>
5th Aug, 2008

Barack Obama and the New Swift Boaters

Print Print

hillaryclintonandjohnmccain

Last week I inadvertently aided the latest Swift Boat operation. In that story lies a change in campaign tactics that could make 2008 a watershed election.

The story begins innocently enough. In the rush of returning from a Boundary Waters trip and planning for my son’s wedding I received a comment form a woman purporting to be a PUMA (more on that later) that attacked Barack Obama with half-truths and innuendos. The main thrust of the comment what that this Hillary Clinton supporter was angry about what happened with the Democratic Presidential nomination. My normal policy is to censor overt racist comments because I have no intention of allowing this blog to spread hate speech.

However, this comment was clever enough not to cross over that line. So in the interest of encouraging alternative voices and also providing a forum for Clinton supporters, it seemed the right thing to do. Little did I know that virtually every “talking point” in that comment comes from a series of anti-Obama groups that are taking this campaign into new territory, aided by a Federal Election Commission ruling that will make it difficult to counter their efforts. It is the new Swift Boating.

The New Swift Boating

As you remember, the Swift Boaters were fellow Vietnam Vets vehemently opposed to John Kerry because they maintained he distorted his service record, at one point even endangering his own men by violating the rules of engagement. I first heard about the Swift Boaters in November of 2003, writing an article that predicted they and Kerry’s war record would become a major factor in the 2004 election and perhaps cost Kerry the White House. No one would publish the piece. As the Kerry campaign gained momentum, so did the Swift Boaters, becoming as I had predicted a central part of the 2004 campaign.

The New Swift Boaters share some things with their 2004 counterparts–a deep personal hatred for the Democratic candidate and a belief he is unqualified for the nomination. Where they part ways is that the tactics they employ, tatics that go way beyond what the Swift Boaters used.

The Swift Boaters played on the resentment felt by many Vietnam Vets and other Americans about John Kerry’s actions in Vietnam and his subsequent anti-war activities, particularly his undocumented charges of atrocities. The new Swift Boaters play on the anger felt by supporters of Hillary Clinton that the Democratic National Committee virtually killed any chances for Clinton to win the nomination by their rulings on the Michigan and Florida delegations and their “arm-twisting” her into dropping out of the race.

It is important to realize that many of these Clinton supporters have accepted a mental model of what happened that says the DNC “stole” the election for Obama just as the Swift Boaters had a mental model of Kerry’s Vietnam record. As we found in 2004, mental models can be difficult if not impossible to change not matter what facts you marshal.

As everyone knows the argument over the actions of the DNC still rages over the Internet. As with the Swift Boaters it is inevitable this effort would become organized and political.

The Swift Boaters formed a 527 group, which is a political organization dedicated to specific issues that is divorced from a candidate’s formal campaign. In fact law forbids coordination between 527 groups and campaigns and 527 groups cannot endorse candidates; they can only endorse causes. Now, as in the case of the Swift Boaters, this cause can obviously hurt one candidate and not another, but their advertising can not say, “Vote for Candidate X.”

Aided by money from T. Boone Pickens and others, the Swift Boaters put together a wide-ranging and sophisticated media campaign that earned them national attention. The Internet was a part of this campaign, but mostly in the form of veterans emailing other vets or through veterans’ web sites.

With one exception, the new Swift Boaters have decided not to go the 527 route. Instead their main tactic has been to plaster the Internet with anti-Obama blogs purportedly started by disgruntled Clinton supporters and to inundate existing blogs, chat rooms and any other place they can find with anti-Obama material. Call them the Hillary Trojans–as in the Trojans that get into your computer and do nasty things.

How It Works

If the Swift Boaters consisted of a well-organized military-like assault on the Kerry campaign, the Hillary Trojans have deliberately tried to avoid the appearance of unity. Their tactic is to try to make their charges appear to be a spontaneous uprising with no leaders, no central group, no organization. The idea is to show that thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters are spontaneously swamping the Internet with their protests.

It is important to point out at this point that there are many legitimate Clinton supporters who ARE angry. They present a case that the media, especially early in the campaign, cast Clinton in a much more negative light then Obama. Then they marshal arguments to show the DNC actions were wrong.

This is not the place to get into these arguments yet again, except to note people believe them and they are not crazy, off-the-wall charges. Currently may of Clinton’s supporters are working to assure that her name be placed in nomination–which it should because she has earned that right. They also want Clinton to have a major speaking role at the convention, which she has also earned. Some still favor a Clinton-Obama ticket.

What distinguishes what I term the mainstream Clinton supporters from the Hillary Trojans are that they are working within the Democratic Party whereas the Trojans openly support John McCain. Here is where the new tactics become important. Those who form 527 groups operate under a strict set of rules that require periodic filings of financial records. In short, you know who is backing them.

On the other hand, the Hillary Trojans are taking advantage of a Federal Election Commission ruling that blogs are to be treated just like other media. So they can say what ever they want, openly support candidates, and need not reveal who is funding them. They file no reports other than tax returns. A certain orange left-wing blog is incorporated as an LLC for just this reason.

