A Republican group called Stop Her now is vowing to raise and spend between $500,000 and $600,000 in an all-out effort to derail Hillary's Presidential candidacy between now and February. "We expect we'll be much more intense in our efforts between now and Feb. 28," said Texas businessman Richard Collins, a leading organizer of the group. Among their efforts will be adding more mainstream humor — not just the right-wing kind — to their Web site and other efforts. In addition, another group called Citizens United is producing an anti-Hillary documentary, which backers intend to serve the same role as the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth campaign against John Kerry in 2004.
Generally speaking, the right-wing limits "Smearing Season" to the six to eight months between the springtime and election day during a presidential election year.
But it looks like Hillary-Smearing is going to start early this year.
Here's why:
1. THE EARLY LEADER. There's been a great deal of publicity about Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee over the last couple of weeks. Confident that they won't have to smear Barack Obama or John Edwards, the right-wing smear activists like Richard Collins have decided to attack Hillary early. These guys would have launched smear campaigns against any Democratic nominee. It just looks like Hillary's their girl at this point. Still, you have to wonder what the right would have done to "swift boat" Barack Obama.
2. SMEARING IS CRUCIAL. Given the tremendous handicaps of the leading Republican candidates for president, the Republicans are going to have to rely extra-heavily on their smear campaign against Hillary. Whether it's the Bush albatross, Giuliani's awful family life, or the problems Hard-Working Fred Thompson applying himself, the Republicans are going to have an uphill battle against someone as intelligent, hard-working and thorough as Hillary Clinton. As a result, they're going to have to smear Hillary overtime as a way to create a more level playing field.
3. OVERCOMING SMEAR IMMUNITIES. Another problem for the GOP is that the previous fifteen years of smearing Hillary have made her somewhat immune to the usual smearing tactics. She's already been accused of sleeping with Vince Foster, killing Vince Foster, staying with Bill Clinton solely out of a lust for power, being too hard-boiled, being too soft, being a lesbian, and being a hundred other things I'm not aware of. But none of this smearing has kept her from growing in popularity. As a result, Republicans are going to have to go well beyond their usual smear tactics. They'll have to engage in the equivalent of "nuclear smearing" if they expect any of their accusations to stick. In that context, GOP smear artists will have to start working early on their new, improved smears if they expect any of their smears to work.
Deer hunters will be bitterly disappointed that Hillary-Smearing Season is going to last a lot longer than dear season this year. But who knows? Maybe the smear artists will accuse Hillary of shooting Bambi's mom as well.
Posts
10 comments:
abuse, belittle, cry down, decry, defame, degrade, denigrate, deprecate, depreciate, deride, derogate, detract, discredit, disdain, dishearten, dismiss, lower, malign, minimize, put down, ridicule, scorn, slam, slander, tear down, traduce, underestimate, underrate, undervalue, vilify, write off, aspersion, calumny, defamation, denigration, lying, obloquy, vituperation, malign, antagonistic, antipathetic, bad, baleful, baneful, deleterious, despiteful, destructive, detrimental, evil, harmful, hateful, hostile, inimical, injurious, malefic, maleficent, malevolent, malignant, noxious, pernicious, rancorous, sinister, spiteful, vicious, wicked
These are a few synonyms for "smear", Professor. Your repeated use of the same word tends to magnify the weakness of your assertion.
"Smear" is such a good word for this right-wing tactic that I'm going to stick with it. What's good about the word "smear" is that it captures the contempt for common morality among the right. In general, the Smearkrieg series is one of the most effective things I've done since my much-acclaimed "weenie-boy" post. But perhaps you disagree.
Well, he has entire Post up about how evil and "left-wing" the NY Times is, because it won't call Hillary's plan "socialized medicine." No one is more accepting of a smear than B Moe/Michael.
He's a bit of a nut.
You really need to learn to read, timmy, I am agreeing with the Times. I was just pointing out that by their strict definition it actually falls under what most would define as fascism economically. Odd that they left that out, I thought. Personally, as I point out in the comments, it seems like a good old fashioned monopoly to me. The main gist of the post is a simple just wish they were as strict with their definition on a more consistent basis.
It's one of the funnier things about partisans that they tend to snear at their opponents for employing their own tactics. Have you not been around for, say, the last several decades? The Left loves character assasination. Bush has been a constant target for smearing: he's a drunk, he's a dry drunk, he's a draft dodger, he's stupid, he's evil, he's helped plan 911 so he could invade Iraq, blah blah blah. None of those are critiques of policy.
Nevertheless, there is some limited truth in the above about smearing Hillary, but it is only a half truth. Yes, smearing Hillary is an important tactic against her(and it's one of her own favorites). But it's true not because her "popularity", but because of her unpopularity: half the country is dead set against voting for her. Attacking her character--and that's a target rich environment considering she's shrill and dishonest, and lacking all the charm of the husband without whom she'd be nothing--motivates that half of the country to show up on Election Day. It also shows the electorate what a deeply polarizing figure she is, which is something no one wants right now, and plays to Giuliani quite well.
By the way, it's nice to finally see some liberals in academia.
This has become an old, tiresome and extremely innefective Republican tactic. I cannot believe they honestly believe that it will work against Hillary as it did against John Kerry. If they do believe that, so much the better. They will be dissappointed.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have a remarkable capacity to rise above the base, dishonest, unfair tactics of their political enemies. President Clinton said once that a Republican Senator told him, "I hate the way we treat you but if we fought you fairly we'd lose." As it is with the first President Clinton, so it will be with the second. Bank on it.
Oh I see. So Hillary-smearing is a way to seek the truth, a quest, a voyage of discovery, a journey into the unknown, a test of character. Are you sure that's all of the dignity you can give to smearing season? How about comparisons with Martin Luther King and Jesus? Are you sure Martin Luther King didn't smear the white South? Maybe you could quote the "I Have a Dream Speech." And Jesus did have a lot of mean things to say about the Pharisees. Yeah, that's it. The Swift Boat guys were just following the example set in Matthew 23. Kind of brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it.
I'm dehydrated from the tears I have shed. LOL.
Smearing is what the Republican leadership knows how to do. Its all they know.
Truth, discovery, character,dignity? These words and their respective meanings have no resonance with the people in the top echelons of the Republican party.
Project much?
Smear has come to mean "any statement or advertisement that we do not like".
Is pointing out how close Hillary and Hsu were a "smear". Are stating facts "smears". Caric, what qualifies as a smear in your book?
Post a Comment