In 2008 will we have a nominee who will fight back when attacked?
More on inside the fold....
In the 2004 elections, Howard Dean was railroaded by both Democrats and Republicans for his blunt talk that was true. Republicans used paid operatives to get in town hall's to throw Dean off message. He fought back against Republican attacks, but if your party helps with the attacks you cannot survive that. I think Republicans were truly afraid of him; every word he uttered was twisted by the media.
John Kerry was swift boated, by a group of Vietnam veterans during the 2004 general elections. They lied about his Vietnam service, how he got wounded and the medals he received. A few weeks ago some of the Swift Boat veterans said they were going to sue Kerry for trying to stop their anti-Kerry film from airing. Kerry only tepidly responded to their attacks. In people's mind, the notion took hold that if Kerry wouldn't defend his honor, how could he defend the nation.
John Edwards was picked in July 2004 to be Kerry's running mate. When that happened, the Republican attacks began on Edwards that he made his money as a trial lawyer by suing companies for trivial wrongs against victims. They wanted to paint him as an ambulance chaser attorney. I don't think it largely worked, but John in my estimation didn't fight back as hard enough as he could of.
Back in 2000, Al Gore was Vice-President of the United States. With him and Bill Clinton the country was at peace, the economy was good. Everything looked good for him, except for the fact that the country was suffering supposedly from "Clinton Fatigue" from all the scandals (A large part manufactured by Republicans, but Clinton definitely helped with Monica). Gore's argument was that was all Clinton faults, but you were not going to get that from me. But Gore's problem was he exaggerated about things such as inventing the internet, which he never said, but Republicans made it a talking point out of a lie. Then came the talking point that Gore would say or do anything to become President (Gore helped that talking point by getting involved in the Elian Gonzales mess). But from what we know now during that campaign it was really Bush who was the guy who would do anything or say anything to become president (He was against nation building, big government, increasing tariffs (remember the steel tariffs), against raiding social security, etc). The media of course took the Republican talking points of Gore to heart. Gore was never able to fight back hard, until late into the campaign but it didn't matter Republicans already had their plan cooked up to take Florida at all coast.
Those are my examples of how Republicans use lies and smears to paint you one way. But the Democrats in turn didn't help themselves by not really addressing them or defending themselves better. The only politicians of modern times to push back successfully on Republicans is the Clintons, I think Howard Dean would have been able to do a better job if he didn't have DLC Democrats under-mind him (And believe me I think some of the Clinton crowd helped, but I think Dean will get the last laugh especially if he can pull off getting the party unified and the Democrats winning the Congress in 2006). But I did this just to put my two cents in that before we weigh in against the Hillary Clinton running in 2008. I can only think of one Democrat, which is Hillary Clinton in the early 2008 speculation who can take what the Republicans give and then spit it right back at them.
I remember that book put out by Ed Klein: The Truth about Hillary Clinton. That basically charged that she had a lesbian romance, how she helped in destroying the Women Bill Clinton supposedly had affairs with. The moment that book came out the Clinton camp was talking lawsuit, a full court press was put out to fight the book and within in days. Ed Klein the author was painted to look like a rabid Clinton hater (which is true) instead of an objective author who researched his facts. In fact the only people to buy the book were right wings nuts.
I know that some think Hillary is a great Liberal, and then other who believe she is just to Moderate Republican light, I think she is somewhere in the middle on the two. I also do wish she would take more of a chance on things, but she has been there on a lot of things except I don't know how she gets around Iraq only to say that I think she will have to address if she runs for President.
But back to my central point, it's great if we have a nominee with great ideas, plans and can articulate them but if we have another nominee that will not defend their character and honor and will not fight back, we will lose again.