What this leads to is politics as spam. In addition to multiple blog sites, which of course make their way onto search engines with some clever SEO marketing, the Hillary Trojans can inundate any blog they wish with comments. Each web master is then forced to decide whether a comment is political spam or not. Traditional spam fighters designed to filter out old-fashioned spam such as porn, ads for Viagra, and other assorted trash have no way of coping with political spam.

Ironically the ruling that opened the gate came from our favorite orange blog. In its review of blog and Internet activity the FEC ruled:

As a whole, these final rules make plain that the vast majority of Internet communications are, and will remain, free from campaign finance regulation.

Political Spam

I predict political spam will become as much or more a problem for 2008 as the Swift Boaters were for 2004. They will make dealing with the Swift Boaters seem easy. The Obama Campaign, which has made the Internet a central part if their efforts, now finds the Net being used against it. To counter propaganda coming from the GOP is one thing, but to deal with political spam is another.

Sites have the right to accept or reject comments, but if we are suddenly inundated with Hillary Trojan comments how do we fight it? Right now the one opening is that like the comment I received the wording has all the earmarks of a mass mailing or chain letter, so perhaps mere calling attention to these cut-and-paste jobs could cut down the spam.

In the end the decision rests with each of us who have blogs and web sites. We must decide what to accept. In this the web may be its own solution because as sites expose the Hillary Trojans their impact can be diminished.

The next episode of this series will examine some of the people behind the Hillary Trojan movement, their questionable posts and Hillary Clinton’s own equivocal attitudes towards this activity.

Note:

Although I have come across others who have made the analogy between the Hillary Trojans and the Swift Boaters, my first note of it was in a piece by Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, so I give her credit for making the analogy.

Coda:

For those who linked here from other places also check out the article which follows this, identifying some of the people involved in the Hillary Trojan movement. They are quite a collection and raise serious questions about thew integrity of Faux News and the mainstream media.

The People Behind the New Swift Boating

Yahoo BookmarksTechnorati FavoritesRead It LaterPrintFriendlyLinkedInBookmark/FavoritesGoogle BookmarksDiggFacebookDeliciousFavoritenNewsVineSlashdotSquidooTwitterWebnewsShare
Print Print

Responses

When you begin to call opposing viewpoints political spam and swift boating and are also incapable of debunking the fact that Hillary Clinton actually won the election, you become the monster you claim others to be.

Virtually every caucus contest poll held within a week of the actual caucus contest showed Hillary Clinton either leading or it was too close to call. In ELEVEN of these contests, Barack Obama somehow managed to then “win” by a 2-1 margin or greater.

Barack Obama’s 11th highest voting percentages were ALL caucus state votes. The mathematical probably of having his 11 highest winning percentages all being from caucus state votes is in the millions.

Hillary Clinton won 40 more congressional districts than Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton won 11 out of 12 states, Barack Obama lost those same 11 out of 12 states, but somehow Hillary Clinton only gains five more delegates than Barack Obama. How can one candidate go 11-1 and get 555 delegates, and the other candidate go 1-11 and get 550 delegates?

Barack Obama is a hand puppet of the ultra rich sociopath George Soros. You fell in love with the feeling of what Barack Obama brings when you first meet him. You have to fall out of love with a guy whose narcissism was put on the world stage in Germany. Barack Obama keeps choosing the biggest venue possible with the biggest group of people in the backdrop, but when it comes to the little things, he’s big fat zero.

you have “yet” to fall out of love.

Can’t go back and edit but I left the word “yet” out.

Alessandro Machi,

Apparently the Democrats see and count their numbers differently from you.

It also never occurs to some people that Hillary Clinton would have never been the candidate of their choice. One of the reasons is that she would have represented a dynasty and I think that is becoming a dangerous precedent. Americans moving toward the divine right of rule.

My Mr.Machi, what convincing arguments.

For the points in liberalamerican’s article.

Hey Alessandro Machi,
Why does the Rep party ant hillary to be the Nominee so badly? Why do they still want her around at least as a VP? Because they can beat her, that’s why.
You may be a Hillary Trojan yourself.
Obama is a political genius, more l Bill Clinton more than Ronny Rayguns.
She lost. Go vote for McCain if you hate Obama so much.

i see your point but if the dnc had not screwed itself with it’s unfair rules it wouldn’t have lead to michigan giving votes to obama and half of michigan and florida’s votes not being counted. obama wisely called to enfranchise the voters a couple days back. he should also give back those four delegates for the people in michigan who VOTED FOR HILLARY! the republicans are exploiting howard dean’s mess, but it is still howard dean’s mess.

Allesandro,

Time to move on my friend. She lost.

By each and every measure, she lost.

C’mon you can say it.

She.
Lost.

I will give you credit, you did a great job of spewing those GOP talking points.
Nice job on that. I hope you get enough points for that McCain ball washer.

Wow, Alessandro was polite enough to provide us with a stellar example.

I supported Hillary during the primary season. Obama managed to edge her out. Hillary has vigorously endorsed him. She says he is unquestionably a better choice than McCain. Enough said. I am following the lead of my preferred candidate. Let’s try to be as grown-up about this as our standard bearer. Hillary Clinton has moved into the Obama camp and I’m with her.

