Today, there is a tendency to describe any criticism of Barack Obama as "swiftboating." So far, it's been a pretty effective attack pre-emption device. But it has nothing to do with "swiftboating"; you can't just "swiftboat" somebody. Now, if all of the pastors who worked with Obama when he was a community organizer in Chicago came together to criticize his behavior back then, that would qualify. But until something like that happens, could everyone -- at least those not working for the Obama campaign or the DNC -- dispense with the "swiftboating" talk?
I largely agree with York, both that Obama's surrogates have been effective is employing the term as an attack on Obama's attackers, and that the term itself is not used in a way that properly references its origins.
But there's another problem with the revisionist history that goes into discussing the actual impact of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Democrats, liberals in general, and large segments of the media, have created a narrative in which John Kerry was unfairly attacked, or, "swiftboated," over his Vietnam record, and that he would be president today if not for those unfair and inaccurate allegations.
In reality, the Swift Boat attacks came in two stages. The first stage sought to question Kerry's war record. Most of those attacks were allegations largely based on personal accounts from 30 years ago. So, if liberals want to decry that form of "swiftboating," that's probably fair. But the second, and far more effective public relations battle waged against Kerry concerned what he did after returning from Vietnam. Those attacks were rooted entirely in factual evidence, including video of Kerry's testimony before Congress that Democrats themselves used to promote his biography.
So, swiftboating has lost both its original context and meaning. You might then say that the Obama campaign, and its many surrogates, have succeeded in swiftboating the actual Swift Boat Vets.
Post A Comment