Clinton contends GORE lost becuz viewed as an elitist, BUT READ WHAT THE DLC SAID:

[mod mom]

In case you missed it, the video is here:

Clinton: Gore And Kerry Lost Because They Were Viewed As Elitist

Huffington Post | April 13, 2008 06:13 PM

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/clinton-gore-and-kerry-we_n_96452.html

BUT HERE IS WHAT AL FROM FOUNDER OF THE DLC SAID:

"Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made A HUGE TACTICAL MISTAKE by continually emphasizing that he would "FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE POWERFUL" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century."


background:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST in MID 2000!:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm


Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

[Romulox]

1. The DLC's senior economist is Barack Obama's chief economic advisor

Just thought you should know...

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Facts only annoy them. Prepare to be "plonked"

And thanks for reminding everyone!
:hi:

[mod mom]

6. Yes one of several "top notch"people who defected from Clinton:

Obama's Economic Brain Trust Breaks With `Status Quo' (Update1)
By Rich Miller and Matthew Benjamin



May 10 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Barack Obama portrays himself as a new kind of leader who transcends conventional politics. Judging by the economists he has enlisted in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, he may just be.

Obama's economic brain trust -- a blend of up-and-coming academics and former officials in President Bill Clinton's administration -- displays a fondness for backing innovative solutions to the nation's problems. Among them: offering ailing U.S. automakers aid in return for increased investment in hybrid cars and rewarding doctors for the improvements they make in patients' health.

-snip

Three academics -- Austan Goolsbee, 37, a University of Chicago professor and columnist for The New York Times, Jeffrey Liebman, 39, a pension and poverty expert at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and David Cutler, 41, a Harvard health economist -- form the core of Obama's economic team.

`Top-Notch Economists'

-snip

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=a7Zdp3HDltW4



Don’t tell that to Austan Goolsbee, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser and wunderkind economist, who since age 25 has been a professor at the University of Chicago. Mr. Goolsbee, adoringly known as “GSB” on economic blogs, wrote early and presciently about how the Internet would affect pricing, and has since written on a broad array of topics for publications including The New York Times, Slate and Business Week. The Financial Times called the spindly and demonstrative 38-year-old one of the “Gurus of the Future,” and even conservatives like George Will have written of him approvingly.
(Mr. Goolsbee, a former national debate finalist at Yale—and a serious contender in high school at Milton Academy, where, in 1987, he took second place in the National Forensic League championship tournament for his delivery of a speech he wrote himself called “Rite of Passage”—has the reputation as something of an eccentric. “The one thing you don’t want to do is share an office with Goolsbee, as I do at the campaign,” said David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s chief adviser. “Because you never get anything done. He’s always regaling you with stories.”)

-snip

http://www.observer.com/2008/markets-quake-clinton-and-obama-grab-econo-gurus

JUST LIKE GORE...GOTTA HURT -DOESN'T IT?

[Mezzo]

9. who gave the wink wink to Canada on NAFTA. nt

[ProSense]

12. That's not exaclty

how it went. Also, here's a reminder.

[joeybee12]

16. Yeah it is, but keep spinning your lies...it's all you got now n/t

[ProSense]

30. My lies? Did I make Hillary lie? Do you believe she encountered sniper fire in Bosnia? n/t

[mod mom]

22. I wish the media would call out Clinton on her ties to the DLC and just what they support!

The recent Mark Penn/Bill Clinton revelation regarding free trade with Colombia is a perfect example. Hillary says one thing while her husband and then Chief Strategist are making BIG bucks advocating for another! Should we trust what she says? After Bosnia, Irish Peace Plan and her "35 years of experience, I think NOT>

[mod mom]

15. CANADA IS NOT THE PROBLEM. In fact as Michael Moore pointed out, they provide

better health conditions than we do. The issue is in developing countries that lack workers rights, environmental protection and fair living conditions. Not all the people who once supported Clinton and the DLC are bad. Take Al Gore for example, he saw the light and moved away from policies that adversely hurt American workers.

[mod mom]

32. If HRC is against free trade, then why is her Chief Strategist & Husband advocating

for free trade w Colombia and making big bucks from it? OOPS...maybe he she says things just to get elected (does BOSNIA sniper fire ring a bell? how about her role in the Irish Peace Plan?)

[ShortnFiery]

8. Having a "third way" "DLC" Economic Adviser is fine as Obama will also bring other Economists

that are more to the left.

IT'S CALLED BALANCE AND COMPROMISE.

That's the damn point! The reason that we can't get any legislation passed in D.C. is that either we fully give into the RIGHT (DLC, GOP) or we are "run over" and "bullied."

However, Obama will bring in both Democrats and Republican. His administration can accommodate both liberal (Progressive Caucus) and conservative (DLC) Democrats.

Dammit, it's time that we *all* attempt to embrace the REALITY of the economic state of our nation and WORK TOGETHER toward consensus and viable solutions.

Like Lincoln, Obama will staff his Executive Branch with people who do not AGREE with him. Why? Because Obama is humble enough to KNOW that he CAN LEARN from others. That's what makes a great leader: To NOT surround yourself with "yes" men/women and to LISTEN to opposing points of view before acting.

HRC would let Bill become heavily involved and fill her Executive Branch with MOSTLY conservative (DLC) democrats. In fact, the word I hear that most epitomizes HRC's character is "self-righteous." We are just ending 8 long years of a "self-righteous" President. NO MORE! :thumbsdown:

[Romulox]

36. Comprimising with the hard right is the very SOUL of the "third way"

It's nothing new. Bill Clinton called it "triangulation".

[mod mom]

38. or Soul-LESS

[ProSense]

10. Hillary is a member of the DLC leadership.

Just thought you should know...

It appears the argument you're putting forth is because Obama, who is not a member of the DLC, values diverse perspectives he is DLC.

Hillary is DLC.

[mmonk]

31. And Hillary Clinton is on the DLC leadership team.

[Romulox]

35. So that's a point of SIMILARITY between the two, not contrast as implied in the OP. nt

[mmonk]

37. There seems to be a concerted effort to paint Obama as DLC.

I think that quite interesting given Clinton's status as a leader of the movement.

[mod mom]

2. BTW guess which ELITIST held a "Rural Americans" fundraiser in DC by Monsanto's Lobbyists:

If you chose Hillary Clinton..ding, ding ding...you're a winner:

Yee-haw

October 18, 2007 10:06 AM

So later this month, according to THIS INVITATION, the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the end of this month….

..but she's holding it in Washington, DC….

…at a lobbying firm…

… and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs…

…which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."

-snip

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/yee-haw.html

HILLARY-IN TOUCH WITH THE COMMON FOLKS!

[bullimiami]

4. gore lost because our election machinery and supreme court are as corrupt

as the administration that was installed.

[mod mom]

13. OF COURSE GORE DIDN'T LOSE, I'M QUOTING THE DLC who wanted to push politicians

back to the right and their corporate/powerful alliances.

Gore won!

Kerry Won! Believe me as an election integrity activist who heped investigate Ohio in 2004 I am fully aware of this. I'm trying to make the point the Hillary is AGAIN attempting to play both sides-Gore is an elitist while being head of the organization that suggested Gore "lost" because of his populist message of fighting for the people INSTEAD of the powerful"

but, if either Gore or Kerry would have taken office, then the DLC's champion (of the rich and powerful) Hillary Clinton would not have had the opportunity to run this year. In fact, it was Clinton ally James Carville who assisted Bush in 2004:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[ShortnFiery]

18. Also Gore and Kerry LOST because we have a M$M that only serves The Power Elite ...

within both parties in order to keep the status quo.

I'm thoroughly DISGUSTED with the media WHORES shamelessly trashing Obama in order to prolong this painful Primary. :(

[NJmaverick]

5. Al Gore didn't lose, EVERY good Dem knows that

[mod mom]

19. Trying to point out how the DLC BACKS "THE POWERFUL OVER THE PEOPLE" which

since Hillary is in a leadership role w the DLC, makes her the true elitist.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. she can't have it both ways!

[NJmaverick]

26. I understand and appreciate your very valid point

I was just more disturbed by Hillary's claims that Al Gore lost.

[Mezzo]

7. you leave out "viewed as" because it defeats your point. Please stop lying. nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. The Bush tactic was to paint Gore as elitist and Bush as the guy

you want to have a beer with. That is why he had the accent and the hat and was the "good ol boy" from Texas.

Clinton left the economy in great condition: people had jobs, we are at peace--the republicans had to do something to take it from the dems.

And that was their tactic.

Clinton was not wrong.


And the double standard here is amazing. Yesterday post after post of what Obama actually meant, and how his words were sloppy, but not wrong.

And then, the second Clinton says anything, you go in for that attack, distorting her meaning, giving her none of the benefit you gave Obama.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Obama mis-spoke and genuinely apologized if he offended anyone, whereas HRC LIES but NO Apology.

HRC is the epitome of "self-righteousness" with a dash of false outrage. I'll be damned if I will vote for another insincere poseur as OUR President. :thumbsdown:

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. oh stop. Give it a rest.

the double standard here is obvious. You are so filled with hate that you cannot see what you are doing...giving all sorts of excuses to Obama and vilifying Clinton for doing the same thing.

What a load of crap.

[zalinda]

17. Amazing isn't it?

Clinton is blamed for everything, and Obama can do no wrong.

zalinda

[stillcool]

21. "mis-remembering"

1. Al Gore won.
2. Obama meant what he said.
3. NAFTA in the 90's

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/ThreeYears_NAFTA.html
THREE YEARS OF NAFTA:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !
by Scott Cooper

On July 10, 1997, Bill Clinton released his Administration's report on three years of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA).
By law, Clinton was required to release the report by July 1. But he missed the deadline-no doubt to ensure that the report would vindicate NAFTA, which has been under constant scrutiny and criticism since well before its ratification. As InterPress Service (IPS) reported on July 3, 'The delay appears reminiscent of the Administration's handling of a recent investigation of plant closings and labor practices under NAFTA, observers say. Release of that report was delayed for months, during which time the Administration repeatedly disputed allegations it was seeking to suppress and sanitize the document."

And what did the Clinton Administration conclude?
NAFTA had a modest positive effect," says the report's executive summary, on U.S. net exports, income, investment and jobs supported by exports."
In his cover letter to the report, Clinton wrote: "The Congress and the administration are right to be proud of this historic agreement. This report provides solid evidence that NAFTA has already proved its worth to the United States during the three years it has been in effect. We can look forward to realizing NAFTA's full benefits in the years ahead."
Why has the Administration been so keen on ensuring a positive assessment of NAFTA? Clinton is seeking Congressional support in the fall for so-called "fast track" authority to negotiate new trade accords, including the expansion of NAFTA to include Chile as well as the planned establishment of a hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This means legislators would agree either to approve or reject-but not amend-trade accords the president negotiates. Administration officials believe they need this authority to signal other countries that they can negotiate without fear that U.S. Iawmakers will amend deals beyond recognition.
But, as trade officials have acknowledged in recent weeks there is concern that whatever public and political support for tree trade might have existed is waning. Given the stakes. the IPS report continued, the pressure has grown for officials to portray NAFTA as an engine of economic growth."
As London's Financial Times reported on July 9: "President Clinton believes he will need to expend a significant amount of capital on Capitol Hill to get fast-track authority. He does not want to spend it at least until the autumn, when the battle over the balanced budget is over."

Devastating effects
The run-up to the release of Clinton's report touched off a flurry of activity. The week before Clinton's report was released, six research groups-the Economic Policy Institute, the Institute for Policy Studies, the International Labor Rights Fund. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch campaign, the Sierra Club. and the U.S. Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation- issued a counter-report. titled '-The Failed Experiment: NAFTA at Three Years," the report is a scathing indictment of the treaty.

Here are some of the highlights regarding the United States.
For nearly two decades, the real wages of American blue-collar workers have been declining. Imports from low-wage countries are an especially important cause of increasing wage inequality, and Mexico is one of America's most important low-wage trading partners."
Many firms have used the threat of moving to Mexico as a weapon against wage increases and union organization. In a survey commissioned by the NAFTA Labor Secretariat, Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell found that over half of the firms used threats to shut down operations to fight union organizing drives When forced to bargain with a union, 15% of firms actually closed part or all of a plant-triple the rate found in the late 1980s, before NAFTA."
Based on standard employment multipliers, the increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has cost the U.S. 420,000 jobs since 1993 ('50,710 associated with changes in the trade balance with Mexico, and 169,498 with Canada). NAFTA was responsible for 38% of the decline in manufacturing employment since 1989. NAFTA and globalization generally have changed the composition of employment in America, stimulating the growth of lower paying services industries and accelerating the deindustrialization of our economy."
The Clinton report claims that U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico supported an estimated 2.3 million U.S. jobs in 1996, "an increase of 311,000 jobs since 1993." But Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at Public Citizen, had a different assessment: The administration's NAFTA report must be from Mars, which would explain both the delay and the amazing whoppers and omissions."
The "Failed Experiment" report illustrates how the 1995 peso crisis in Mexico, "commonly used to excuse the sharp deterioration of the U.S. trade balance with Mexico," in fact resulted from an engineered effort to support an aggressive export-led growth strategy in Mexico. The artificially high peso "held down inflation in Mexico" and "helped to win votes" in Congress for passage of NAFTA.
'The peso collapse has devastated Mexico's economy. The number of unemployed workers doubled between mid-1993 and mid-1995, to nearly 1.7 million. Additionally, there were 2.7 million workers employed in precarious conditions in 1996. To make ends meet, many families are forced to send their children-as many as 10 million-to work, violating Mexico's own child labor law. An estimated ~8.000 small businesses in Mexico have been destroyed by competition with huge foreign multinationals and their Mexican partners. Real hourly wages in 1996 were 7% lower than in 1994 and 37% below 1980 levels. Of the 1995 working population of 33.6 million, 19% worked for less than the minimum wage, 66% lacked any benefits, and 30% worked fewer than 35 hours per week. During three years of NAFTA, the portion of Mexican citizens who are 'extremely poor' has risen from 31 to 51%, and 8 million people have fallen from the middle class into poverty.'

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. Nafta in Canada

Or do you conveniently forget that?

[stillcool]

34. What are you talking about?

[mod mom]

29. Clinton's Policies-NAFTA, Most favorable trade status w China, backing banking merger

telecom act of '96 (media consolidation) were a disaster in the making. They might have had short term positive effects, but we are now feeling the true effects of their actions:

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html



Clinton to renew Normal Trade Relations with China



June 2, 1999
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 2) -- President Bill Clinton will notify Congress Thursday that he is renewing China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status -- now known as Normal Trade Relations (NTR) -- for another year, CNN has confirmed.

MFN/NTR status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.

The formal notification, required by the Thursday deadline, is expected to trigger a major debate in the House and Senate due to allegations of Chinese espionage against the U.S. and other recent diplomatic tensions, including charges China tried to influence the 1996 presidential election with illegal campaign contributions.

One of the first speak out against Clinton decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), derided the president for making the decision near the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

-snip

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/02/china.mfn/



Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

-snip

House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.

Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.

-snip

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/


ARTICLE | posted May 17, 2007 (June 4, 2007 issue)
Hillary Inc.

ARI BERMAN


-snip
It's a rousing speech, though ultimately not very convincing. If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. "She's got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors," says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.

It's not exactly an advertisement for the working-class hero, or a picture her campaign freely displays. Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton's biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is "running to help and restore the great middle class in our country," Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for "putting people first." Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel's takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the "moderate, sensible center" whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she's rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it's not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her--even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign.

-snip

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

[joeybee12]

20. Show me a quote where Hilary said Gore lost or stop lying!

Honestly the distortions from EVERY damn BO supporter here are infuriating. she made a general comment and you ahve to lie and spin to make her look bad...the fact is the Dems are seen as out of touch and can be portrayed that way...that's why we lose elections, but it's not why Gore lost (won) and she DIDN'T say that.

[datopbanana]

25. Clinton supporters never do their own homework. thats why they drop out of school and vote for her

"Pressed on whether she truly believes Obama is an elitist, Clinton called him "a good man," but recalled the narratives of the 2000 and 2004 president election.

"You don't have to think back too far to remember that good men running for president were viewed as being elitist and out of touch with the values and lives of millions of Americans," she said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/clinton-gore-and-kerry-we_n_96452.html

[datopbanana]

27. say you're sorry

[kentuck]

28. As I recall...

Gore was behind by a considerable amount before he decided to take the "populist" aproach. That was why he won the majority of the votes in the election, in my opinion. I recall that DLCer Al From said the same thing after that election. Nobody believed him then either.

[thoughtcrime1984]

33. F the DLC and their DLC candidate

If we want a true Republican, we'll vote McClown (which we don't). If we want a true Democrat, we'll take OBAMA. IF she wins PA by more than 20 as the polls now insist, then PA must be longing for more conservatism, which is precisely why the state, and much of the country, is in the sorry state it is in. DLC= RW on the economy, LW on social issues, for window dressing.