Today's Must-Read: Swiftboating Clinton

Digny has a good, thoughtful post on the Trump campaign's efforts (with the willing cooperation of the GOP establishment and the usual suspects in the media) to get the whole "brain damage" mantra out there:

I wrote about the latest smear that Hillary Clinton has brain damage for Salon today

How do we know it's the dog days of August in a presidential election year? Swimmers and swiftboats, that's how. Actually until August of 2004, we used to call swiftboating by other names: whisper campaigns and smear jobs. But after the success of the slick, pre-packaged set of lies about Senator John Kerry's war record this tactic will always be known for the boat that first made Kerry a hero and later destroyed his reputation.

This year, we're treated to an especially ugly form of swiftboating.  The right wing smear machine is working at warp speed to convince the nation that Hillary Clinton has brain damage. That is not hyperbole or some kind of a joke. They are literally claiming that she is hiding a physical and mental disability that renders her unfit for office. And they are, as usual, being helped by members of the mainstream media who are simply unable to resist "reporting" such a juicy tale even knowing that it is absurd. And so it becomes part of the narrative, true or not, that will color the rest of the campaign and Clinton's presidency should she win. 

It's really hard to fathom how much the right hates the Clintons. Probably because, first, they were "outsiders" in the White House; second, because try as hard as they might, they weren't able to bring them down.

The sad thing is, it's going to have an effect. We've seen it work again and again, going all the way back to Willie Horton.

I guess the only appropriate response, if someone should bring this up in your hearing, is "Says who?"

Obama, Wright -- and Oprah?

I was right about Andrew Sullivan flogging the Jeremiah Wright flap for all it's worth. He's making the attempt at least to exonerate Obama for Wright's words (and even trying to exonerate Wright for that matter -- he at least tries to provide some context and even posts the full sermon. But somehow the exoneration rings a little hollow:

The exposure of Jeremiah Wright's worst moments of racial ugliness is, to my mind, overdue in the MSM. It's not something new to anyone who has closely followed the Obama candidacy or Obama's history. If you've read his books, it's very old news.

He does go on in a more positive note, but look at the way he's structuring his argument:

The relevant - the only relevant - question is: are Obama's beliefs represented by the handful of video clips of the most incendiary of Wright's sermons? Or to unpack it a little further: Does Obama believe that black people should damn America? Does he believe that racial separatism is a viable option? Is he a black liberation theologian?

Seriously, I can find absolutely no evidence that he is, and if anyone can, I will gladly eagerly air it.

Get this: Are Obama's beliefs represented by incendiary sermons from someone else? Be sure to keep that mantra out front. And if anyone can find any evidence, it will be plastered all over the Daily Dish.

Sullivan is right on one point: Obama has been quite clear that Wright's sentiments as expressed in a couple of YouTube clips are not his and in fact, Obama has come out repeatedly with statements maintaining the opposite of Wright's comments. End of story.

I go back to my earlier analysis: this is another non-story being flogged by the right-wing noise machine and the MSM because Obama represents a danger to their interests. Sullivan is part of that conglomerate. If you doubt my take on this, check out the headline on a related post: "Does Oprah Hate America Too?" She's attends the same church. And how relevant is that to anything?

Note: From the EA Forums discussion, in which our resident right-wing talking point is sure (read "hoping beyond hope") that this whole thing will destroy Obama's presidential bid, at least in "middle America": two members, one pretty much in the center, the other slightly right-of-center, responded, in sum: I could care less.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, Sullivan's coverage of the McCain-Hagee-Parsley nexus -- well, there are a number of brief posts on Hagee, mostly without much in the way of comment, and the one post that mentions Parsley is from a reader and doesn't mention McCain. So, how do we construe the microscopic examination of the relationship between Barack Obama and Jeremeiah Wright, and the almost complete lack of analysis of the relationship between John McCain, John Hagee, and Rob Parsley? (Remember that McCain actively courted Hagee's support as well as Parsley's, and hasn't rejected their bigotry in terms anywhere near as strong as Obama has used about Wright's comments.)

In Re: Beauchamp

Anderw Sullivan seems to have a decent summation. Here's more from Josh Marshall (who notes that our old friend Matt Sanchez, gay porn star, hooker, and Ann Coulter fan supreme, was involved in smearing Beauchamp - no big surprise there). Marshall recommends the summation at Media Matters. So do I. And even more, Max Blumenthal's take down of The Weekly Standard, a publication somewhat akin to Agape Press for fair and balanced reporting.

Don't miss TBogg on the commenters.

The Bloggers

Melissa McEwan has now resigned, hard on the heels of Amanda Marcotte's resignation yesterday. I don't like McEwan's decision, but I do like her announcement.

I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.

I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

I simply don't know enough about the inside dealings to know whether she's being entirely accurate here, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. And before anyone starts screaming that "Democrats get a free pass," let me point out that I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until I know better. That means that people like Bill Donohue don't get the benefit of the doubt. I know he's a liar. I know James Dobson's a liar. I know Bill O'Reilly's a liar. I'm not about to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't know that Melissa McEwan's a liar. Q.E.D.

Considering the kind of comments she's likely to have gotten, I can't really fault her.

Speaking of comments, I particularly liked this little gem:

This whole story broke because Bill Donahue and Michelle Malkin happened to look up the things these two bloggers posted on their blogs.

Happened to look up? Excuse me? You know as well as I do that they had every resource available to them combing the internet archives for dirt. Unless, of course, they were fed the news by the RNC.

The problem is that the actual writings, offensive and out of line as they may have been, are largely a sidebar to the real issue here, which, let me repeat, is Donohue's use of dirt that is essentially irrelevant to Edwards' campaign to try to tar Edwards. Suddenly Edwards' judgment is in question? Bullshit. Donohue's tactics are in question.

That Anti-Catholic Nonsense

Y'know, between Bill Donohue and the Pope, I think it's a wonder there's anyone who's not anti-Catholic.

I was going to dismiss the whole issue with that comment, but my reading this morning has brought up some interesting insights.

See this post by Glenn Greenwald on what the real significance of this whole "anti-Catholic bloggers" mess is. Greenwald has further comments here. And here's Sara Robinson in rare form on the Donohue strategy. It was written before Edwards decided to keep his bloggers -- or before he "rehired" them, and touches on my reservation about the whole thing: it took pressure from the netroots, apparently, for Edwards not to cave in to Donohue. That bothers me a lot. I think his response should have been, right from the start, "Bill Who? Do you have a question on a real issue?"

I think both Greenwald and Robinson hit some important points: public discourse in this country has been dominated by right-wing extremists for more than a decade -- really, their influence goes back to the 1980s, when Reagan used them to gain power, but also gave them legitimacy and a forum. (This is the same Reagan whom conservatives praise as the greatest president of the twentieth century. He is also the one who created the "imperial presidency," let us not forget.) The mainstream media has bought into the diction of the radical right, and even worse, has stopped questioning the assumptions within which our discourse is framed. The blogosphere is our only recourse, so I don't find it paranoid at all that Robinson advances the idea that one goal of the right is to silence us. (The historian in me reflects that history is, after all, a series of reactions, and we're just suffering through the reaction to the 1960s. As I remarked to a younger friend, "I realize your generation marks the end of civilization as we know it, but it's pretty annoying to have to live through it.")

From the other side of the aisle, this also touches on my exchanges with Robbie of The Malcontent about Mary Cheney and the reaction of "gay politics." (We really have to be more precise about what that means, otherwise we're getting nowhere -- precision, alas, seems to be another victim of the current mode. I do note, however, after reading several recent posts at The Malcontent, that Matt and Robbie seem to have a common response to certain questions: the left is always wrong, especially the gay left, and is moreover hateful about it. In Matt's post touching on the blogger controversy, the bloggers, of course, are totally wrong and evil; there didn't seem to be any question that Donohue's motives are of the purest. [There are other issues here, but this is not the place for them. Let's just say that I see the post as underhanded, at best.] I can see why the boys at GayPatriot find them soulmates. Considering that observation, perhaps imprecision is merely part of the arsenal, much in the way that creationists skate among various meanings of "theory." Actually defining what they were talking about would kill their "controversy." Just sayin'.) It's a context in which any criticism of the right is seen as based on a double standard (as though they don't), without reference to how deserving of criticism they are. As I stated, I think the Cheneys, father and daughter, deserve whatever brickbats we can throw: they are not our friends, they are out for themselves and themselves only. I'm not about to give Mary Cheney a pass because her closet has a revolving door. (Known in GayPatriotspeak as "out and proud.") This doesn't mean I won't criticize a Democrat when I don't think they're right, but I'm going to save my harshest comments for those who I think are doing to most damage to my community. Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi is not in the running.

At any rate, going back to Robinson's comments, the blogosphere is democracy in action, spontaneous, rough, dirty, and offensive. I've often said that you have to have a fairly thick skin to survive in a democracy, and I still have that opinion. You will maintain my respect if you show integrity and honesty, although you don't need to be particularly genteel about it (come to think of it, I've used a couple of naughty words myself from time to time) and if you don't, take the consequences. I'm not prepared to moderate my stance at all for some poseur like Bill Donohue, whose religiosity is arguably nothing more than a front for a politcal agenda. My only comment to him is "Grow up and get a life." (And even that, I think, gives him too much credibility -- after all, where are his comments from the time those "objectionable" posts were first available?)

PS -- if you scroll down the recent posts at Eschaton, Atrios has a wealth of comments by Donohue fully illustrating just what a piece of slime he is.

And this is the spokesman for American Catholics?

Update:

Jane Galt has some interesting thoughts on this, but I think she misses a point: If there were the slightest reason to believe that Donohue's outcry rested primarily, or even in large part, on genuine religious feeling, I daresay my reacton would be quite different. I don't believe it for a minute.

Beginning with a quote from Ampersand, she goes on to make what to me is the major error:

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window” is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

I think this captures the essence of the argument, although I'm not sure that Amp is right about this being an attempt to shift it; my admittedly limited knowlege of Non-Coastal-Elite-America indicates that in most of the country, slagging off the Pope, or indeed making fun of religion qua religion, is mostly verboten.

The error is simply that the right has so distorted the discourse in this country that attacking (or satirizing) the political agenda of someone like Donohue (or the Pope, for that matter, who, let us remember, has said that separation of church and state is "a myth" and who is nothing if not a politican) is equated, almost automatically, with attacking his religion. This is an entirely predictable result of equating God with, for example, the Republican Party, not that it's a desirable result. We can lay it at the feet of Donohue's spiritual forebears, so to speak -- Robertson, Falwell, and their ilk, who repeatedly conflated their religion and their politics -- and those outside of that small coterie who let them get away with it. And, to the rejoinder that in their minds their religion and their politics are inseparable (the Rushdooney Effect), I say "So what?" As far as I can see, that's an example of taking political correctness way too far. If, living in a country founded on secularism, they can't separate their beliefs from the common good, and go so far as to insist that only their beliefs have any validity as a basis for our society, then I reiterate: they are not only un-American, they are anti-American.

(I got this link from Andrew Sullivan. It seems to be his only comment on the situation, which surprises me -- I would have thought that anything that so seamlessly intertwines the Catholic church and the Christianists would merit more scrutiny from him.)

Update II

(Channeling Glenn Greenwald again.) Steve Gilliard at Newsblog calls it just about the way I see it:

This is NOT about bloggers, but allowing the right to still determine the agenda of Democrats.

It's about allowing the right to determine agendas, period. That's Donohue's whole game. And Dobson's, and Limbaugh's, and Wildmon's, and. .

Pelosi's Plane

Can we lay this to rest now? Here's a statement from the House Sargeant at Arms:

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Via Josh Marshall.