Senator Clinton blames the 2000 and 2004 Presidential losses on Gore and Kerry being Elitist-- But it was really President Clintons Fault
In an extraordinary recent comment, Senator Clinton in seeking to paint Obama as elitist and warn against nominating an elitist candidate asserted the Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because the candidates, Gore and Kerry were viewed as elitist by the voters. The premise and veracity of Senator Clintons statement is fundamentally flawed for several reasons.
First, Gore won the 2000 election and it would have been a landslide in his favor had President Clinton not created a toxic environment by his lies to the American people and under oath regarding the Lewinsky matter.
Kerry would never have been a candidate if Gore had "won" and the Democrats would not have had to run against a sitting President in 2004.
Further , Kerry lost because he could never explain his vote on the Iraq war-- just as Senator Clinton has stumbled through her explanation time after time.
The Iraq war is and will remain a central issue in 2008-- including the judgment of each candidate and their respective positions in favor or against the war from the outset. It is an unavoidable subject as the war continues to drain our military and overall economic resources with no forseeable end, plus the continued tragic loss of lives. .
Finally, if there is any candidate in this race who is elitist, condescending and disengenuous-- Senator Clinton need only to look in the mirror .
By seeking to put the blame for prior losses by Gore and Kerry on the voters alleged impression of them as elitist shows how out of touch Senator Clinton is with reality as such an argument only highlights her own weaknesses and further undermines her depressing campaign .
Uh... yes, Gore won in 2000 but it wasn't in spite of Clinton. It was in spite of his running away from Clinton's record. Had he embraced Bill despite the entirely irrelevant Monica scandal, he'd have won by a wide enough margin that the election wouldn't have been stolen.
Or... he could have, I dunno, won his home state.
I like Gore. I think the "elitist" rap against him is BS. But let's not rewrite history here. Bill Clinton did so much to help Gore that it's ridiculous to blame the guy for Gore getting swindled in 2000.
April 14, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The pendulum swung in favor of cultural conservatives because of the admittedly disgusting behavior of Bill Clinton, i.e. the 'toxic environment' you describe.
I happen to think cultural conservatives came out in droves to vote out of spite against anything having to do with Clinton, which encompassed the entire Democratic party. When I say 'spite' I mean voting 'against' something or someone instead of voting 'for' something or someone. Reasons for voting, when framed in the negative indicate spite IMHO.
I'm worried right now that many are voting out of spite against anything having to do with Bush. I happen to think that this largely describes the very voracious pro-Hillary crowd.
My worry largely lies with the fact that Bush actually continued Bill Clinton's policies (see free trade at the expense of our dollar) and Iraq. Bill supported the war, and he arguable knew what Bush did about Iraq pre-invasion. I've yet to see anything from Hillary that would indicate she would break from her husband (and Bush) on these issues.
April 14, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink