WHO is the Democrat here?

[RazBerryBeret]

From Senator Clinton:
"We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004. But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life," Clinton said at Messiah College, referring to former vice president Al Gore and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). She repeated her view that Obama had been "elitist . . . and, frankly, patronizing."

Obama becomes the first major candidate to acknowledge the truth about the stolen 2000 election as he issued this rejoinder to Clinton's disowning of the real vice-president during her husband's administration: "I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier," Obama said. "By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won."

From Mark Karlin:
As is often the case, Senator Clinton just can't get her facts straight. She sold Gore and democracy down the river for a desperate Hail Mary attempt to wrench the nomination from Obama.

But Obama spoke truth to power and gave Gore and our voters the due that they deserve.

[damonm]

1. And, as always, Obama had Clinton...

[RazBerryBeret]

4. crap...

that photo is funny!

[bigwillq]

2. A major error by H. Clinton

Very bad call on her part.

[im10ashus]

3. That's by far the best contrasting example of these candidates...

I have seen all day.

K&R!

:kick:

:hi:

[maddiejoan]

5. Help me out here

I'm having trouble figuring out why Obama mentioned that.

Hillary didn't even mention Gore losing.

As it is --I find very little with her statement that you quote to disagree with.

Can you tell me where she is wrong?

[goldcanyonaz]

6. She woke up, and that's where she is wrong. At least around here.

[maddiejoan]

7. Well it was 3am!!!

and the damned phone wouldn't stop ringing!!!!!!

[guyanakoolaid]

8. She was comparing Obama's and Gore's supposed "elitism". Would you like a definition for "elitism"?

:eyes:

[maddiejoan]

9. Nope.

I know what elitism means.

apparently you have trouble with reading comprehension though.

Please tell me what in Hillary's statement was incorrect.

[guyanakoolaid]

11. The part where she called Obama an el- DUCK! SNIPER FIRE!!!

[maddiejoan]

13. Still don't see where she's wrong

:shrug:

His statements speak for themselves.

[RazBerryBeret]

14. previous poster summed it up very well,

but it is widely accepted that indeed Gore Won the Election by 538,948 votes.
You can debate that, but that is the registered final count.

Hillary implied that Gore lost (which is incorrect) because he was an elitist (which is personal opinion, but I don't think Gore is any more of an elitist that Hillary).

That being said, she did "take a swipe" (borrowing words) at THREE democratic Nominees. you can argue if that is "correct" but I think it's not becoming of a fellow nominee.

[maddiejoan]

16. It's incorrect

to say that Hillary implied Gore lost.

I see nothing in her statement that backs that up.

Nor did she take a swipe at them --she pointed out that PERCEPTION matters.

and it does.

[RazBerryBeret]

19. parse it anyway you like.

even the other side of the world disagrees with you.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23538559-2703,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/clinton-gore-and-kerry-we_n_96452.html
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/04/obama-clinton-and-small-towns.html

[maddiejoan]

21. The whole other side of the world?

Or just the side you linked to.

BTW --I'm not the one parsing. I went with strict literal read.

[RazBerryBeret]

22. that would be Australia.....

tomorrow's news story. (the link)

the headline that reads
CLINTON ATTACKS GORE TO GET OBAMA.

[maddiejoan]

24. Would that be all of Australia?

Or just a newspaper they have there?

[susankh4]

67. She did not say Gore "lost."

She said he failed to garner support in significant segments of the Dem. votership.

To be honest... this is correct. If Gore had the working class behind him, Florida's "close call" would not have been able to derail him.

We don't need another "close call." We need a blowout in November. Such that no amount of fiddling with electoral college numbers will give the presidency to McCain.

[The Traveler]

27. My two cents

I think her diagnosis of the Kerry loss might be more on target than her diagnosis of Gore's loss, though even in 2004 the integrity of the election results is questionable, particularly in Ohio. No need to rehash Florida 2000 ...

Anyway, I think her statement is fundamentally flawed, in that it ignores more significant factors while ignoring that which was truly consequential.

I think more critical than a perception of elitism on the part of the American voter was the absence of a clear way of going forward. In 2004, Bush proposed a clear path forward. Of course, many Americans perceived that as a clear path towards disaster, which is why it was as close as it was. But many other Americans looked at the Kerry campaign and felt uncertain as to where a Kerry Presidency would go. They knew what he opposed ... they were far less certain of what he proposed.

This is my anecdotal impression, at least, based on many long conversations with my fellow NASCAR loving Southern brethern ... a somewhat hesitant decision to go with the guy who sounded like he knew what direction the country should take. (I should add, I hear much in the way of buyer's remorse around these parts nowadays ...)

Obama provides a certain clarity ... and this clarity is, to me, quite unusual in this regard. Obama's policy positions are not particularly striking (though better fleshed out than they were a while back). The details of his way forward are a bit vague, even now, to me. But what he successfully conveys is the idea of how we can work politics to hammer out policies ... Obama's focus seems to be on the formation of a sustained movement that would be invaluable to any attempt to reformation of government intended to better represent the interests of the common man. He has well defined the characteristics of such a movement and the values to which it must aspire, the broad objectives which it must achieve.

People get this ... and people who want that will tend to lean towards him. People who believe the current arrangement is basically sound and requires only a tune up lean toward Clinton or McCain. Again, this is based on ancedotal discussion with my Southern peers.

Hillary is nothing if not a policy wonk. She may shift positions quickly in response to poltical responses but that shift is always well thought and speaks to her ambitions to better the lives of common Americans. But she is trying to play within the lines drawn by the conservative operating theory, and I just don't think that is going to work this time. Also, she has been playing the game kinda dirty lately and I think doing herself and the party a great disservice ... but I think her intentions are fundamentally good. And politics is often a dirty game ... so I can't get my blood pressure over elevated about that.

I just think she misses the big point ... and I think her diagnosis once again illustrates how.

[maddiejoan]

35. a well thought out post

and thank you for it.

I don't have to agree with it 100% to recognize it's validity, and I'm glad you chose to take me seriously as opposed to just chime in with a hit on me.

:hi:

hat's off to ya!

[The Traveler]

47. Observation: You are brash, but thoughtful

Two characteristics I value in friends and prize in opponents. :hi:

[maddiejoan]

49. I'm from NYC

it's pretty much illegal to not be brash but thoughtful ;)

But I appreciate the compliment and am warmed by your obvious charm and keen perception ;)

[Two Americas]

52. great discussion

Thanks The Traveler and maddiejoan. Great discussion.

And cornermouse, too. :hug:

[The Traveler]

61. There are definitely some upsides to NYC

And Northern ladies have their own courage and charm that like many Southern men I find incredibly alluring. But I'm just a red neck who literally learned to shoot before I learned to read. Not sure how keen the perception is on my end, darlin' ... but I do know this. We're gonna feel pretty silly if we, as a party, snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory, and the country will be ill served by a McCain presidency.

However this comes out ... we have to win this election. For the sake of our people ... we damn well better not blow this.

[maddiejoan]

65. I have complete faith

that the rest of the Democratic party is in no way like DU.

We'll win --because eventually (believe it or not) we'll all actually support whoever gets our nomination.

We'd better!

a President McCain would be a very bad thing to have.

[cornermouse]

37. Interesting theory about why some people voted for Bush

and why some didn't vote for Kerry. As far as a sustained movement is concerned, I think for it to really be successful it has to start at the grassroots level. Local and state followed by, not simultaneous with, the national level.

[The Traveler]

51. It captures only part of the picture, of course

The likely role played by election fraud makes certain aspect of these discussions tentative when discussing the outcome of close elections.

And I agree with your comments regarding a sustained movement. Obama is quite correct to attempt to coalesce one ... but my concern has always been that such a movement be formed around ideals and ideas, and not leaders per se. Movements formed around leaders tend to either fall apart or devolve into cults of personality.

Let me try this one out on you. A task progressives have not quite pulled off is to articulate a coherent "operating theory" ... such as the one conservatives developed around the work of Milton Friedman and other conservative thinkers. (We had an old one but it was overtaken by the events produced by its own success.) The conservative movement both nurtured this operating theory, and was formed by it. (And it has been more rapidly and potentially catastrophically overtaken by the events produced by its own success.)

The formation of a grass roots movement demands articulation of an operating theory by which specific policies may be derived and explained to the people, so as to gain their concurrence or dissent. True progressives would then factor dissent and concurrence into iterative refinements of the policies derived.

We aren't quite there yet ... so we still have to rely on charisma. A frail reed at best ... but perhaps the best staff available at the moment.

[Two Americas]

56. very good

Excellent post. You are making several vital points in a very persuasive and understandable way.

"...to articulate a coherent 'operating theory' ... such as the one conservatives developed around the work of Milton Friedman..."

The right wingers are absolutely clear about and consistent in their goals and operating methods. They know exactly where the battle lines are drawn - and it is not on culture war issues - and they know what the fight is about. We lack any such clarity or determination. We once had such an "operating theory" as so well presented by so many leaders, from Lincoln to FDR to RFK and Dr. King.

"...my concern has always been that such a movement be formed around ideals and ideas, and not leaders per se."

Absolutely correct. In a representative democracy, the politicians represent us. Yet we turn that around and represent them, acting as unpaid public relations agents for them and promoting the cult of personality by praising them as celebrities. We place too high a burden on the politicians, asking them to be perfect products on the shelf for us to make our personal choices from. We do not give them anything to represent, we ask them to be something that we can identify with, that we can represent. This is crippling the Democratic party.

Great posts,The Traveler. Thanks!

[The Traveler]

60. And you have articulated the crux of our problem

"We place too high a burden on the politicians, asking them to be perfect products on the shelf for us to make our personal choices from. We do not give them anything to represent, we ask them to be something that we can identify with, that we can represent. "

Bam. That is hitting the nail square on the head with a mighty sledge hammer. And I think that is why for so long here on DU we spend so much time eviscerating two people who really deserve kinder treatment than that.

[cornermouse]

63. I think for some Bush has what they would define as charisma.

It never worked on me and the last 8 years have confirmed what I thought of him when he was trying to win his first primary. That's probably part of the reason I don't trust Obama. His lack of experience, comparatively speaking, hasn't helped. He hasn't been a governor (although that's not necessarily a sign of ability as Bush once again proves), or a mayor in a major city, and he hasn't been in the Senate a full term. I probably would have been more than happy to support him in 2012 or 2016. Hopefully he would have left a more substantial voting trail to base my vote on. I think 2008 is too much too soon.

[susankh4]

68. Wish I could K&R your post!

Good job!

[im10ashus]

10. What about her statement didn't you understand?

"We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004. But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life," Clinton said at Messiah College, referring to former vice president Al Gore and Sen. John F. Kerry."

Obama was rightly pointing out that Gore actually WON that election in 2000. She not only was slapping Obama in the face with her "elitist" comment. She was taking a swipe at our last 2 nominees, one who happens to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, in the face. She is no more a Democrat than Karl Rove or Joe Lieberman.

This is pretty rich (no pun intended) coming from someone with 2 mansions on the East Coast who happens to have made a combined $109 million in the last 8 years with her husband. Pretty rich indeed.

[maddiejoan]

12. She never said he lost

that's for starters.

Do you deny that large segments of the population found Gore to be an out of touch elitist?

Because they most certainly did --Kerry too.

That's why both elections were such squeakers that they coulld be stolen.

[im10ashus]

15. Obama never said she said so either.

He merely pointed out that Gore won.

"Large segments of the population"? I don't think so. I think perhaps a few of the centrists and republican's would find him an "elitist". Which, by the way, that word needs to be put to rest. Especially when Clinton is part of the topic of conversation. Gore WON the popular vote in 2000 and the election was handed to dumbass.

[maddiejoan]

17. That doesn't counter

the fact that a significant portion of the populace found him to be an out of touch elitist.

Or do you just not recall the 2000 election at all?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maddiejoan]

23. I don't think the general populace

finds Hillary to be as elitist as Obama.

A quick look at her demographics in the polls versus his would bear that out.

At any rate --I don't see the need for your personal attacks.

[im10ashus]

29. To which "poll" are you referring?

Or are you, just like your candidate, pulling information out of thin air and hoping it flies? White male votes in Ohio? Please. That only shows what most of us who grew up in the Midwest already knew. There is blatant racism in middle America. He is getting the white vote, and the black vote, and the latin vote and the asian vote. He will get the nomination and will win in November. Mark my words.

[maddiejoan]

30. what poll are YOU pulling from?

and again --the personal attacking isn't promoting a good dialogue.

I could do a search and easily find what has been common knowledge for the bulk of this primary. Hillary leads Obama in "working class" support.

He will probably get the nomination --whether he wins or not depends a lot on courting the Democrats currently NOT in his corner.
(and I'd say the same for Hillary)

[im10ashus]

40. He has raised more money from working class than Hillary.

75% of the money Clinton has raised came from donations of $2300 or more. Obama, comparatively raised 40% of money that way. 40% of his fundraising has come from donations of less than $200 compared to only 23% of Clinton's fundraising.

[maddiejoan]

41. He has raised that money from individuals yes

you have absolutely no data on whether they were "working class", "middle class" or "upper middle class" for that matter.

My bet is that "working class" people haven't donated much of anything at this point.

Most of us are trying to buy groceries and stuff.

[im10ashus]

44. She is wholly-owned by the corporate interests...

to whom she has sold her soul. She and her husband. They are soulless and less than the sum of their parts. ANd now, I must bid you adieu.

Good night, and good luck.

[maddiejoan]

46. Obama raised almost as much corporate money as Clinton

in half the time.

To say that Obama is not funded by corporate dollars is a complete myth.

[susankh4]

71. That's because they understand her background better.

They now the kinds of neighborhoods she grew up in... neighborhoods like their own. The schools she attended resemble the ones they send their own kids to. The progression from PA to IL is every family's dream in a way. From a poorer neighborhood to a better one.

Hillary Rodham's father's story is much like any working class to middle class family's.

In fact, Hillary's mother's story is so much like my own grandma's... that I mix them up at times!

[susankh4]

69. Not a swipe...

an observation.

and one our party desperately needs to heed if we are to win in November.

[SunsetDreams]

18. Who lost in 2000 and 2004?

That would be Al Gore and John Kerry.

[Two Americas]

53. the people lost

The people lost, and they lost because neither Kerry nor Gore chose to fight back against the theft of the elections. Both thought that something bad would happen if they did, and they wanted to avoid that. But what could be worse for the people of the country then what has happened over the last 7 years? What dire consequences did we avoid when they rolled over that were worse than the consequences of them rolling over?

[baldguy]

26. The entire statement is wrong.

"...the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life,"

In fact the electorate very definitely concluded the exact opposite. Remember - Gore WON in 2000, and Kerry very probably won in 2004. (We would have been able to learn the truth if the GOP Sec of State in OH hadn't destroyed all the records.)

Also she implies that the Dem standard bearers - and therefor the leadership - were out of touch. Needless to say, this just makes us look bad. One of the reasons the GOP was able to steamroll there agenda over the country was that they stuck together & supported each other. Why should Joe SixPack support the Dem candidate if prominent Dems - like a former Pres & his wife - don't?

Hillary should maybe stop trying to tear down the Democratic party & try to support it instead.

[maddiejoan]

28. That's not what she said is it?

She said:

But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life,

Whis is quite true.

She doesn't say they were out of touch -she says they were regarded as so even though they were men of good faith.

She's right on point, and she's trying to BUILD the Democratic Party despite the constant tearing down of her message.

[im10ashus]

32. That's what you'd like everyone to believe?

That she's building up the Party?

:rofl:

[maddiejoan]

33. Yeah

that's why I support her candidacy.

:shrug:

[im10ashus]

34. There are none so blind... n/t

[maddiejoan]

36. I'm not blind

and I really wish you could move the conversation away from attacking me personally.

I'm trying to have a conversation with you --and all you can do is attack.

:shrug:

[im10ashus]

38. That is not attacking you personally.

That is pointing out that Clintonites are so enamored by them that they can't see that they are really republican-lite and will say and do anything to get elected again. Regardless of what it does to the party. Calling you names would be attacking you personally. You may be blind, but I love ya' just the same.

[maddiejoan]

39. again

I'm not blind at all --however--I do find it amusing that you are calling a candidate with a minute difference in platform to your candidate's policies "republican-lite.

Are you a Lillipution or a Brobdibnagian?

[im10ashus]

42. LOL!

Their differences are monumental. Which again shows me how blind you are to the facts. Trying to figure out where she stands on any issues is like a Rorschach test.

This is TOO easy. Good night, and good luck.

Oh, and Gulliver's Travels? Really? You want to go there?

[maddiejoan]

43. The differences are monumental?

wow.

uhm.

okay.

[susankh4]

73. Well, duh....

"Also she implies that the Dem standard bearers - and therefor the leadership - were out of touch."

They were out of touch. That is why GWB enjoyed two terms.

2000 was a close call, I'll grant that. But by 2004... they definitely did not have their fingers on the pulse of the nation.

And, I dare say... they are about to do it again. Because a very vocal minority in the Democratic Party thinks the only thing Americans care about is Iraq. And who voted for it and spoke out against it.... In reality this is but one of MANY issues folks care about.

[TexasObserver]

25. Hillary is for Hillary. She doesn't give a damn about the Democratic Party.

I still can't believe any Democrat is voting for her.

[Two Americas]

54. oh come on

That is true of 90% of the Democratic party politicians. We can pretend that Clinton is some sort of exceptionally bad example - the villain in our little melodrama - and that Obama represents everything good and righteous - the hero in our little melodrama - but all that serves to do is to distract us from a problem in the party that is much bigger than either of the two candidates. Attacking that problem is the most important thing for the future of the party. Making Clinton a scapegoat and Obama a savior makes that less likely, because it trivializes and minimizes the problem. So who is it who doesn't give a damn about the Democratic party?

Where were all of these anti-corporatism, anti-DLC, and anti-centrist people back before the Obama candidacy? Those used to be pretty lonely positions to take. Are we really to believe that merely calling Clinton a corporate DLC centrist means that we are taking a stand on anything? And how come we leftists are no more welcome or listened to now after the great transforamtion and conversion that so many seem to have undergone than we were before? It does not add up.

[TexasObserver]

55. You come on!

I'm not new to the party. Perhaps you are.

Hillary lacks any sense of loyalty to the party. She's all about Hillary and nothing else.

[Two Americas]

57. ok lol

We can both "come on" then.

Forty years working for the party here.

I don't really care about "loyalty to the party" - whatever that means. People usually pull out the loyalty tests in an attempt to coerce people to their point of view, in my experience, and shut down opinions they are not comfortable with.

Loyalty first to the people, and secondly to the traditional principles and ideals of the party are what I am looking for. Those have been pretty scarce - can't imagine that being much worse than it is now.

[TexasObserver]

59. loyalty to the party means loyalty to the ideals, and the sense of unity of purpose

Many Democratic politicians do have it. Lloyd Doggett, Tom Harkin, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, the late Ann Richards, to name a few.

Hillary is a stark contrast to them. She's in it for herself, and no one else.

[Two Americas]

62. I disagree

Loyalty to the party is not the same as loyalty to the traditional principles and ideals of the party. If it were, the party would not keep sliding to the right. Unfortunately, many Democrats are trading away the principles and ideals of the party for the sake of the short term success in their own careers - and they make no bones about that and many are cheering them on. So not only is loyalty to the party not the same as loyalty to the principles and ideals, they are actually as often as not in opposition to each other - many people here will argue that they must be, necessarily are, that it is being realistic and practical to see them as oppositional to one another.

It is a comforting illusion to think that because a politician is one of "ours" and has a D after their name, that therefore they can be credited with every good thing any Democrat ever did. But it is a dangerous self-deception. Were that not true, there would not be such a discrepancy between the expectations people had for the 2006 Congress, and the actual performance. People think that if we support them in spite of their run to the right centrist campaigns, that once in office they will magically show their true colors and become strong Democrats. The opposite is true - when we reward them for their centrist positions with success, we have lost all leverage and they will never have an incentive to change. This problem is deeply entrenched in the party, and scape goating Clinton with it is a form of denial and a way to avoid the truth about this.

Our support of anyone with a D after their name comes at little or no cost for them. We are the easiest constituency to please, because we don't demand anything. We pledge our loyalty first, and then wonder why they don't listen to us. The don't listen to us because we are already in the bag - we told them we will support them no matter what. Now, rather than having the courage to challenge all of them across the board - including "heroes" such as Kerry and Gore, who rolled over and betrayed the people who voted for them for the sake of their own careers or comfort - we are making one politician a saint and another one the devil, and pretending that this is somehow addressing the problem.

[susankh4]

74. Another Obama supporter

shooting their own candidate in the foot. By alienating half the Democratic electorate.

I don't know how Mr. Obama puts up with ya'll.

[amandabeech]

31. In my view BOTH ARE DEMOCRATS!!!!

The fact that they disagree and are going at that nomination like there's no tomorrow isn't a big deal to me.

They're both DEMOCRATS, as were all the candidates that started this thing in Iowa.

I'm not a fan of either one of them, but THEY'RE BOTH DEMOCRATS!!!

For heaven's sakes people, calm down and get some perspective here.

Go get your favorite libation, be it Napa chardonnay or Bud, sit down, watch a ball game or the hockey playoffs, or a tear-jerker on Lifetime, or MTV or whatever, and FORGET ABOUT POLITICS FOR AN HOUR.

You'll feel better. Then say to yourself: THEY'RE BOTH DEMOCRATS.

Blind Jesus on a Popsicle Stick. Get a grip everybody.

[maddiejoan]

45. The winner!!!!

One kewpie doll for you!

[amandabeech]

66. May I substitute a "hick from the sticks" Barbie? n/t

[Two Americas]

58. now there's a novel idea!

Thanks for that. The loyalty tests are all about coercing and bullying people. None of the Democratic politicians we have today bear much resemblance to the leaders from the past, who stood for the traditional principles and ideals of the party and were unambiguously on the side of the working people and opposed to the predations of entrenched and unregulated capital.

Since people do not have the clarity nor the courage to seriously challenge the Democratic party politicians and demand that they represent the working people and fight back against the wealthy and powerful and their political agents, we have this substitute phony and safe battle with each other - a melodrama of heroes and villains that has little connection to reality, and requires no risks or sacrifice. It doesn't require much critical thought, either.

[amandabeech]

64. Thank! You made my day! n/t

[susankh4]

75. Exactly!

And we are all going to have to be on board in November.

So... for pity's sake... don't shoot your own candidate in the foot by ridiculing the "other side" for supporting the other candidate. Save that for your GOP friends in the fall!

[grantcart]

48. If being a Democrat means that I would have to support HRC if she got the nomination then

I would have to leave the party - you tell me. I wonder if the liberal party in New York will run somebody for Senate?

[maddiejoan]

50. Maybe you should work on getting rid of Feinstein

before you start meddling in NY politics.

just a suggestion.

[Orsino]

70. "By the way..."?

"Oh, by the way, we had a political coup seven years ago, but I haven't felt the need to do anything about it since."

C'mon, Barack. Assign a little urgency to the matter.

[Marrah_G]

72. They both fucking are- Stop this shit