Do you know why the French elections have an 85 percent voter turnout? All candidates are given equal airtime and nasty and misleading television advertisements are not permitted. Voters actually make up their minds based on issues and facts, not on negative smear campaigns, events or actions taken out of context and deliberate attempts to distort and manipulate the truth.
If American television networks and cable channels actually cared about Americans - rather than the money the stations rake in from all those mean-spirited political ads - then they would give all candidates running for president equal time and refuse to accept political advertising. They stopped running advertisements for cigarettes and beer for health concerns; why not refuse political advertising, which arguably could be viewed as a mental health issue?
Why can't candidates stand on their own merits, rather than resorting to mud-slinging against their opponents? Why are they afraid for voters to make decisions without negative influences? I'll say it again: we need Al Gore as the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. The Republicans couldn't get very far in their attempts to tarnish his character or reputation. As Paul Harris writes in The Observer, London, Republicans are already using the internet, books and a film to try to derail Hillary Clinton's White House campaign:
"She's ahead in the polls and on course to become the Democrats' presidential candidate for 2008. So it is no surprise that a right-wing smear campaign is gathering speed to derail Senator Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House. Conservative groups and political figures are planning a film, books and a concerted media campaign to demonise Clinton, who is already one of the most polarising figures in American politics."Top of the list of projects is a planned movie, being filmed by veteran Republican operator David Bossie. Bossie is raising money for the film through his conservative group Citizens United, which is appealing for video footage, stories about Clinton and money. It plans a release by the end of the year, just as the first primary elections are held in New Hampshire. Bossie is being helped in the project by Dick Morris, a former top Clinton aide who has become a leading Clinton critic.
"The film aims to delve into past Clinton scandals, such as the Whitewater real estate deals, and to dig up new dirt. 'This project aims to expose the truth about her conflicts in the past and her liberal plot for the future,' said a statement on the film's website. Bossie did not return repeated calls for comment.The film also has the backing of other veteran Republican dirty-tricks campaigners. The chairman of Citizens United is Floyd Brown, a Republican media consultant who worked on the Willie Horton TV ad in 1988 that helped destroy the campaign of presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.
"Citizens United and other Republican groups are set to model their anti-Clinton operation on the notorious Swift Boat campaign that derailed John Kerry's 2004 bid for the White House. That aggressive smear campaign focused on Kerry's Vietnam war record and was seen as critical in President George W Bush's election victory. 'The Swift Boat campaign is going to be a direct model. They have openly come out and said that,' said Terry Krepel, editor of Conwebwatch, a website that monitors the output of conservative news media."
"There is already a swath of other anti-Hillary websites popping up with support from Republican figures. They include sites such as StopHerNow, StopHillaryPAC and HillCAP. The last is dedicated to showing that Clinton was involved in fraudulent fundraising in her 2000 Senate campaign. It supports a bid to have her prosecuted."A slew of conservative books on Clinton are also planned for release or have already hit the stores. These include The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Bay Buchanan, sister of former Republican presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan, and Whitewash by Brent Bozell, a veteran conservative who will try to show that Clinton is a pawn of the liberal media. Another book, God and Hillary Clinton, will look at her religious beliefs and her pro-choice position on abortion.
"Right-wing news organisations are pumping out anti-Clinton stories. Last week, World Net Daily published a story claiming Bill Clinton had reneged on a secret deal with his wife to take turns at being governor of Arkansas. The story was solely sourced to an anonymous 'Clinton aide.'
"Hillary Clinton is starting to be targeted by the mainstream campaigns of top-tier Republican candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Republican approach has been to maintain a distance between the dirty tricks-style operators and their senior figures. 'It is all based on plausible deniability, so that mainstream Republicans can dissociate with anti-Clinton activists,' said Shawn Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California.
"However, there is some clear overlap. For example, Texan businessman Bob Perry has joined Republican Mitt Romney's campaign as a fundraiser. In 2004, Perry gave more than $4m to the Swift Boat campaign.
"But one of the main reasons why the Republican whispering campaign against Clinton is starting so early is simply how well Clinton is doing. After surviving the shock entry of Illinois Senator Barack Obama into the race, Clinton has maintained a steady and large lead among the Democrats. She has continued to rack up high-profile endorsements, such as last week's backing from Steven Spielberg, and her fundraising is steaming powerfully ahead. 'She is looking tough to beat. She is well funded and well organised,' Bowler said. With the Republican party in disarray and coping with the legacy of the Iraq war, there is a real feeling that Clinton could win the White House.
"Her campaign is prepared for a conservative attack, no matter how dirty. On the campaign trail, one of her slogans is: 'I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate and how to beat them.' Her staff have vowed not to repeat Kerry's 2004 mistake with the Swift Boat campaign when he delayed responding to their accusations that he did not tell the truth about his war record. 'Liberals have learnt a lot from the Swift Boat experience. You can't sit by and let it fester,' said Krepel."
This is what some anonymous poster posted in response to your response to Voss. What a moron this jerk is. And then there is this which just plays into the hands of these wingnuts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485
"Anonymous said...
Don’t let this woman’s attempt at objectivity fool you for a minute. She is a liberal through and through. She is or was a journalist. Journalist and liberal are practically synonyms. This is, in my opinion, the primary reason that the news is usually slanted to the left. Is it just a coincidence that she does not think that there is a republican among the current list of candidates who would do a good job but she then goes on to express confidence in every democrat party candidate? She is not “anti-Republican”. She just does not want a republican to be in any elected office of major importance. Odds are she never voted for a Republican presidential candidate in her life and chances are she never will. I do not even know her and I would lay odds that she supported the socialist Segolene Royale in the French elections.
Do not buy the nonsense that she is concerned with negative ads. If negative ads would have caused Bush to lose the last election or would cause a Republican to lose the general presidential election she would be perfectly fine with them.
As for her comments on America’s standing in Europe I do not think America was ever particularly popular in Europe except for a period of time after the world wars. The European press hated Bush even before he was elected in 2000, before any "misguided actions".
8:58 PM, June 18, 2007 "
Posted by: shilo | 22 June 2007 at 00:45
Glad to hear the democrats are ready for the attack dog against the candidates for president whether it be Hilary or
Gore or Obama. etc... this time is now !
The right wing in my opinion were givent the chance for eight years to do their thing and the time is now to make a change for the other side to do their thing for eight years.
The damage done over the last six and half years is brutal and
massive. Somewhat like a plague ...
the destruction of rights the obstruction of what is the truth
and what is make believe.
If only we can make sense of it/
Posted by: makesenseofit | 19 June 2007 at 02:10
I am posting my reply to your comments on my site as well as here. Hopefully it will drive more interest to the subject for both of us.
Let me say that I too have lived overseas, though I lived in Moscow and only for a year and a half. But that was over a decade ago. Evenso I too am familiar with the many different views of America held by the rest of the world. Given this, I defer to your more recent and expansive knowledge of current attitudes.
Let me also say that I do not believe we differ that much in our core beliefs. I feel that you wish, as I do, to have the very best individual in the Presidency as possible. I think that you would agree that it is too soon to discount any of the front-running candidates at this time, and that all of these front-runners have issues to varying degrees. Personal preferences may cause us to lean one way or the other, but until serious questions get answered, whether they come from bloggers, international news agencies, or news media here at home, a final choice is far from certain at this time.
I am glad that you are involved on this issue. It is a recurring theme for me on this blog, and at my corporate site [my corporate website is absolutely neutral in its efforts to engender interest in the 2008 election]. I hope that the passions we and others like us have, will motivate other citizens to become more active and make choices for more substantive reasons than a 30 second soundbite.
With all that said I will mention that I am currently maintaining a mostly neutral stance in regard to the Presidential candidates. This seems to be a rarity, as I have found that the majority of blogs and a great deal of news coverage I have read is biased to a more liberal or democratic viewpoint. The more I have read, the more I see that most of this leaning is due to the actions of President Bush. While I do not agree with all of the decisions that our President has made, I feel that bias against all other Republican candidates because of their party is wrong.
The tone of the post you made, and the London paper you quoted, seemed to take that same bias. Perhaps my own bias was in play. But I addressed the imbalance as I saw it, and provided my readers with your post so they could come to their own conclusion. If they were not motivated to do so prior, perhaps this commentary will help further that.
I will also mention that I do not have any issue with any news media from anywhere in the world. I am an avid reader as I write for 6 blogs daily and find many items to be of interest or use. I strive to provide confirmation of views I hold, when possible and time permits. I have read reports, which I have not quoted and am stating from memory, that do mention that of the 2 French candidates the winner was more pro-America. If I have misstated that, or implied it having a greater influence than it did, I stand corrected.
Lastly, the image of America has long been anything but admired throughout the world. While recent years have emphasized the degree to which other nations may be upset with ours, it is not a new thing. I will paraphrase a statement made in the television show the West Wing that I think applies here, ‘This is the price you pay for being rich, powerful and free all at the same time.’ Over the last several decades much of Europe and the rest of the world have been angered by actions America took, sometimes all together and at other times separately. There is no question in my mind that as long as America is at the top of the proverbial hill, whether alone or with other nations, most of the rest of the world will look to ‘push’ us off the top.
I invite you to view my other posts and comments on politics and our nation, so that you may get a more full view of my stance. I suggest to my readers that they should do the same with your blog, as I will. I am sure you will agree, the more we discuss, the more varied the experiences and viewpoints we can draw upon, the better the decisions we will make.
Posted by: Michael Vass | 18 June 2007 at 13:06
I agree as well 100%
Posted by: simon | 18 June 2007 at 07:43
I agree with you completely.
The American public already knows all there is to know about the Clintons' life, scandals and otherwise. They don't need smear campaigns. My biggest political disappointment will always be how Al Gore was dismissed as "wooden" -- as if that had to do anything with running a country. You begin to wonder about the electorate and why they buy all that crap.
Posted by: Colette | 17 June 2007 at 17:55