Comments on: Swiftboating… Obama?

By: Interested

Interested — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:38:02 +0000

If the attacks had come directly from the Bush campaign, it might have hurt him when they were proved false,

They were never proven false. And if memory serves, Kerry has yet to release his military records.

By: Jason, Managing Editor

Jason, Managing Editor — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:10:30 +0000

Kevin, by that definition, there was "swift-boating" on both sides in 2004. Remember, CBS News reported an anti-Bush storyline based on fabricated documents and even after the fraud was exposed Dan Rather still claimed that the story was true. Thus, when you say,

If the attacks had come directly from the Bush campaign, it might have hurt him when they were proved false, but their indirect nature lead to a win-win. Either they were believed, or so much time was spent disproving them that it could divert public opinion from Bush’s weaknesses.

I have a tough time buying the claim that Republicans and/or the Bushies were unique in either the type or severity of the attack. And let’s not forget that it was Bush’s PRO-war views that justified such tactics in the minds of his haters.

Bottom line: Those who decry “swift-boating” face a credibility test — if they hated it with Kerry, then they should equally hate it against McCain, Obama or whomever. Conversely, those who hate “Bush Derangement Syndrome” also face a credibility test — if they criticized BDS, then they have no foundation to endorse or, worse, participate in “Obama Derangement Syndrome”.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:54:09 +0000

I think swift-boating has become a pop-word for unfounded, indirect attacks. There were some minor claims that ended up being most likely true, but the strongest claims made by the group were pretty much all bull. It seemed clear to me that these men were angry at Kerry because of his anti-war stance after the war, which colored or fabricated memories of the war post-hoc. They also performed these tasks in a highly organized, and superficially "non-partisan" way. If the attacks had come directly from the Bush campaign, it might have hurt him when they were proved false, but their indirect nature lead to a win-win. Either they were believed, or so much time was spent disproving them that it could divert public opinion from Bush’s weaknesses.

These type of tactics had been used before, but I think what rightly drew such word-smithing was the unprecedented size and scope of this attack. The group got a LOT of money, much more than just a few people who knew Kerry could come up with. The message behind it all may have come from people who actually served with Kerry, but the machinery/money which got the message out is what earned the name.