CBS' Borger warned of media complicity in possible "Swift Boat[ing]" of Clinton
While discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) announcement of an exploratory committee for the 2008 presidential campaign on the January 21 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, CBS national political correspondent Gloria Borger noted that Clinton "could get 'Swift Boated' " through baseless allegations about her marriage to former President Bill Clinton, "in that sort of a sense where a third-party group" makes the allegations "and then the press makes believe, 'Oh, it's not our story, it's their story.' And then we cover it." Host and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz responded, "We're just repeating the charges."
Earlier in the discussion, Kurtz noted that Borger "is tired of all the controversies from the '90's involving the Clinton White House" and cited a May 23, 2006, New York Times article about the Clintons he described as a "huge front-page story about their marriage, and what was really going on there, and would people care, and how would Bill be as first spouse?" Kurtz added, "So, I doubt the media are going to let go of that storyline." Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page retorted, "And that story proved to be a big fizzle. I mean, I thought it was going to deliver with some new revelations. It didn't." Page then responded affirmatively after Kurtz asked, "But will every news organization in this country run some version of that story in the next couple of months?"
From the January 21 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: Gloria says that the media, or at least she personally, is tired of all the controversies from the '90s involving the Clinton White House. But it was earlier this year The New York Times ran this huge front-page story about their marriage, and what was really going on there, and would people care, and how would Bill be as first spouse? So, I doubt the media are going to let go of that storyline.
PAGE: And that story proved to be a big fizzle. I mean, I thought it was going to deliver with some new revelations. It didn't. All it did was kind of recap what we already knew, that everybody's waiting to see --
KURTZ: But --
PAGE: -- you know, what's Bill going to do, blah, blah, blah.
[crosstalk]
KURTZ: But will every news organization in this country run --
PAGE: Yeah, yeah.
KURTZ: -- some version of that story in the next couple of months?
PAGE: The thing is, Gloria is expressing what a lot of voters are saying out there, that they're tired of all that. And so, I think the funny thing about Hillary Clinton is, Democrats are nervous about her because she is so easy to attack, but she also generates a lot of enthusiasm on her side. So that's why she is, right now, the establishment candidate.
BORGER: She could get "Swift Boated" that way. Let me be very honest about it. The whole -- the whole "Bill and Hillary" thing could come back up in that sort of a sense where a third-party group does it, and then the press makes believe, "Oh, it's not our story, it's their story." And then we cover it.
KURTZ: We're just repeating the charges.
That's not "Swiftboating." Hillary really is married to Bill. The Swift Boat stuff was all lies.
Question: Is the term "Swift-Boated" an acceptable term for the media to use? I'm just asking.
In my opinion it's a good neologism. I don't think there had been a word for the concept of being smeared by a third party group acting on an opponent's behalf.
In my opinion,"swift-boated" has now become synonymous with derailing a candidate, unfairly. It's the new "October surprise", but done earlier in a campaign and it's attempt to pound certain negatives into the public minds before they vote.
To those that are accused of "swiftboating", it's not a complimentary term at all.
It's push-polling, but done over the public airwaves and in the press rather than over the telephone.
I don't think the metaphor is simply derailing by a third party, but news reports of what the third party alleges, even though it is completely fabricated, as part of "Fair and Balanced" coverage.
I disagree with Tommy.
My take on "Swift Boating" is that it involves damaging claims that are never fully refuted.
Before everyone goes off on "they lied". All Kerry had to do was release his military records and if the allegations were unsupported, they would have gone away.
I never did see an adequate response to the charges that Kerry wrote the after action reports that were the basis for the medals.
Oh well, I might be opening up a can of worms. Lets hope "Swift Boating" stops with Kerry.
Your take is incorrect.
Very concise, Rusty.
BTW, have you ever "fully refuted" those claims about beating your wife?
I wasn't beating my wife because I was in Cambodia at Christmas at the time, or some s__t.
AA,
The fact that any of this was trotted out against Kerry at all was irrelevant. I realize that he brought it up with his "reporting for duty" comment and has always been front and center about his Vietnam tour........but to have this orchestrated effort against him to do nothing except derail the debate from important issues in 2004 to his service thirty years earlier - was sleazy.
No they were completely refuted. By eye witnesses, by the Navys own investigation by the Navy records themselves. The Swift Boat Liars for Rent were disgusting.
"The Swift Boat Liars for Rent were disgusting."
Solon, you put that way too mildly. To this day it still offends me what they did to a decent and brave man. I often wonder how George W. Bush can call himself a Christian. But, hey, that's the Rigth Wing Party for you...
some guy at work was ranting before the 04 election that kerry didn't deserve any of those medals. i asked him where the shrapnel in kerry's leg came from. he looked at me and walked away.
It's ignorance to use mysterious words and phrases that don't clearly explain what's being said... ignorance or deception.
It's made much worse, the more serious is the matter that's being discussed in mysterious words and phrases... this neglecting to say more specifically what it is that's meant.
It's not allowed in a Court of Law, where the testimony is considered so serious, and the effort to make one's self clear, an easy thing to do.
If someone testifying said "I zapped the guy, I popped him...", or "he weasled, he bamboozled me... which is why I popped him, I zapped him"...
...the matter would be serious enough, and the terms used unclear enough, and the effort to be specific about what's being said would an easy enough thing to do, that such testimony would never pass without someone saying "Would you please knock off the mysterious terminology and say specifically what you mean... or are you simply ignorant, or are you trying to deceive someone?"
Whatever the frig the stupid term "swiftboating" is supposed to mean, I know that in the '04 presidential election, a well-financed bunch of guys (who claimed they were not only Vietnam veterans, but that they were Navy and they were in-country, on the rivers, in "Swift Boats")...
...they claimed that presidential candidate Sen. Kerry (a former Navy Lt. in Vietnam, and commander of a Swift Boat) was not being completely honest about the circumstances of his three Purple Hearts awarded...
...which had less to do with anything Lt. Kerry did in Vietnam, and more to do with what he did when he returned home... which was to speak out against the Vietnam war, and in so doing tick off a lot of guys who kind of liked the glories and the profits of that war.
And they were so ticked off, they didn't forget, and they waited more than thirty years to get Lt. Kerry back... and they did... they popped him, they zapped him... they figured he had weasled and bamboozled someone...
I guess they "swiftboated" him, although why it's so hard to take the time to say the extra words and be sure at being understood about it, I don't know.
And the same is true today, about anyone else... why say they're being "swiftboated", it doesn't tell the story... it isn't specific...
...it's either ignorance or deception, or maybe just laziness or an inarticulation with words.
Who knows.
An exampe of Swiftboating is the little dig Rush Limbaugh took the other day when he referred to the Vince Foster suicide. That's the kind of thing that Hillary has to watch out for. The Troglodytes will dust off every lie they told about her during the 90s and trot them all out for consumption by the knuckledragging Republican base. Of course, the useless lapdog press corps will slavishly repeat all of it. Watch for it.
Biggest problem is that there are still millions of people who actually believe all of the stories that came out of the Clinton White House in the 90's, while the vast majority of them proved to be nothing more than fiction and make believe meant to try and drive Clinton out of office, and it almost worked. I never before that time, nor since then, have seen anything as ugly as the Clinton years in the White House. Every rock was turned over in Arkansas to try and find sensational "stories" where they never existed in the first place. Lots of people didn't like old Bill, and you could tell.
"there are still millions of people who actually believe all of the stories that came out of the Clinton White House in the 90's"
-----
Careful. those stories didn't come out of the Clinton White House, they were aimed at the Clinton White House from without.
That's what I meant, thanks for the clarification.
and hillary was absolutely correct when she said there was a vast right wing conspiracy to discredit them, monica or no. look no further than richard mellon scaife and his "arkansas project".
The most telling part of this piece was Howie's "We're just repeating the charges."
Yeah, just like the folks at FOX.
"Repeating the charges"? Or rumor mongering?
How about, I don't know, maybe, investigating the charges?
investigating the charges?
Now there is an oxymoron that can be used to describe the corporate media outlets.
When is the last time some real investigative reporting was done before the charges were made?
Even the word "charges" is offensive and not right...
Charges?
As if a crime has been committed?
Talk about trying to catch way too much in way too few words, in a single word... and then getting the word wrong, intentionally or otherwise.
Charges?
Not so much charges -- more like slander and libel.
It's funny that this bit of unsubstantiated garbage would be on a program called Reliable Sources.
I realize I'm being redundant on today's threads, but there's just way too much of the media seeming to have no clue as to what their job is.
Repeating charges? Isn't the media supposed to investigate, and then confirm or refute charges?
"Kurtz: We're just repeating the charges."
Yeah, Howie, I heard you like to wear dresses and be called Missy when you are at home on Sundays.
Don't worry, we don't think it's true or know it's true, we are just repeating the charges.
It seems to me they are talking about what they think will happen... They are making up a scenario and fleshing it out.
That part of the media drives me to distraction. They are supposedly telling us how the media or opponents are going to attack Hill and that they are only reporting it.
Lets wait till it happens.
ps. I'm of the opinion that trying to dredge up the old stuff about Bill and his sex addiction will go nowhere. However there might be a lot said about Rose Law Firm, Casa Grande, irregularities surround Vince Foster's death and his briefcase, missing fbi files, earning $99,000 in Tyson futures, etc. In my opinion all legitimate questions. No doubt about it, Hillary has some baggage.
ps. I'm of the opinion that trying to dredge up the old stuff about Bill and his sex addiction will go nowhere. - anotheramerican
Nice job of not dredging up, while diagnosing at the same time.Congratulations on your maintained virginity.
It is inescapable that Hill being married to Bill will bring Bill into the picture. During her run. To mention the obvious is not going to change anyone's opinion. I could not care less about Bill. My point is that I think most Americans will feel the same way.
I'd think you'd feel better that a conservative, like me, has this opinion rather than the typical knee jerk reaction and ad hominum attack.
Not to worry. I'm used to it and could care less.
"I'd think you'd feel better that a conservative, like me, has this opinion rather than the typical knee jerk reaction and ad hominum attack. "
-----
Then why was your original post a typical knee jerk reaction and ad hominem attack?
I suppose you're also looking forward to getting answers to the "legitimate questions" surrounding the moon landing. I heard it was all faked. There's just as much evidence of that as anything you've brought up.
Russ,
Thanks for replying. I hope it made you feel better.
Only if it gave you a "chuckle." That's what we all live for.
"However there might be a lot said about Rose Law Firm, Casa Grande, irregularities surround Vince Foster's death and his briefcase, missing fbi files, earning $99,000 in Tyson futures, etc. In my opinion all legitimate questions. No doubt about it, Hillary has some baggage."
-----
All investigated ad nauseum by the Whitewater prosecutors. After over $70,000,000.00 spent, they discovered that Bill had a girlfriend who was of legal age.
That's all the "baggage" they could and will find. Sorry to disappoint you.
You mean all those things Starr spent about 70 million dollars looking into and not finding a thing? Oh yeah it would be legitimate to dredge all that back up. Why arent we talking about Laura Bush killing her ex boyfriend in Texas anyway, thats just as legitimate
Another American Dream
Don't know if you have been paying attention Mr. AA but the Repugs spent over $60 million investigating these items with a goal of finding something bad..not investigating the presumption of innocence but looking for the worst. They found a blue dress. You can throw out the term baggage but none of these accusations are packed inside the luggage. Why do you insist on being, for a better word, OBTUSE in your threads? You know darn well that WHITEWATER was a chase for Republican Fool's Gold. And the Vince Foster death, do you honest believe that people like Richard "NoWife" Mellon hasn't sent his dicks out into the field to find something?
Be honest, AA, about this baggage nonsense by not implying that the $60 million was not wasted by the Repugs. Also, our President seems to have taken his dirty laundry home to Daddy and Mommy to clean after his celebrated tour of duty. Now doesn't that sound horrible to say about our commander-in-chief?
Looks like AA's "legitimate questions" aren't so legitimate after all. Better luck next time, AA.
Don't forget that Hillary was a lesbian who murdered her lover Vince Foster in Fort Marcy Park, which is unshakable proof that Vince Foster was a woman.
And don't gorget she has fat "ankils". I used to see that type of comment in the public chats of a prominent ISP usually in large bold font! HA! Just joking but it follows the comment above and it popped into my mind as I was reading it and I had to laugh.
Rusty, as they used to say.."You can be sure if it's AnotherAmerican" or was that Westinghouse.
The rightwingnuts like Limbaugh will always dredge up stuff, never argue with anything resembling facts and I think that plays into Sen. Clinton's hands, (quit picking on the woman). Go ahead right wing and attack and she will be elected as your next President.
I remember people saying that Hillary would drop Bill the second he was out of office. On the contrary, she took the baton from him (metaphorically speaking, and not euphemistically speaking!) and continued to work in politics. Some people just will never accept that the Clintons are decent people who actually want to serve the people of America.