Swiftboating - Another reason Al is the best candidate.

[johnaries]

No matter who is the Dem nom, the Repukes will try and Swiftboat him/her. Well, they already tried with Al in 2000.

If they bring up the "invented the internet" lie, Al just pulls out his Webby Award.

If they bring up Glbal Warming, Al just pulls out his Nobel prize.

If they claim he is wooden, Al just pulls out his Oscar.

If they try something new, no one will believe them anymore.

Run, Al, Run!

[MonkeyFunk]

1. well

he hasn't won a Nobel yet - I imagine there's some competition in the category, but I hope he wins.

As for the Oscar, he's not nominated for one. The movie he appeared in is. And even if he DID have one, "look at my Oscar" wouldn't likely win him many votes.

[wyldwolf]

2. this reasoning probably makes Al the second best candidate.

[wtmusic]

3. Not to mention he will make the best president nt

[Captain Hilts]

4. Um....no. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Not to mention, he's already won in 2000. I am with you on your

logic - but last time I posted something similar (why would you start with
someone like HRC and start from below zero) 90% flamed me.

[napi21]

6. It won't matter WHO our candidate is. SBing has become the SOP

of the Pubs!

Look how they jumped on Biden for saying "clean"! None will admit that "clean" means without political baggage!!!

They already tried to blame Hillary for trashing Obama, and many still believe it, even though it wascompletely debunked...evenn by FOX, many still believe it!

They're trying to trash Obama becasue of his NAME!

They're going after Edwards because of his hosue!

If Gore jumps in, believe me, there will beSB tactics used against him, wether they're true or not!


The ONLY way to oppose this is leard how to debunk the stories IMMEDIATELY, LOUDLY, and VERY PUBLICLY, and show the perps to be the AH's they are.

[blm]

13. It started with blowjobbing, impeachmenting, inventing internetting, DixieChicked, Rathered

WH trashed by Clintons, and THEN swiftboated.

None of this is new - the Dem party just never STRATEGIZED or organized AGAINST it in any way and THAT is the fault of a weakened Democratic party under Terry McAuliffe's stewardship for too many years.

And neither did the Left media whose impact on the mainstream media was barely 1% of what the RW media machine could muster up at the drop of a pronoun.

Now all blame gets directed at Kerry or Gore when they were the ones let down by a WEAKASS, practically NONEXISTENT Dem party machine.

[napi21]

15. I agree the Dems are a weakened Party. but I don't know that I

blame Terry. I listened to him on the John Elliott radio show. I don't know what day the interview was, but it was replayed last night on Quake Radio.

Terry specifically stated that the last several Dem Presidential candidates insisted on running a clean and aboveboard campaign,and it was AGAINST his recommendations. He specifically talked about how Kerryordered him to stop trashing the Pubs, and that he would NOT let his campaign be fought in the political gutter. He saidwe NEED to fight the opposition with the same tactics being used against us, and he believes Hillary is going to be OK with his recommendations.

[blm]

16. McAuliffe is LYING. The DNC was supposed to fight at times the campaigns COULD NOT

just as the RNC stepped in and attacked Kerry while the Bush-Cheney campaign had the appearances of their hands off the attack.

That is what parties do.

Plus - the DNC needed to fight throughout August because McAuliffe had their convention scheduled so early that Kerry had to extend the same amount of money 5 weeks longer than Bush would have.

And you believe that if McAuliffe had done his OWN JOB and SECURED the election PROCESS and countered the RNC's vote stealing tactics, that Gore, the 2002 candidates, and Kerry in 2004 would have still lost? ESPECIALLY after the election fraud hearings on the 2000 theft - the Office of Voter Integrity let the fraud get WORSE in 2002 and 2004. THAT was McAuliffe and Brazille's job.

Did Kerry complain that McAuliffe didn't show up to debate? And what about the party infrastructure that ANY nominee would have to TAP INTO once they become known? That infrastructure is built in the YEARS prior to the general election. No nominee can build it in every state in the 6 months they are the nominee.

In too many states there was weak or NONEXISTENT party infrastructure. Face it - McAuliffe acted like there was no way to beat Bush in 2002 AND 2004. Party leaders like Terry gave up on Sept 12, 2001. They blame Kerry now because they need a scapegoat.

[napi21]

17. That's 2 different arguments. The election process is one that

is no longer being disputed. It was an over-reaction to the Fla. mess, and I still blame the SCOTUS for that one!

The argument Terry is making is that Kerry just didn't want to wrestle in the dirt, and I believe that. For one thing, he was convinced that the Swiftboat thing would just go away because there was no truth to it, and he waited way to long to dispute it. I've even heard from many other sourcesthat Kerry insisted that his campaign be run in an honest manner. I disagree with him, but I believe that's what he insisted on.

I'm all for "never going to a gun fight if all you intend to use is a knife!"

[blm]

18. The DNC is there to do the knife-fighting and that is what Kerry EXPECTED them

to do. McAuliffe is LYING. Kerry was mad at HM fr not using DNC money to dfend him and attack Bush.

You are believing only one side. McAuliffe failed in so many areas that he is now using Kerry as his focused scapegoat.

[johnaries]

20. Thanks! You are making my point for me.

Any other candidate WOULD, as you say, have to respond "IMMEDIATELY, LOUDLY, and VERY PUBLICLY". Al doesn't. As soon as they hit him, Al can just lay back and say "remember when they tried this before" and - as I said - bring out his Webby, his Oscar, and his Nobel prize ....

[SharonRB]

7. I don't necessarily agree with all of this logic, but I do agree that

there's nothing they can swiftboat him over. He's already been through the wringer and nothing he's done since adds anything they can rake him over the coals with.

Run, Al, run! We need you now more than ever.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. I think you misunderstand what

swiftboating is.

It's not just making a normal, political attack.

It's making a large-scale, concerted effort to tell a HUGE lie that is aimed DIRECTLY at the candidate's greatest strength.

Saying John Edwards has a large house, or that Biden expressed himself badly isn't swiftboating - that's just regular, day-to-day political discussion. In fact, both Edwards and Biden took a much greater beating here than in "the real world" over these issues.

Gore will be swiftboated for real. ANY Dem candidate will be swiftboated for real - but they wouldn't even bother to waste their time doing it now. It will occur after the convention.

[SharonRB]

10. I do understand what swiftboating is

I just don't think there's anything they could do that to Al with -- everyone knows everything about him and anything they would come up with just wouldn't be effective, as no one would believe it.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Of course people would believe it

people believe all sorts of lies.

Just look around this board and you'll see people believe a whole lot of things that just ain't true.

People believed that George W. Bush had a more heroic military record than John Kerry. Lies work. Nobody is immune to being swiftboated - what they need to do is respond, and respond quickly and strongly.

[johnaries]

19. Exactly why it won't work against Gore.

When they release the new lies, all his campaign has to do is say "look, they lied before and they're lying again." Of course, Freeper-typs will believe the lies, but they won't vote for Gore anyway. The swing voters won't fall for it. THAT's the important thing.

[johnaries]

22. Good points, but I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make.

Yes, the GOP machine will come up with new "Swiftboat" to try and discredit Al. But my point is that Al is in a better position to point out and discredit the "Swiftboat" machine. As much as I love John Kerry and, discrediting the Swiftboating against him takes a little more investigation than most Americans are willing to take.

Yes, as you say "Gore will be swiftboated for real. ANY Dem candidate will be swiftboated for real". But, all that Gore has to do is say "Remember back when they tried to discredit me for my contributions to the internet? Well, here's my Webby Award proving those contributions." etc. Hell, he doesn't even have to say it. There will be plenty of people to say it for him.

My point is that they already Swiftboated him: every issue they hit him on has been refuted and he has PHYSICAL eveidence in the form of an award statue that every simpleton in the US can see for themselves. As soon as they try a new tactic, no one will believe them.

Al Gore ran the gauntlet. He has been proven worthy. Run, Al, run! WE NEED YOU!

[theguvnorgc]

9. This is the person...

That our country REALLY needs at this time. We have to make it happen.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. WE don't decide.....

Al Gore decides if he runs or not.

I don't blame him for not wanting to run.

[theguvnorgc]

14. gee...

you dont say.....

[treestar]

21. I just hope the voters are getting past all that

Letting the Repubs frame the debate, etc.

I'm already at the point where I suspect the Swiftboater more than the Swift-boated.

Al and Hillary are both good for that - their entire lives have already been combed for every possible error and the Repukes cannot come up with anything new.

As for the Repukes, why do their errors never see the light of day?

I still don't understand why Chimpy's DUI did not sink him. It would have sunk a Democratic candidate.

Oh, yeah, the "liberal media." :sarcasm: