What troubles me is your willingness to find one bit of dirt, which might not even be dirt, to justify not voting for Clinton against Trump. I haven’t denied that Hillary Clinton grew up in a Republican family and supported Goldwater. That is, as you say, a fact, but it’s a selective fact that misrepresents the larger truth. I didn’t say it wasn’t a fact. I said it was cherry picking. I think she deserves credit for breaking away from her background.

Your use of the term ‘swiftboating’ also ignores the broader context. I’m not aware of cases where swiftboaters, after having made false claims, correct their mistakes and express regret for having made them. When Sanders inaccurately said, “She [Hillary Clinton] has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president,” was he swiftboating Clinton?

If you want to focus on facts, then you have to accept that Sanders lost. We can agree that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to tip things in Clinton’s favor, but I think it’s difficult to argue that this was a decisive factor. Clinton got many more votes. She got many more delegates. Sanders outspent Clinton by a large margin in New York, but lost. The final primaries disproved any notion that the momentum was behind him. Another fact is that the Sanders campaign attempted to overturn a democratic process by appealing to the superdelegates. If your aim is to find dirt, you can find it everywhere.

The big fact is that the general election is between Clinton and Trump, and that they represent two very different views of your country and approaches to solving its problems. For climate change the difference is doing something, or moving catastrophically backward. The Republican Party is an enemy of all mankind. In my eyes that’s far more important than anything John Lewis has said.

Lewis statements *now* say me met them in the field in the 70s. Yet, a dozen years ago — when he wasn’t in a political campaign — he met them in the late 1980s and wasn’t formally introduced until 1991. Now, which are we to believe? It’s possible, but why couldn’t he remember those details when he was much closer to the events? How often would you forget meeting a future President of the US?

Lewis is not just some random supporter. Does that really need to be said? Apparently.

We all know that the attacks get the headlines and the corrections get the backpage. The damage is done once the attack is made. A million refutations won’t suffice.

zebra didn’t say that. I did (#18). You got off to a bad start.

That you can’t be bothered to check the veracity with a simple Google search…

I saw it on the internet. Google it. I heard it from a friend whose aunt’s daughter… Sorry, but you’re responsible for documenting your claims.

Regarding Lewis and the Clintons, I again refer to:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional-black-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement

On Saturday, the Georgia representative issued a statement through the CBC, in which he said: “In the interest of unity, I want to clarify the statement I made at Thursday’s news conference.

“The fact that I did not meet him in the movement does not mean I doubted that Senator Sanders participated in the civil rights movement, neither was I attempting to disparage his activism. Thousands sacrificed in the 1960s whose names we will never know, and I have always given honor to their contribution.”

That doesn’t sound like swiftboating to me. It sounds more like an attempt to clarify and retreat from a clumsy formulation. And, as I wrote in #14:

I don’t find Lewis’s attempt to excuse his disavowal of Sanders totally convincing, but I don’t know if you can blame that on “the Clinton campaign.”

To put it another way, can one blame every misspeak from a Sanders supporter on the Sanders campaign?

Also, even though my assumption that Lewis had met the Clinton’s before 1990 was wrong, Lewis does state that their paths had crossed and that he’d been aware of them:

Lewis said he “did not say that I met Hillary and Bill Clinton when I was chairman of SNCC in the 1960s”.

He added: “My point was that when I was doing the work of civil rights, led the Voter Education Project and organized voter registration in the south in the 1970s, I did cross paths with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the field. They were working in politics, and Bill Clinton became attorney general of Arkansas in the 1970s as well.

You haven’t attempted to explain or defend your “Goldwater girl” cherry pick. In my view, you’re trying to build your case against Clinton on very flimsy evidence.

This is the problem we find so many times on denier sites.

Normally, when denier sites are referred to here, they are sites that deny the scientific consensus on climate change. What kind of denier sites are you referring to?

You don’t? Why not? Apparently you’ve bought the story hook,line, and sinker.
You’re smarter than that. It takes literally seconds to find the references with Google.

john lewis first met bill clinton

You’ll find dozens of stories that recite this Lewis quote from Conversations: William Jefferson Clinton : from Hope to Harlem, By Janis F. Kearney, page 317. Kearney served as the Presidential Diarist to President Bill Clinton from 1995 – 2001.

“I think I paid more attention to him at the 1988 Democratic Convention, when he was asked to introduce the presidential candidate and took up far more time than was allotted to him. After he became involved with the Democratic Leadership Council, I would run into him from time to time. But it was one of his aides, Rodney Slater, who actually introduced us in 1991 and asked me if I would support his presidency.”

Bill Clinton became chairman of the DLC in 1989.

This is the problem we find so many times on denier sites: “I don’t find this credible.” No one *cares* if you find it credible. Is it true or not? That’s all that matters. That you can’t be bothered to check the veracity with a simple Google search shows you aren’t interested in the truth of the matter because it *might* cause you to change your views. Where have we seen this behavior before?

Actually, what typically happens is that even once the truth is pounded home some *other* excuse is provided so that actual held views do not have to change. I.e., the views are immune to truth. You can’t change them. Why bother trying? And again, where have we seen that behavior before?

More than 10 years ago, when recounting his relationship to the President, with the former Presidential diarist, John Lewis said he first met Bill Clinton in the late 1980’s and was formally introduced in 1991. Now, in the middle of a political campaign he, for all intents and purposes, lies about their civil rights records while at the same time essentially calling Hillary’s political opponent a liar.

It was a swift boat Lewis was sailing on.

Because of the timing – after the financial crisis.
The venue.
The amount she received for so little work, at a time when many Americans were struggling to make ends meet.
Her unwillingness to release the transcripts, which unfortunately will make it harder for her to argue that Trump should release his tax returns.
The fact that she’s seeking the presidency and that her opponent had avoided her avoidable mistakes.

There’s a New Yorker podcast, Hillary’s Dilemma, that expresses the incredulity one can have in relation to her Goldmann Sachs speeches. The section starts around 10:50.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/new-yorker-political-scene/2

Ignoring her mistakes would be wrong, and so would reducing her to those mistakes. Here’s another sympathetic portrait of her political development. It’s also interesting because it shows the extent to which she already then was seen as a leader.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-activism-and-hillary-clinton-at-wellesley

About Hillary’s early history, here’s her graduate speech:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/06/listen-hillary-clinton-commencement-speech-wellesley/Qpy945dVq1PPjmj7AmUbTO/story.html

Here’s a more sympathetic take:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html

I think Kissinger is awful, and Wasserman-Schultz problematic.

As for the money thing, why is Hillary so much more targeted than every other senior politician who gives paid speeches? Why is all the good the Clinton Foundation does ignored? Why is it assumed that she kowtows to the people who paid for in the face of evidence to the contrary?

Her voting record, for heaven’s sakes. Her work on universal health care in the 90s. She was the subject of Citizens United and has vowed to do what she can to undermine it.

What the Clintons did to recapture our Democracy from Reagan Bush would, ideally, not be good enough. But we are actually more polarized and targeted by Republicans, who are better unified, now.

At the very least, please vow to vote in every midterm. Neither Bill Clinton nor Obama should be victim-blamed when we failed to support them due to inattention, fighting with each other, and perfectionism.

You may have overlooked this:

I don’t find Lewis’s attempt to excuse his disavowal of Sanders totally convincing, but I don’t know if you can blame that on “the Clinton campaign.” #14

“Of course the truth of the matter is a completely different story. Hell, Hillary was a ‘Goldwater Girl’ and John Lewis never met either of the Clintons until the 1990s while Sanders was arrested in the 60s protesting on the frontlines.” #11

This harmonizes poorly with this:

“And please note, I didn’t attack or condemn Clinton for her views during the early mid-60s.”

Identifying Clinton as a ‘Goldwater Girl” without supplying context and additional information is cherry picking designed to portray her as negatively as possible.

It also harmonizes poorly with this:

“He [Lewis] added: “My point was that when I was doing the work of civil rights, led the Voter Education Project and organized voter registration in the south in the 1970s, I did cross paths with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the field. They were working in politics, and Bill Clinton became attorney general of Arkansas in the 1970s as well.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/13/john-lewis-congressional-black-caucus-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement

From which books do you conclude that Lewis first met Clinton during the 90s. I don’t find that credible.

If you’ve checked my links I think you’ll find that I don’t reflexively defend Clinton, but that I’m willing to when I find attacks against her unreasonable, and I don’t think making her worse than she is is constructive. Or honest.

“You’ve recently cited Jesse Jackson. What did Jackson say on this issue and Lewis’ remarks?” #15

I have no idea. I’m more interested in seeing the Republicans defeated than I am in possible dirt digging.

Buy a clue, clown.

And, it does NOT answer the swiftboat charge. Instead you write an incoherent slander on Sanders. Go read about Willis Wagons in Chicago and when and where Sanders was arrested. The Chicago Tribune even managed to dig up some old photos.

You obviously have not spent a lot of time closely interacting with African-Americans.

I know exactly what Lewis was saying, because I was a bright, naive, idealistic Brooklyn boy just like Bernie in those days, but my understanding matured, thanks to some honest communication from actual Black men (and women, later on).

“Protesting” does not get you respect. Getting arrested doesn’t get you respect. Do you seriously think getting arrested as a white middle class activist impresses young Black males?

Showing respect gets you respect.

Looking at the Sanders campaign, it was obvious Bernie never learned that lesson, so he couldn’t pass it on to his supporters. Difficult to learn that lesson when you run away to Vermont.

The Clintons showed respect. In the 1990’s, when it mattered. That’s what Lewis was saying, when he said he met them.

Lewis certainly implies that he met the Clinton’s during his time as chairman of the SNCC (1963-66), but not Sanders. Yet she was still a Republican then and I can’t find anything that shows Bill was active on civil rights during that era either. Sanders was there. In books Lewis recalls first hearing of (Bill) Clinton during the 70’s. and that he first met him in the 1990s. And please note, I didn’t attack or condemn Clinton for her views during the early mid-60s. Neither has Sanders. Jumping to her defense is rather … ummm… defensive ::)

Hillary’s great advantage was being the spouse to America’s “first Black President” — this gave her an immense inroad into an important demographic. Sanders civil rights record should have been at least a partial solution to that predicament. Instead we have John Lewis essentially calling Sanders a liar about his civil rights record. Indeed, some pundits immediately came out with that slant – going so far as to claim that photos of Sanders during some of the protests weren’t even actually Sanders.

Take an opponent’s strength and attack it with lies, half-truths,and innuendo. That is the essence of swiftboating. If the attacks come from “someone that was there” they become even more believable – especially if it’s someone outside the candidate’s campaign. Please differentiate the Lewis attacks on Sanders civil rights record versus any classic case of swiftboating?

You’ve recently cited Jesse Jackson. What did Jackson say on this issue and Lewis’ remarks?