The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...59-2703,00.html


Clinton attacks Gore to get Obama
Robert Lusetich, Los Angeles correspondent
April 15, 2008

HILLARY Clinton has created fractures within her own party after controversially slighting Al Gore and John Kerry while seeking to portray Barack Obama as out-of-touch with the American people.

"The Democratic Party, to be very blunt about it, has been viewed as a party that didn't understand and respect the values and the way of life of so many of our fellow Americans," Senator Clinton said during a forum on faith yesterday.

"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."

The unprovoked attacks on Mr Gore and Senator Kerry came as a British newspaper reported that Mr Gore and former president Jimmy Carter would either privately or publicly appeal to Senator Clinton to pull out of the Democratic primaries and clear the way for Senator Obama to be anointed as the party's candidate for the November presidential election.

Senator Kerry has endorsed Senator Obama, who leads the race.

Mr Carter yesterday said he would not yet endorse a candidate but made it clear his entire family was pressing him to support Senator Obama.

Senator Clinton, fighting a rearguard action for her political life, yesterday continued to pound the message that her rival was an elitist whose comments about the bitterness of small-town folk in middle America was proof he could not defeat John McCain in a general election.

"He's a good man and a talented and gifted man, but I think his comments were elitist and divisive," she said earlier in the day.

Senator Obama had told supporters at a private fundraiser in San Francisco that he hadn't resonated with poor whites in Pennsylvania because they were "bitter" that the economic boom times had passed them by.

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," he said.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He defended the remarks but added he did not intend to insult anyone but simply spoke the truth.

Senator Clinton has sought to portray that view as one held in high-brow liberal circles; that the great unwashed cling to guns and God because, in essence, they are not sophisticated enough to see beyond such staples.

She is effectively telling her party that only she can carry on the legacy of her husband, Bill Clinton, the last Democrat to appeal to that demographic, which deserted the party for George W.Bush in 2000 and 2004.

"There are problems," Senator Clinton said. "But you don't have to psychoanalyse or patronise people to conclude that we have problems.

"And you know what? We are going to have to deal with those problems."

Senator Obama yesterday fired back, wondering when his rival became such a gun-lover and reiterating that he fully understands the values and problems of working class Americans.

"Now I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose I chose badly, because as my wife reminds me, I'm not perfect," Senator Obama said.

"They were subject to misinterpretation, they were subject to be twisted, and I regret that. (But) what really burns me up is when people suggest that me saying that folks are mad, they are angry, they are bitter after 25, 30 years of seeing jobs shipped out, pensions not fulfilled, healthcare lost - the notion people are surprised, and are suggesting that I'm out of touch because I spoke honestly about people's frustrations, that tells me there's some politics going on."

He attacked Senator Clinton for taking his remarks out of context for her own political ends.

"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," hesaid.

"Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. She knows better. Shame on her."

Meanwhile, Senator Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who is on sabbatical before retiring, created more controversy over the weekend when he reportedly said America's founding fathers were responsible for the mistreatment of blacks because they "planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic".

It was really a bizarre move politically for Hillary to attack Gore just now. Sort of like the sniper fire incident: the sequel. I mean: WHY would you do that?!

Neither one of the two candidates we are sporting in the primary season has the sense or judgement that God gave a flea.

If Hillary was hoping for a Gore endorsement, she can kiss it goodbye now, imho, although I don't think Gore will endorse either candidate. He DEFINITELY should stay out of it and above the fray. That said, if Hillary keeps attacking him, it just might move him to endorse Obama, if he had any leanings that way in the first place.

Why she said that, I'll never know. But if I were Al Gore, I wouldn't be too happy with her. Oh, and another thing: didn't she realize that she also managed singlehandedly with that statement to alienate a huge segment of the voting Democratic population that she needs, namely: Gore supporters?!!! I mean, hello, Gore won the popular vote in 2000 in the GENERAL election, so doesn't she realize how popular he is among his own Democratic party?! Especially since his popularity has exponentially grown since 2000?

Dumb, dumb, DUMB remark, Hill.

Very true and excellent questions? I quess I was raised wrong but I was taught as a child that Democrats supported Democrats, not attack them...that's a Repug move as in Bush's out and out lies about McCain in 2000. (But their buddy-buddy now...how sickening.)

I think most people here are pretty fair-minded so I'm re-posting a transcript of what Hillary Clinton said on Sunday night:

I really don't see where she is attacked Gore or Kerry. She calls them 'good men and men of faith'. It sounds like she is making a reality vs. perception arguement and it not saying that the perception was justified.

While it is true that Hillary said we had "two very good men and men of faith," she adds to this by saying "large segments of the electorate concluded that they really did not understand or relate to or frankly respect their way of life."

Hillary doesn't say whether she agrees with this assessment or not. She just kinds of puts it out there for the people to interpret or decide for themselves. Why couldn't she have made the statement that she doesn't agree with that assessment?? She goes on to say this is an issue for the voters.

Why even bring Al into it when he is not running?? Evidently, a lot of people interpreted it as her implying him to be elitist, including some of his past campaign people.

The way she "puts things out there" is a tactic (EM ducks and covers head to avoid being clobbered by certain members of this board :D ). It's like when they asked her if Obama was a Muslim. She didn't say "no," which she knows is the correct answer. She said, "As far as I know, he's not," or something like that. Her performance in the debate the other night was classic. Where Obama deliberately avoided opportunities to rag her about things like her Bosnia story, Hillary took every opportunity to raise questions about Obama, his affiliations, etc. He finally stood up to her by pointing out the thing about how her husband had pardoned two Weather Underground people when he was president. I'm sorry, but there's a definite difference in the way these two campaign, and Obama seems to be more in the camp that Gore is--not resorting to low blows and not taking every opportunity to bring things up that he knows are irrelevant but could be damaging in voters' minds.

EM, you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the differences I see in their campaigns. While I commented yesterday that Hillary did perform better in the debate, she certainly did take every opportunity to raise questions about Obama. He could have done the same thing but he made every effort to avoid such tactics and I have to respect him for that.

EM ducks and covers head to avoid being clobbered by certain members of this board

I missed this inapporate statement but I've never know you to duck and cover.

As to the rest...
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Hey, I understand what she means by ducking. :lol: I feel I have to do that sometimes as well. Sometimes it can be like being under sniper fire around here. :laugh:

Actually what she said was "But large segments of the electorate concluded that they really did not understand or relate to or frankly respect their way of life."

It is unfair to leave out the "but" which in this context means 'except' or 'despite'. That sounds like she is making a perception vs. reality arguement.

And the whole thing was in the context of Democrats historically being perceived as being elitists who don't respect middle american values.

This is a perfect example of starting out with the conclusion, "Hillary is evil" and then spinning everything she says or does, assigning all sorts of sinister motive, to fit that preconceived bias. Instead of looking at what she is saying at face value.

That's not what happened. The first time he asked her she said "Of course not". He kept pressing the issue and then she said their is 'no reason to doubt that, as far as I know. Then she proceeds to call the accusation a smear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFREDHB-nQ

Now she didn't just come out and make the statement. She was asked the question twice. If anyone was trying to put it out there it was Steve Kroft.

This is another example of starting with the conclusion then twisting the statements out of context to fit that conclusion. Or what some have dubbed "Clinton Rules", one standard for the Clintons and another for anyone else.

Joe Conason has written a great piece about how the media is starting to apply "Clinton Rules" to Obama. I'll post it in it's own tread but everyone here should read it.

Hillary is scum.

She knows what she is doing

Why does James have to defend her 24/7/365

Earth to James (not earthmother, I mean the planet Al is trying to save)-
HILLARY IS NOT ON AL GORE'S SIDE
HILLARY IS ON HER OWN SIDE

Why is hillary doing this?
Maybe it actually is true
Maybe she is insane and so is her no-good husband.
Any doctors in the house?

I'll defend anyone who is being unfairly attacked.

When the MSM applied "Clinton Rules" to Gore in 2000 while giving W a free pass, Bradley and Nader supporters sat by and some even perpetuated the myths about Gore.

Republicans don't do that. When one of their own is attacked the all rally to his or her defense. Just look at what happened in March when the NYT ran that story about McCain. Rush and others came to his defense.

That's why Republicans win elections and Democrats lose them.

No James. I am not being unfair and did not draw a conclusion beforehand. It is silly to say just because I left out the word "but" that I'm being unfair. I didn't do that intentionally or with some ulterior motive. You are just grasping at straws here.

I pointed out that Hillary did not comment on whether she agreed with this segment of the electorate or not. And she could have easily said whether she did or not. By not doing so, she leaves us to question what her opinion on the matter and like EM mentioned, this is very well a tactic that politicians use. You, yourself, said it sounds like she is using a perception vs reality argument. By reading the transcript, that's the conclusion you came to. But the statement was ambiguous and could be interpreted differently and indeed it was by many other people. Again, that is a tactic that politicians use.

And if the whole thing was supposed to be about Democrats in general, why did she even have to single out Gore and Kerry. There was no need to.

James, I am not a diehard Obama fan. Sure, I like him and I think he would be a good President. But my first choice has always been Gore. It was only after it was clear that Gore wasn't going to run, that I had to start looking at the other candidates. And as you've mentioned, both Clinton and Obama have similar policies so by what other measure are we supposed to determine who to vote for?

It's kinda like a school honor society. To be considered, you must possess such things as leadership, service, character, integrity and stuff like that. I try to consider all the qualities of both candidates. Just because I said the other day that Clinton seemed dishonest to me, doesn't mean she doesn't possess presidential qualities, but some of those qualities are what I look at in a candidate.

And btw, you commented that there are good reasons for disliking a candidate but that you had not heard any on this board - nothing about their policies, etc. Well, did you notice on the debate the other night, that a lot of the questions were centered around all these recent gaffes, rather than focusing much on these all important issues??

You know, I don't think you're being fair. There are board members here that have been pretty vocal on their disapproval of one candidate or the other. You don't seem to have gripes with the ones that criticize Obama - and I don't want you to go attacking them either, but I'm just pointing out that you are biased.

Btw, I accept your apology from the other day. :D

"This is another example of starting with the conclusion then twisting the statements out of context to fit that conclusion. Or what some have dubbed "Clinton Rules", one standard for the Clintons and another for anyone else. "

James, I have a question. How can a person start with a conclusion before they even hear the statements. You continue to grasp at straws when you don't like someone else's perception of the statements. You drew a conclusion from the statement that Hillary made on Gore and Kerry. And other people draw conclusions. What makes you so sure yours is the right one? I'm not saying mine is either - that's why I make my statements as opinions - not facts.

I'll take you're word that you didn't leave it out on purpose. However, the BUT is a key part of that statement. She is saying despite being "good men" that they were perceived in a certain way.

Except that she used the word "but". She calls them good men and men of faith. By using the word 'but' she is drawing the distinction between her opinion and the perception of others. It is not ambiguous. In other words what she is saying it that I think this BUT other people thought different. Or is is like someone saying "I think James is a good guy but others think he's an ass". Does that imply that the speaker agrees or disagrees with the assesment others have made.

She was making a comparison. Maybe she made it poorly but to assign all sorts of sinster motives to a fairly innocuous statement is just unfair.

How about who is the best candidate to beat John McCain in the fall. I've posted who I think is and I stand by that assessment. However, despite that I'm not going to sit back and let someone get unfairly attacked just because I support their opponent.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I'm sorry more and more it seems not that you've come to that conclusion you are filtering everything through that paradigm.

I didn't see it but read about it and thought it was a disgrace. Please read the article I posted elsewhere by Joe Conason about it.

If you look though the boards you will see I have defended Obama when I felt he was being unfairly attacked. It's just that the level of vitrol and sheer number of supporters seem to weighted to one side.

Thanks :D

"I'll take you're word that you didn't leave it out on purpose. However, the BUT is a key part of that statement. She is saying despite being "good men" that they were perceived in a certain way."


I appreciate you taking my word on that. I understand what you're saying with the but word, but on the flip side, the but word can have a negative conatation. Yes, these were good men and men of faith...but (on the flip side) a large segment concluded that really did not understand or relate to or frankly respect their way of life. Now you used the example of "I think James is a good guy, but others think he is an ass." Now if I just made that statement, wouldn't it seem like I was saying, You decide for yourself. Wouldn't it not be better if I added... "James is just misunderstood" or "that is absolutely not true". That is what I mean by a political tactic. If Hillary truly meant no harm in the statement, then I apologize for that. It is not my intent to assign sinister motives.
"How about who is the best candidate to beat John McCain in the fall. I've posted who I think is and I stand by that assessment. However, despite that I'm not going to sit back and let someone get unfairly attacked just because I support their opponent."


Now I have already said that I think it is important that we look at the big picture and focus on defeating John McCain in the fall. I've added that I would vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. And I've especially hoped for a brokered convention because I think Al is the best one to beat McCain. However, I don't want a brokered convention to be at the expense of the democrats - that's why I view it as a delicate situation. I really don't want Hillary or Obama to be damaged, because if we don't get Gore, then we've got two candidates that have been so damaged that it makes McCain look like a Saint.


"That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I'm sorry more and more it seems not that you've come to that conclusion you are filtering everything through that paradigm."

I can't help it if I look for characters of integrity, etc. in a candidate. I do think that's important too.


"I didn't see it but read about it and thought it was a disgrace. Please read the article I posted elsewhere by Joe Conason about it. "

I read the article a little earlier and I agree with the point you're making. It does seem like Republicans and the media as well stick together. And you're right, we do need to stick together if we expect to win this election. I have made comments to this affect on other threads.


"If you look though the boards you will see I have defended Obama when I felt he was being unfairly attacked. It's just that the level of vitrol and sheer number of supporters seem to weighted to one side."

I have seen where you defend Obama at times, but it seems like you defend Hillary more. And I don't viciously attack Hillary. I admit my theory of the other day was off the wall, so I'm sorry about that. But make no mistake. I have no hidden agenda and have not set out to smear anybody. Ok.


"Thanks" :D

You're welcome. :good:

Hillary is NOT a democrat.

Once people sacrifice the Clinton's the Democrats will be much better off

Why protect them, when there are so many better Democrats around?

If you want change, it can happen when one just sacrifices the Clintons.
If they cared about the party in 1998, they could have done the right thing and moved on and let the democrats breathe
But they didn't

It was personal, which when one talks about party cannot come into play

In reality, in bizarro world fashion, the Clinton's did to the democrats exactly what Bernie Shaw did to Mike Dukakis at that debate
Dukakis gave the correct answer, But Bernie Shaw twisted it and so did the rest of the media
Bill and Hillary gave the incorrect answer, and it was Al Gore that got penalized

See the connection?

Sacrifice the Clinton's and we all can be saved.
They are not worth honoring, when they have no honor for the party

It really is that simple

Party comes before the individual when one is talking 100s of millions of people's welfare in this world.

And if it takes ousting the Clinton's from ever holding office, it is well worth it
After all, we cannnot let one person's vanity stand in the way of 100s of millions of people

Why don't people understand that?

It's not as if many other democrats won't do the same or better than the Clinton's.

So let's sacrfice them, and save the world.

After all, with the Clknton's gone from power, one never again can say, well, the Clinton's got away with this and that, so Bush should too.
Why they didn't listen to this logic a decade ago is beyond me.

Possibly but look at the overall point she was making that Dems have often been viewed as looking down on Middle American values. The discussion wasn't about Gore and Kerry but rather the perceptions some have about Dems overall.

Well there I can't help but agree with you. Al Gore would be the best person to beat John McCain. :clap:

I agree. And the credibility of a candidate is important. But remember the media did their best in 2000 to cast Gore as a liar. Sometimes you have to look past how the MSM, as well as many bloggers, protray things to see the truth.

Great because it is a very important thing to be aware if we want to win in November.

I think that's because there are more attacks, and much harsher attacks, on one side than the other. Plus there seems to be more who will defend Obama so there is no reason for me to jump in if someone else has already addressed the issue.