« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Swift-Backfire 2008? Fool Me Once...
In light of Obama's planned counter-attack on Corsi, I'd like to throw an idea out there: could the right-wing's attack backfire in 2008? Even if Obama did little to counter it?
The one good thing -- the only good thing -- about the media's coverage of Obama Nation is they repeatedly mention 2004's Swift Boat attack. Now, I would hope, but I'm not sure, that many Americans remember 2004 as a time when they voted for Bush because they thought he was a good guy, and then he turned out to be the worst president in history -- Bush's job approval ratings obviously support this interpretation. And I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who voted against Kerry because of Swift Boat now wish they had voted for him. Or at least that voting for "liberal" "anti-war" "unpatriotic" Kerry wouldn't have been the worse choice.
So my question is: will Corsi's book feel like deja vu but in a bad way? I'm sure at least a few people are skeptical of an author making various defamations on Obama's character. Forwarded emails and salon chatter is one thing -- a very powerful thing, sociologists know -- but "Swift Boat" is not a good brand, and that's just the kind of brand Obama wants attached to his attackers, I'd argue.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think a lot of Americans will say: fool me once, shame on you. I won't be fooled again.
I'm the last person to underestimate the ability of Obama's race, nationality, religion and youth to make people completely irrational. We've all dealt with it for 8 months now. But I think there are a few more people this time cynical enough to not believe anything from a guy associated with "Swift Boating" the guy we should've had as a president right now.
Comments (8)
Actually, I believe the quote is "They've got a saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee to. 'Fool me once, shame on you, and fool me you can't get fooled again.'" (George Bush)
Rec'd
August 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
One hopes -- and 2004 and what came after have to be *searing* for some people. But some people never learn .... and some never stop pushing!
--- For example, I JUST saw **this** advertised right here on TPM!
http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com/
GAG!
August 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the book could likely backfire, but I do think Obama must address all lies in some way. Kerry did not fight back effectively, but Obama is a very effective at calling b.s. in a way that gets through to the voters.
Eventually, people do catch on. A recent example of this is the underwhelming support for the Bush clan's second attempt to misuse the very same WMD scare-tactics for war with Iran that he used for the unnecessary war with Iraq. (talk about the boy who cried wolf; who knows what would happen if there was a real threat)
August 14, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good news. The Obama campaign released a 41 page point-by-point rebuttal this morning.
Now ... Obama's campaign just needs to follow this up in the media, and make sure that the rebuttal and the counter-story (that Corsi is a slimebucket) gets as much play as the original book. Or more. They can't let this drop, and need to repeat it over and over until it registers with even the dimmest and least interested people within earshot of the media circus.
And then the Obama campaign should follow this up by forcing McCain into a corner: does he approve of Corsi's book and character assassination, or doesn't he? It is a yes or no question, Mr. Maverick. Up or down. No playing cute.
August 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope that people would (correctly) associate this Crosi slimeball with McCain, and it will tarnish McCain as "more of the same" GOP slimey tactics. This really hurts his sham of a brand.
August 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope that people would (correctly) associate this Crosi slimeball with McCain, and it will tarnish McCain as "more of the same" GOP slimey tactics. This really hurts his sham of a brand.
August 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
All to the good. But it still feels like Barack is on the defensive. Yes, he mounting a better defense but at some point he has to go on the offense. That doesn't necessarily mean that he needs to attack McCain, but he needs to somehow get the current media narrative re-directed in a positive way. Like it was before he returned from his foreign policy trip.
August 15, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a different person than John Kerry, running in a different election, and running at a different time.
The "Swift Boating" smears provide a basis for a voter to vote against a particular candidate even though the voter does not truly support the opposing candidate. I believe that most of the voters who voted against John Kerry did not truly support Bush and the policies that Bush espoused. The Swift boat smears provided a basis for voting against John Kerry that apparently a substantial number of voters found to justify their dislike of John Kerry.
I spoke with a number of voters that actually voted against John Kerry because they couldn't trust him. They said they couldn't trust Kerry because they believed he had lied about his service in Vietnam. They steadfastly refused to consider that the "Swift Boat" stories were lies and half-truths intended to deceive.
In my opinion, they were still fighting the truth about Vietnam. We never won the political war even though we never really lost the military war.
The purpose of the "Swift Boating" smears against Obama is to provide cover to racist voters. Quite conveniently, racist voters can oppose Obama because he is Muslim or because he supports infanticide. The smears enable racist voters to justify their opposition to Obama in racially neutral terms. They do not care to inquire into the truth or falsity of the smears. The public airing of smears (especially if the smears are treated as merely opposing positions rather than denounce as outright lies) by the media is sufficient.
During the primaries, I heard a news interview of several voters from a small town, either in Ohio or Pennsylvania, whose statements about blacks in his workplace revealed a potentially racist attitude. When asked about why he opposed Obama, the voters response was that Obama was a Muslim. The interviewer then mentioned Rev. Wright and the voter chimed in that Obama was un-American too. The interviewer never expicitly asked whether the voter thought Rev. Wright was a Muslim too. I would have loved to hear the response. Other voters interviewed in the piece stated that they did not know about the truth or falsity of the charges, it was sufficient that the media had reported the smears.
That is why I believe that we cannot afford the charade of calling the smears against Obama "scholarship" and we must denounce them as lies.
Can you imagine a new announcer interviewing a holocaust denier about his writings in the same way that Fox News (and CBS for that matter) will interview Corsi?
August 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment