Gore, Kerry Strategists Take Strong Exception to Clinton's 'Elitist' Remark

[KittyWampus]

Gore, Kerry Strategists Take Strong Exception to Clinton's 'Elitist' Remark

Source: The Hill

Gore, Kerry strategists take strong exception to Clinton’s ‘elitist’ remark

By J. Taylor Rushing

Three top strategists for Al Gore and John Kerry are questioning Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) assertion that recent Democratic presidential nominees were viewed as too “elitist and out of touch” for American voters. Two of the strategists even suggested that it was Bill Clinton who did more to hurt the party while he was in the White House.

snip

Those simple facts prove the inaccuracy of Clinton’s assertion, all three said, with Shrum and Fabiani also suggesting that Clinton’s remarks were hypocritical since many people believe her husband’s presidential scandals were the real reason the party lost the White House in 2000. All three strategists are neutral in the race, having yet to endorse or sign on to work for either Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“First of all, Gore won, but secondly, the greatest burden we had was the disillusion people had — not with the record of the Clinton administration, but with their personal feelings toward the president,” said Shrum. “And the unspoken assumption here seems to be that she’s the answer to this supposed problem, but neither she nor the president have lived in the real world for 25 years. They’re surrounded by aides and staff, and they’ve moved from one mansion to another.”

- snip -

But that didn’t stop their (Gore/Kerry) surrogates from weighing in. Fabiani, who served as special counsel during Bill Clinton’s presidency and is now a communications consultant in La Jolla, Calif., said the statement was “astonishing to hear coming from a member of the Clinton family.”

“By any fair analysis, Gore did win in 2000 and the only reason he didn’t win more handily was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal,” he said. “I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. The election wouldn’t have even been close. The biggest argument that George Bush made was, ‘We need to restore honor to the White House.’ There were a variety of codewords and catchphrases for it, but what he was really saying was, ‘We need to move these guys out of the Oval Office.’

“The Democratic Party has been unfortunately viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch … 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.” Neither Gore nor Kerry themselves would comment.

“Part of the problem the party has faced over the past few cycles is that our coalition has been narrowly tailored voters in certain states,” Brazile said. “Every election cycle, we were giving Republicans upwards of 25 states by focusing on the East and West coasts and some places in Middle America. That’s not being out of touch; it’s just that there was a significant but limited set of states we were competing in. That’s changed now. There is a 50-state strategy.”

Like Fabiani and Shrum, Brazile also said Clinton’s statement “doesn’t particularly help.”

“The Republicans painted a caricature of both Kerry and Gore as being elitist and out of touch, and they will make that argument until the cows come home,” Brazile said. “It doesn’t particularly help to make that claim now, but it comes up every political season, being out of touch. Are we going back to the ‘have-a-beer-with-the-guy’ kind of campaign?”

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gore-kerry-strategists-take-strong-exception-to-clintons-elitist-remark-2008-04-15.html

[JimGinPA]

1. In This Primary Season, Of Her Lowlights...

That had to be one of the lowest.


K&R

[Adelante]

3. The lowest, imo

Is playing Joe McCarthy with Obama's zero connection to Weather Underground.

[Adelante]

2. Good points

Brazile:

“Part of the problem the party has faced over the past few cycles is that our coalition has been narrowly tailored voters in certain states,” Brazile said. “Every election cycle, we were giving Republicans upwards of 25 states by focusing on the East and West coasts and some places in Middle America. That’s not being out of touch; it’s just that there was a significant but limited set of states we were competing in. That’s changed now. There is a 50-state strategy.”

Shrum:

“There is almost no statistical support for the idea that that determines people’s votes,” Shrum said. “People in the end want to know where you stand, what you believe, what kind of character you have. And I find it ironic that Obama was raised by a single mother and has paid off his student loans and now faces this. This is the elite commenting on what it means to be elite.”

[Lugnut]

4. Howard Dean

That's why there's now a 50 state strategy.

[MoJoWorkin]

6. Yep. Proud to have been for Dean--Proud to be for Obama.

Barack was smart enough to take the 50 state strategy and run with it.

[democrattotheend]

17. Proud Deaniac for Obama here too

As a Deaniac, supporting Obama seems like a no-brainer. He has run the same sort of grassroots, people-powered campaign, succeeding where Dean fell just a little short.

[Lugnut]

27. I'll always be a Deaniac.

:kick:

[Adelante]

7. Yeppers

That's our Chairman.

[blm]

16. Exactly, if the DNC had not collapsed so many state party infrastructures we'd be preparing our

goodbyes for President Gore right now.

And if Terry McAuliffe had secured the election process after 2000's rampant theft, we'd be working on President Kerry's re-election.

DNC's failures cost us BOTH elections.

TeamClinton successfully diverted all blame onto Gore and Kerry because their loyalists controlled the DNC and the Dem spokespeople at the time.

It wasn't till we pushed Dean past their front guard and into the DNC chairmanship when our party's infrastructure started to strengthen.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. That's because the DLC controlled the DNC.

And the DLC is STILL backing Hillary. That one fact put me off to her from the beginning, and her not backing off the DLC strategy or mindset has kept me off. As a liberal I have willingly voted for moderate and conservative dems all my life, but I cannot support the DLC. Their "third way" separates them from mainstream Democratic thought, and they must not continue to undermine our party.

[smiley_glad_hands]

48. Thats why I find Schrum's comments interesting, isn't he a DLC insider?

If this is so, did he have a change of heart on progressive politics or is he hedging his bets? He is the one that many blamed for Kerry not responding more aggressively to the swiftboating.

[merh]

5. They say what many of us have been trying to tell the Hillary loyalist

“By any fair analysis, Gore did win in 2000 and the only reason he didn’t win more handily was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal,” he said. “I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. The election wouldn’t have even been close. The biggest argument that George Bush made was, ‘We need to restore honor to the White House.’ There were a variety of codewords and catchphrases for it, but what he was really saying was, ‘We need to move these guys out of the Oval Office.’

And that Monica stain will always be a part of the Clinton's legacy and will be used to harm her because she has chosen to make all things Bill's adminitration her own, his experience and time in the white house, her time, her training ground, she was his apprentice.

[karynnj]

14. So true - and there is nothing she can really do to get rid of that stain

One piece of her baggage is that they are two for the price of one. I know that people always claim that he would be elected for a third term, but I actually doubt it. As it was never a real option, people never had a reason to "live" with the idea for a period of time - and the question always seemed to have a push poll quality to it to me. Answering "NO" was to reject as unacceptable the last Democratic President - when we had Bush. (I don't think it was ever polled in 2000 - as it would have been silly. There was a big discrepancy in how he was viewed as a President and a person.)

It is also true that in addition to Monica coloring the Clinton years, WJC, for some mystifying reason, chose to bring the Monica issue up immediately before each of last 2 elections. He had a confessional type interview on how he was regaining his family's trust 3 days before Gore's convention. I'm sure this is just what Al Gore wanted the country to be thinking of in the run up to his convention. Remember that WJC is called the "best natural politician of our time" - this is a pretty nasty thing to do to the guy who stood behind him loyally throughout the impeachment even though he likely was personally disgusted.

In 2004, he put out his book and had a huge book tour in late June and July, 2004. Kerry had just lost the month of June to Reagan's funeral and all the commemorations. He needed to get his story out, especially because the Networks gave the convention only 3 hours, not 9 hours of coverage. In addition, there were none of the soft focus biographies that always are done - even for W in 2000 that make the possible ascension to the Presidency seem normal. (MSNBC had a special just on his anti-war protesting, CNN had a semi-critical biography and Frontline (PBS) had an excellent dual biography of Bush and Kerry.) So, instead of anything on Kerry, Edwards or their families - we learned that Monica happened because "he could". That answer played into the meme that the 1990s were a careless, amoral time. That the media was largely supportive of Clinton in spite of these real transgressions likely blinded many to the same media tolerating the purple heart bandaids that not a single Republican, including McCain objected to.

Restoring "honor and decency" was the theme that brought Bush, a mean drunk until he was 40 and a man who had blown upo frogs as a kid and branded students at Yale, to the White House over the very reputable Al Gore. Then in 2004, instead of covering Kerry's honesty, morality and integrity and contrasting it to the man who authorized torture, they chose to revive the Clinton and Monica story. It is true they could have done this without Bill's help - but it would have been difficult to make it the story everywhere.

HRC fans what would you think if a month before HRC's convention John Edwards put out a book on the need for a President who lives American values that included his thoughts on working as one of the Senators who defended WJC during his impeachment - weaving his (very likely) disgust with WJC for his actions with his belief that it didn't meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. I don't know much about Edwards - but I think I could safely say that he would not do this. No one would - unless Bill Clinton bizarrely chose to speak of it again.

[merh]

52. It is truly sad that they think they can divorce the campaign from

monica. As long as she clings to bill's terms in office to support the notion she has more experience and/or is better qualified, she will always be subjected to the smears that were the focal point of his administration.

[Lugnut]

25. And if voters forget that

You can bet the opponents will remind them over and over.

[merh]

53. you aren't kidding.

n/t

[Hugabear]

8. So now they're throwing Gore under the bus for NOT endorsing Hillary

Not because he endorsed Obama (he hasn't endorsed anyone), but because he hasn't come out bearing a glass slipper for the coronation.

[Jennicut]

9. Funny how Kerry and Gore had too much class to even comment on this ridiculous statement by Hillary

Obama said it best, "I think Gore won". Of course, Hillary never really cared if Gore or Kerry won as it took away from her thunder. Yeah, Obama's a real elitist. Grew up poor, raised by a single mother. Michele and Barack were still paying off student loans a few years ago. Not to mention that unlike the elitism of Bush and Cheney, Gore and Kerry actually went to Vietnam. Whatever Hillary. Repeating Rove's tactics sickens me. She is no longer a Democrat in my eyes.

[GoldieAZ49]

10. Clinton won, Gore and Kerry did not

So Clinton is the problem, got it. Had their been no Clinton presidency the last Democrat in office would have been Carter.

Whining that they lost because of Bill is why they are losers, America wants someone that takes responsibility not blames someone else when something goes wrong.


Current candidates should take heed.

[blm]

12. Had there been NO John Kerry, Clinton would NOT have won 1992. Bush NEEDED to lose

because he expected to be impeached after the Dec 1992 release of the BCCI report.

So Jackson Stephens' boy in Arkansas was bankrolled for a primary run. Clinton took office and proceeded to deep-six all the many SERIOUS outstanding matters yet to be resolved in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning operations.


BTW - who was the Democratic lawmaker who UNCOVERED and investigated and exposed IranContra, CIA drugrunning, and BCCI's illegal operations? That was Sen. John Kerry.

[GoldieAZ49]

20. and he still lost the election in 2004

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. No. He won. It was stolen out from under him.

I was pissed at him for not fighting harder to prove it, but he's smart enough to know where the cheating happened, and to know that the evidence would never come out in court - THAT is why he quit so abruptly. When the other guy is holding a flush to your three kings, and you KNOW that he dealt off the bottom but can't prove it, the only thing to do is walk away from the game.

[GoldieAZ49]

44. BS he LOST accept it

do you know how many people are involved in an election? that they would all 'go along' is absurd.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Three and a half million switched votes.

You know how few people it takes to fuck with the vote compilers? How easy it is to drop a few hundred thousand people from the voting lists?

I won't tell you to do the research because you obviously won't. The research has been done. The last two presidential elections, and the last two mid-term elections, were stolen. Yep. Even our victory in 06 was a shadow of what it actually was - there was MORE confirmed election fraud in 06 than in ANY previous election. We should have had @ 20 more congressmen and 2 more senators, but for that fraud.

[blm]

33. Care to address the point I made about Bill's 'victory' in 92?

.

[GoldieAZ49]

42. The numers are accurate, he wouldn't have won without Perot

and Obama will not get close to his numbers

[blm]

45. Bill won because GHWBush needed to lose as he expected impeachment

when the BCCI report was released.

John KERRY'S 5 and 1/2 year investigation of BCCI report.

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. I agree whole-heartedly with blm

Even though my family spent years fighting the Bureau of Land Management. ;-)

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. So you think Bill Clinton's a loser TOO and Kerry and Gore are just WORSE.

Sen. McCain is that you? ;-)

[karynnj]

54. Losing does not make you wrong

Clinton won because it was a much easier year to win in - GWHB was below 40 % approval for most of the year and was at 33 % at the time of the election. This does mean that Clinton was a better person, he doesn't come close or even that he ran a better campaign. That campaign did NOT look like the movie - there were many times when problems from his past surfaced and were met by a series of lies until he finally told part of the truth. One of the biggest myths he last 2 or 3 years has been that the Clintons can run a great campaign. Look at HRC's.

[book_worm]

13. but the party as a whole collapsed under Clinton and he never got over 50% of the vote

in his races. In '92 he got 43% and in '96 49%. He always needed a third party candidate who hurt the GOP to win. Then when he is in the WH in '94 the Dems lose congress, lead among governors and state legislative offices. Except for the Clinton victories in '92 and '96 the Clinton years were pretty dismal for Democrats as a whole.

[GoldieAZ49]

22. Dems didn't think those years were 'dismal' during those 8 years

Obama is not going to get anywhere near Clintons 43 or 49%

25% of Dems will not vote for him

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Some of us did. nt

[book_worm]

36. statistically the democratic party suffered during the Clinton years

that is indisputable. I'm not saying anything about what Democrats personally feel about Bill Clinton, that's your interpetation.

[smiley_glad_hands]

50. Clinton did do some good during his time.

But not everything that he did or that has come to fruition because of it has been good. Some of the consequences of his actions really hurt. And that is all that should be said of it. Clinton in the long run can only hurt himself by his wife continuing. She cannot win.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. spoken like a true republican. nt

[Shakespeare]

40. Gore won in 2000 (with no thanks to Clinton), and Clinton wouldn't have won in '92....

...had it not been for Ross Perot's third-party run. One was stolen, the other got VERY lucky. Try again.

[Hugabear]

46. That is a fucking lie - Gore WON in 2000

Gore won the popular vote. And if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened, Gore would have won the Florida recount, making him the president.

Go peddle those right-wing talking points somewhere else. You're not going to get very far with that "Gore lost, get over it" bullshit here.

[BeyondGeography]

11. That was The End for her

:hi:

[Independent-Voter]

15. Obama's doing fine on his own without Gore or Kerry's taint

Gore lost a close one (or didn't - still shouldn't have been close) to a fucking chimp. Kerry, got his ass handed to him by same retarded chimp. Obama does NOT need to be associated with either of those two losers till after he wins the election.

[blm]

19. That's stupid. Gore and Kerry both won. The RNC stole that election for Bush and DNC let them do it.

Had the election process been secured at all in states where the DNC had collapsed party infrastructure for years, there is no way either man would have lost those elections.

You don't GET what has happened because you cling to the media portrayals often grasped by the underinformed. You don't GET the simple fact that one of the biggest reasons Obama HAS been ABLE to do so well and so quickly is because Kerry quietly allowed HIS OWN NATIONAL NETWORK developed during 2003-4 to be tapped for Obama's campaign, putting him further ahead of Hillary in being able to organize in multiple states.

Kerry may have PUBLICLY endorsed Obama in January, but he has been working quietly with him for long before that. So has Tom Daschle.

Your words are unnecessary, unkind and most importantly, your words are INACCURATE.

[Texas Hill Country]

24. It should have never been close enough to be stolen. Perception of elitism is why the lost. Period

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. DLC campaigning and election fraud is why they lost. Period.

[blm]

32. BULL. RFK Jr calculated 5 MILLION votes were stolen and suppressed by RNC tactics.

Kerry likely won by 5% of the vote EXACTLY as the exit polls determined.

The RNC was prepared to steal AS MANY votes as needed, 1 million or 10 million. It has nothing to do with being 'close' and you also CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOK the fact that the LAST DEM PRESIDENT spent a good deal of 2004 SUPPORTING Bush on his Iraq decisions and DEFENDING him PUBLICLY from the criticisms of the left and our Dem nominee.

Most of the wellknown Dems, the last Dem president and his wife, and most of his administration were publicly supporting Bush on the two biggest issues of the election, his terrorism and Iraq war decisions.

Did you take issue with the roles the Clintons and their administration personnel played in protecting and defending Bush that entire time?

Did it even BOTHER you that Clinton chose to have a book release and high profile book tour defending Bush in summer of 2004 at the exact time that the Dem voters should have been getting to know their nominee and his VP a lot better so they could more easily DEFEND that nominee more effectively when he was under attack?

No - you and most of the Dem party and its spokespeople were back to defending Clintons during his book tour for those prescious months during a general election - just as the party was conditioned to do since 1993.

[Independent-Voter]

34. I think Bill and Hillary are both pieces of shit, and didn't do Gore or Kerry any favors

OTOH, both Gore and Kerry, while nice/competent/qualified guys, ran goatfucks of a campaign. Kerry especially, as evidenced by his complete bumbling of that Swiftboats for Vets bullshit.

Kerry would be a fine AG, but god damn he was a horrible candidate.

[blm]

41. BULLSHIT - that's revisionism pushed forward by those who didn't want election fraud

to be the story - and that INCLUDED most es
The swifts had NO EFFECT by the time the debates came round.

And FURTHER it was the Dem PARTY and the left media who were in charge of fighting back the swifts as they were not part of the Bush campaign that Kerry had to address. Kerry's job was to win all three debates and campaign like crazy all over the nation with policy positions that were crafted to bring hope and solutions to the American people.

Kerry attacked the swifts in his Firefighters Speech in Aug2004 and that should have ended his role while the rest of the Dem party, its spokespeople and the left media furthered his remarks.

You never saw Bush fight any charge the left made against him, and those charges were TRUE.

The RNC and GOP lawmakers got on TV and defended Bush more enthusiastically with lies than the DNC and a few Dem lawmakers did for Kerry with the TRUTH.

The Dem lawmakers from 2001-2005 feared sticking their necks out when Bush and Rove were so powerful. Clintons were both out there publicly supporting Bush and defending him from Kerry's criticisms on his terrorism and Iraq war decisions.

You really don't have very good recall of the 2004 campaign.

[karynnj]

55. In any earlier year, Kerry's response would have been letter perfect

Before the August SBVT attacks, the media already had:

- over 100 pages of Kerry's Naval records - with glowing fitness reports - spanning the entire 3 plus years he was in the service.
- Nixon tapes showing that they investigated him and found he was a cleancut war hero
- a historian's book, over which Kerry had no editorial control
- all the men on those boats when the medals were earned and the man he saved were all 100% behind him

The NAVY actually verified that the medals were appropriately awarded - and even in 2004, Republican Senator Warner defended him on the Silver Star - which Warner had signed back in the 1960s.

That is MORE proof than Clinton provided for ALL of the charges against him - mostly he scapegoated someone and lied several times. Here Kerry simply defended his record with the truth. The media favored WJC as much as they did Bush. In the past, doing anything other than what Kerry did would look fishy. Kerry is and has every right to be proud with his actions then - and for the most part - over a long life of service.

This would be like me and 5 of my friends claiming we went to high school with you and we know that you never should have graduated as we were in your English 10 and 11 and Algebra classes - and you failed all of them and plagiarized the work of others on various English themes - then "the media" ignored the fact that they had your perfectly acceptable transcript that had been accepted for 35 or so years - by the college that accepted you and your first employer. Imagine that everyone here, playing the role of the 2004 media, played dumb saying well Independent Voter says he graduated high school but Karynnj and all these others say he didn't, who should we believe - all the while they all know what your transcript says.

That is the ugly secret of 2004 - it was a media condoned character assassination of the worst possible kind. John Kerry has a spotless service record. There was NOT EVEN ONE negative thing anywhere in that record. He was commended for things like having extremely loyal crews, being exceptionally good dealing with people - he showed bravery, intelligence and creativity. It is a record that he has every right to be proud of. There was absolutely NO excuse for anyone with half a brain to not put together that if was not the SBVT's story vs Kerry's - it was the SBVT, who had ties to Texas Bush funders, and the NAVY.

Kerry as a 25 year old with everything to live for risked his life FOR HIS COUNTRY and this is how he was paid back for that real sacrifice. To insure a Bush win possibly out of self interest, they were willing to destroy a hero's reputation. Pretty nice pay back. i personally can't imagine what went through his mind when the media treated the purple heart bandaids as if they were novelty hats. Where were their consciences?

Now, you tell me how you would have fought the SBVT better. Remember that McCain quickly imploded when he was attacked with this.

[Independent-Voter]

58. I sure as hell wouldn't have come out with that "Reporting for Duty" bullshit at the convention

Kerry got railroaded by the pubs, but acted like a complete, unelectable moron when he finally responded to those bullshit attacks.

That's one thing I really like about Obama. He deals with the bullshit immediately and snuffs it out. Kerry got his ass handed to him in that respect.

[karynnj]

59. I seriously doubt that 5 second salute was a problem

The speech got excellent reviews when it happened. You got taken by the McAuliffe, Carville and Begala in their self interested re-write of 2004.

Who do you think has been helping Obama on his response. 1) Much of Obama's staff WERE Kerry people who went to Obama who was starting a campaign when Kerry opted not to run. and 2) Kerry has been an advisor and a fantastic surrogate.

Also, don't speak too soon. Kerry himself ran a fantastic primary run - with no real mistakes. He batted the SBVT away twice and he handled the Democratic smear attack that he had an affair with an intern with dignity and grace.

The Kerry I saw in the debates was and is brilliant. As I said how would you have responded to the SBVT.

[politicasista]

60. Wow. Bashing an hardworking Obama surrogate to promote Obama

Sounds like you didn't answer the question as to how would you have responded the Swifties better.

[Texas Hill Country]

18. HUGE surprise Brazile came out against Hillary (sarcasm) And what Hillary said was true.

[Coexist]

23. not an impressive move on her part

is anyone surprised they took exception?

[MethuenProgressive]

31. Elitists Gore and Kerry object to Obama being called elitist?

Thanks a riot.

[anonymous171]

35. Way to insult Gore there. Supporters of the 110m girl should be more kind towards fellow dems

[thewiseguy]

38. What did the "Ignored" say?

[anonymous171]

39. Called Kerry AND Gore "elitists"

[knixphan]

43. figures.

[redqueen]

37. Nope... try reading it again.

"Thanks a riot."

:wtf:

[Hugabear]

47. Oh you're a real fucking riot, aren't you?

Really, do you have to throw Al Gore under the bus simply because he hasn't endorsed Hillary?

[smiley_glad_hands]

49. Your name hides your true character. eom

[Jennicut]

61. Actually Gore and Kerry refused to even comment. Methuen needs to get the facts straight

before they make dumb comments.