Anyone who shills for McCain because they claim to love Hillary so much is either (1) self-deludedly snubbing her or (2) a lying GOP mole. In the case of (1), stop your blubbering and listen to Sen. Clinton, dammit! In the case of (2), go to hell, we’re not falling for it.

I guess an effort should be made to convince legitimate Clinton supporters that they are being undermined by democracy hating scumbag swiftboaters.
They need to realize that a McCain presidency is unacceptable under any circumstances.

“Barack Obama is a hand puppet of the ultra rich sociopath George Soros. ”

A good example of how to tip your hand that you are really a wing nut phony.
:wink:

I have followed right wing trolls since the sixties, when they engaged in organized but disguised call-ins to the then nascent political talk shows. Reading a number of these allegedly pro-Hillary blogs, it seemed obvious to me from the beginning that the vast majority of their participants were Republicans. Their style of attack, their language, their constant blaming of Obama for faults actually displayed by themselves…I could go on, but I just want to say that I have never seen this combination outside of right wing blogs like Little Green Footballs, etc.

I am an Obama supporter, but I have enough respect for Hillary to believe that she would have nothing to do with this sort of behavior. They are attacking Obama in Hillary’s name, but at the same time they are degrading Hillary by associating her with this trash.

This “Allesandro” reveals him or herself as a McCainite posing as a Hillary supporter when parroting the familiar George Soros rant promoted by right-wing pundits. Few if any actual democratic voters would pay any heed to the false claims of the right that Moveon.org, Media Matters, and other netroots organizations are financed by Soros.

The one who really befuddles me is Alegre. She was a big deal at the Daily Kos until she boycotted it since all the meanies there were so mean to Clinton. Then she went to MYDD, where she swamped the recommended list with anti-Obama screeds every day. Once the last primaried were over, even MYDD wasn’t pro-Clinton enough for her. Now she has her own little malarial site where she still cranks out anti-Obama screeds and harangues her followers to harangue the delegates to the convention to nominate Clinton–or if that falls flat, to vote for McCain. I think she’s really sincere in her belief that Clinton would be best, but that short of that, McCain is better than Obama. I think she’s pretty deluded, myself. It wouldn’t be a shock to me to learn that there’s something clinically really wrong with her…

its called propaganda 1.
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person’s character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
Ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
Ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.
Ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn’t exist, but you are just a fat idiot. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Steve Forbes says about cutting taxes because he stands to benefit from a lower tax rate. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Fred’s argument because he is just angry about the fact that defendant once cheated him out of $100. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iv) You say I should give up alcohol, but you haven’t been sober for more than a year yourself. (ad hominem tu quoque)
(v) You claim that Mr. Jones is innocent, but why should anyone listen to you? You are a Mormon after all. (ad hominem circumstantial)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defende

Thanks to the commenters who took the time to reply to Machi’s off-the-wall charges. Please come back and continue to liven up these pages.

For those who haven’t had the chance, check out the next article on some of the people behind the “Trojan” movement.

To backers of Hillary Clinton, I have said before that her name should be allowed to be placed in nomination and she should be allowed to speak.

I have noticed a LOT of this on youtube.
There are two types that stick out for me.

1. The incredibly over the top racist, anti-white, – in phony ebonics even, posts which I have long suspected are white Republicans. I confronted one of these guys online and got this in reply:

“When You Tube refuses to allow us to post any Obama concerns that don`t paint him as the second coming, then we are forced to use alternatives like pretending to be Obama supporters. Improvise! Just as I`m sure John McCain had to do to survive while being tied up and tortured for you, when all the while I was in my mom`s basement, and you “most likely” out getting high at Woodstock.

Personally, we`re screwed! I only hope that you (and others like you) do learn this time!
Ahhh?

Braineater611 ”

To be clear – there are a cubic f*ton of anti Obama comments (by spammers I suspect in many many cases) – So the first point is bullshit. But the most interesting point is that he admits to wearing black face online and writing really sick anti-white comments…of course in order to divide and concur.

This happens in a lot of cases…pretending to be pissed off Hillary supporters flocking to McCain while leaving a trail of vile racial epithets in their wake. Making sock puppets with phony ‘Obama supporters” making really sick sexist comments. This is not to say that either camp has none of these wackloons, but the shere volume has gone WAY WAY WAY up, and I’ve been online talking politics since 1990. It is off the charts!

I am very concerned as there a LOT of people who don’t even know what a sock puppet or troll is, or they don’t associate them with defined political actors and a central marching order…And in that sense they are rapaciously distructive to discourse and organizing. No longer does the agent provacatuer need to travel to a meeting, they just lob the bomb online and watch the fur fly.

2. The kind we see above where some freepers pet talking point seeps out past all the GO GIRL pro Hilary stuff..a la the Soros talking point as mentioned.(I do nod to the Hilary supporters out there trying to make their statement without making overtly racist comments, Geraldine Ferraro aside, and that Harriet Christian as well, that they are disappointed with their candidates endorsement of Obama)

Anyway…I hope more obvious examples can be made public.

Leave a response

Your response: