was done to Obama *was* sleazy (“So essentially every important
charge in the Clinton Swiftboating here is false”). It was more than negative/comparison campaigning.

Apologist arguments for this practice seem problematic.

-stencilv

I knew Obama was a “great man” long before many knew his name. Indeed, long before the war in Iraq. (Most of) what he’s done since just confirms that judgment of mine.

As an former hourly employee of the law school where both you and Senator Obama worked, I concur wholeheartedly with the above. Senator Obama impressed me in a simple way. He respected not only his students and his peers, but also the people who came in and worked at the school to make it a safe and pleasant place. In any organization, such principled good behavior has significant value.

There was intentional confusion to commingle:

1. The many Americans/vets who disliked/despised/hated Kerry for his on-the-record statements against the Vietnam War while we were still fighting (similar to the dislike for Hanoi Jane) and

2. The few “Swift Boat Vets” who claim to have “served with Kerry” (usually only on the same base) and who claim to know some hidden “truth” that Kerry was a liar, fraud and coward.

The first is usually accepted as fair argument even by Kerry Himself (Kerry and Jane would argue that they were trying to prevent more women from becoming widows), while the second is considered by most, including John McCain, as political fraud or false beliefs by Kerry-haters who will believe anything bad about Kerry (Similar to people who hate Bush so much they will argue that Bush planed 9/11.)

But the way this post and other Internet ravings are going, “swiftboating” is now becoming a standard insult/reply for any negative/comparison campaigning to cast aspersions on the accuser. Claiming swiftboating also is an excuse which says we lost not on the issues but because our opponent was sleaze.

He should have voted nay to the appropriations. He might have given eloquent speeches on the virtues of voting nay. He could have encouraged his colleagues to vote nay and bring Bush and the warmongers to heel. Has Obama become a hapless toady to the neocon cum “Peace with Honor” crowd. I would imagine that if one dug into the bills one would find some earmarks for Illinois in them. How does that speak to the Senator’s character?

I think it’s fine that Prof. Lessig supports Obama. I don’t understand why he is being painted as the second coming of Christ. Obama seems pretty typical to me. They disparagingly refer to Ron Paul acolytes as Paultards(I admit it, I am one). How long before they come up with something comparable for Obama supporters.