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

[Hissyspit]

Source: The Hill

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

By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 04/15/08 06:58 PM
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.

Donna Brazile, campaign manager for the Gore-Lieberman campaign; Mark Fabiani, deputy campaign manager for Gore-Lieberman; and Bob Shrum, a senior adviser to the Gore-Lieberman and Kerry-Edwards campaigns, all cited the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and Kerry nearly won it four years later.

- snip -

“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 -

“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.

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

[onehandle]

1. Oh noes! The Strategists!

"Neither Gore nor Kerry themselves would comment."

Hmm.

[karynnj]

5. Quite wise of them

Not to mention neither of them would think it a good idea to call even more attention to HRC's use of Republican themes to attack Obama and them. Both have more grace and integrity than both Clintons put together will ever have.

[saracat]

2. Brazile and Schrum the worst strategist in democratic history? Of

course they won't admit ghow they "allowed" their clients" to be portrayed. Does anyone think what either has to say matters? If anyone on DU thinks they are relevent, no matter who you support, you would have to be really desperate and totally jumped the shrak. DU used to despise both of them.

[smiley_glad_hands]

4. Schrum more so than Brazile.

Schrum is DLC which is why i'm surprised by his comments. Maybe this is one of the many signs to an ending clinton campaign.

[karynnj]

6. Schrum was a Kennedy person - I don't think he was DLC

I think Brazile may have been.

I think that 2004 was a much tougher election. It was against an incumbent President in a time of war before most people saw the war as unwinnable. The media, which has become progressively worse was far worse in 2004. The convention only got 3 hours of network time vs 9 in 2000.

[smiley_glad_hands]

8. He's DLC.

Many blame him for not telling Kerry to defend himself more aggressively against all the swiftboating.

Brazile was Al's chief advisor. I don't think she knew they were going to steal it in 2000, but she has been associated with the DLC and the clintons.

on edit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=bob+schrum+dlc&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

[NJSecularist]

25. No, he's not.

What evidence do you have that he is DLC?

He is far more left in his positions than the DLC is.

[smiley_glad_hands]

39. You can use google just as easy as I can.

He's DLC.

[karynnj]

52. The googles you pulled up are people on DU saying he was DLC

and given your search parameters that is what I would suspect. I suspect that you can try a name like Reid - who is conserve but not DLC and you'ld find the same thing

[NJSecularist]

24. Shrum is definitely not DLC.

He supports LGBT rights. He is very progressive. He is actually very far left.

[judasdisney]

34. Greenberg Carville Shrum IS a DLC political consultant group

Their strategies and policy advice is PURE DLC.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenberg_Carville_Shrum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Brand_Is_Crisis

[smiley_glad_hands]

40. Just because he supports gay rights doesn't mean he hasn't been towing the corporate line.

Try google it works. He's DLC.

[NJSecularist]

42. If he didn't support DLC candidates, he'd have a hard time finding a job.

Doesn't mean that his views align with the DLC.

[smiley_glad_hands]

43. That could be the case. But he's GBA until I see irrefutable proof. IMHO eom

[disndat]

9. Don't forget.

Both Gore in '00 and Kerry '04 won. They were both stolen by Bush & Co.

[Zachstar]

36. Kerry losing was more due to lack of action on swiftboating than stealing.

However that would not have happened had the 2000 election been legit. Gore would have been president and we would not be at war today.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Penn will be topping them very soon......

you'll see.

[smiley_glad_hands]

3. I question bob shrum's motivations.

Maybe he sees the writing on the wall and this is his nudge to clinton.

[karynnj]

7. I think that it may also reflect that he thought this was a

very nasty attack on 3 good men - at least one of whom he saw handle extremely unfair attacks with grace and dignity, Several stories came out in 2004 that completely refute the idea that Kerry was an elitist. One was told by a member of Kerry's Vietnam crew. He told of how Kerry saved him - I think in the late 1990s. He had had a recurrence of PTSD and had ended up on the street, a drunk who had burned his bridges with everyone. He contemplated suicide and called Kerry, who he still admired. Kerry's staff found him and Kerry stayed on the phone - found a VA hospital to take him and acted as his mentor, because there was no one else who could do it. That is not the action of an elitist snob - nor was the fact that in Shrum's book, one of Kerry's first concerns when the intern rumours were spread in the primaries was for the young woman.

The fact is that both campaigns stuggled with those lies - that HRC repeated.

[MessiahRp]

12. I wish I could rec your post.

Man I wish we were working on Kerry's re-election right now.

Rp

[karynnj]

15. I do too - it would likely be tough

the world would be so much better than it now is - but no one would know that. What I do know is that he would have spent the same energy and intelligence that he has used trying to elect Democrats and lead in the Senate to work with all the powers of the Presidency and I think people would have come to trust him.

That sounds like a simple thing, but think how far back you have to go to get to a President you could say that of.

[saracat]

32. Bob Schrum destroyed Kerry's Campaign and some defend him? He lost 8 straight elections.

He was the one against smacking back! he was the one that did nothing to stop the elitist garbage and Hillary is blamed for the image he allowed to be created? Donna brazile is a backstabber who is well known for being in bed with the GOP and sliming Gore herself.I can't believe anyone is elevating these folks to credibility. This is just NUTZ. Not very long ago most saw these folks for what they were.

[karynnj]

41. Kerry himself does not say that Shrum destroyed the campaign

It was not just Shrum who held Kerry back from more aggressively attacking the SBVT. Kerry did give the media everything they needed to reject the SBVT. They had his service records, a historian's book that even had positive SBVT comments from 2 years earlier, the Nixon tapes where it was clear that Kerry was investigated and found clean, and the support of every guy on his boat when he got medals. In addition when the SBVT book came out, they gave them a day later over 30 pages of obvious lies and contradictions. ANY ONE OF THESE was more than WJC's vaunted War Room produced for any of the transgressions he was charged with.

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.

Kerry's initial reaction - to non defensively simply provide the truth is the NORMAL reaction when you are lied about. I know that Kerry has spoken of how more money put behind ads could have helped. I am actually skeptical. People were seeing what were clearly SBVT ads, but they also saw the media handle it as "Kerry said" and "they said" - adding what would be seen as partisan ads couldn't do much to correct the undue weight given them by the media of the media.

Kerry's general election campaign nearly won an election that realistically would have been tough to win. There were many things stacked against him that would be against any Democrat - the media, the anti abortion lobby and he was hampered by egotistical Clinton people brought in who thought they knew better than the Kerry team that ran an exceptionally good primary campaign. Their constant whining to their media buddies that Kerry wasn't doing what Bill was saying - which was to emphasize Clinton economic ideas and to not speak of Iraq, terror, or Vietnam. (The latter interesting because Kerry included only "I served my country as a young man in Vietnam, then came home" (to protest) and the ONLY time he spoke more was when he spoke to the Firefighters against the SBVT - just listing his medals.) Still had it been a fair election with ample voting machines in Ohio - Kerry would have had an upset victory.

Do you have any problem with HRC saying what she did - frankly - I saw HRC answer questions at the religious forum - she is NO John Kerry - he spoke at Pepperdine University and won the respect of the conservative, evangelical students there. His discussion of theology was impressive - especially in the Q & A section. He has a real theological point of view and it is integrated in his actions and words. Everything he said there was consistent with the Kerry speeches I've seen or read - from 1971 till now. It also goes the other way in that without speaking directly of religion, it colours things that he has said in speeches and just speaking in committee. I did not get that sense from HRC - in spite of her well known Bible study and I seriously doubt she would have the guts to give a speech like Kerry's at Pepperdine. (http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm)

[saracat]

44. I don't understand why you are even bringing up the religious element. Frankly, I think

religion has no place in politics.I didn't say Kerry accused Schrum of anything but he WAS his campaign manager and just like the 8 previous campaigns, he fucked up Kerry's. It wasn't merely a question of a fair election but of obtaining way beyond enough votes so that the election couldn't have been stolen. A good campaign manager knows not to allow "windsurfing " pics and knows how to head off the damage. Most Kerry insiders will admit that the Kerry Campaign had about the worst PR ever and that WAS Schrum's responsibility. Media manipulation is the responsibility of the campaign. And do not even get me started on that incompetent hypocrite Donna Brazile. She has publicly stated some of the most vicious comments about Gore ever and she is "offended"?

No , I do not see anything wrtong with what Hillary said.She did not insult either man. She said they were both "good men' who had been portrayed as "elistist". That is a fact.

It is just amazing to me how many things which usedf to bediscussed on DU as "facts" are now either denied outright or considered "insults". if anyone outside of the Obama fold mentions them. It is really sad.

[karynnj]

45. HRC brought up religion

Gore and Kerry did not act like they respected people's religions. Did you read the transcript of the "compassion forum".

PS How does Shrum NOT allow windsurfing pictures when there were pictures already in print 4 or 5 years before. The picture used was not even from 2004. I don't think you are qualified to speak of "most Kerry insiders" nor am I.


As to her distancing herself by making it "others say" anyone who went through middle school - especially as a girl knows that trick.

For instance.

I know HRC is a good person, but others think that she act so cold, and shows little respect for people she thinks she doesn't need.

What do YOU get out of that sentence -

[saracat]

46. Actually, I used to argue on a regular basis with one of those "insiders" so yeah

I am qualified to quote him at least. I used to defend Kerry and some of his decisions. I also spent a lot of time with campaign staff. but whatever.And the most publicized pic of the windsufing was a "new' one and Kerry was urged by some folks not to do it.Schrum said not a word.I didn't read the transcript in the Compassion Forum cause I don't give a fig. Sorry.The very fact that religion is figuring in this campaign in any way makes me sick. We e4ven have a faith and values potreach person in our Party office.:puke:

[karynnj]

47. You didn't read the comments that HRC said, then criticize

me for commenting on them? That's rich! It didn't occur to you that in a thread on the comments that she made about Gore and Kerry and how American couldn't relate to there lifestyles - when I agree with one of the staffers that it was the CLINTON life stye that has been hard for the party to live down. I'm liberal and from an elitist part of NJ and I really didn't appreciate my 8, 10 and 13 year olds learning about oral sex from a man who should have had either more sense or more honor.

I think you are wrong on the picture - I've seen pictures and video from the little photo opt - during the Republican convention when people don't campaign. Kerry was not dressed the same as in the ad. It was nice - smiling people on the boat and a happy candidate. Since when has athletics been a negative in this country. (Don't bother to say he looked bad - because you likely had no problems with Clinton jogging in shorts in 1992.)

As to your insider contact, is he who gave you the tinfoil ideas of why edwards dropped out too?

[saracat]

48. Nope.And why do you stalk the Edwards forum? And the one that told me about the pix was

McCurry.It was a long time ago during the campaign. No offense but I think he was better informed than you might be. And as for the one I argue with, we no longer argue but now agree and that is personal.As for not reading the compassion forum, I didn't read any crap either candidate puts out about religion.And I am sorry that you feel your kids should be sheltered from the news media. If they didn't find out about ral sex from the clinton scandal , there would have been something else on the news and in fact oral sex is on the rise among middle school kids and was before Clinton made it an issue.I agree he should have had more sense but I don't think it should have been a big deal. Sorry just don't. We could do with a little bit less hypocrisy in this nation and a lot less religion, IMHO.

[karynnj]

49. I will accept that McCurry, a CLINTONITE is a better source

as to problems with the PR - that would be more McCurry's area than Shrum's - as I think that was his job. I never thought he was all that good when he was on TV.

The Republicans obviously photoshopped the still photo - and it still doesn't really change the underlying point - there were windsurfing photos.

PS I don't stalk the Edwards forum - I went there for one thread - when Edwards people were spreading a very distorted smear - because I thought it was worth pointing out the lie - and showing that by just showing part of the facts - which was what was done - others would look worse. The comments I refer to on the other thing have been in GD-P often.

If you think it was not a big deal that the President of the US had sex in the oval office with an immature - but legal - young woman his daughter's age - I guess I have to disagree. I did not feel my kids - now older - should be sheltered from the news media. The fact was that other than on shows they wouldn't have watched it was not a topic. I have no idea if you had kids, but if you did - there is a big additional problem which was that it was someone they were brought up to respect.

[saracat]

50. Guess you don't believe the buck stops at the Campaign Manager's desk then. BTW, McCurry

was brought in at the "end" of the campaign to stop some of the hemorrhaging caused by the incompetence of the Schrum PR Staff but believe as you wish.And your Edwards statement implies that you did a bit more reading than the one visit but maybe you were just thourough. I just find it odd.And yes, I don't find it a big deal that the president of the United States had sex in the oval office. It wasn't a big deal when Kennedy or Johnson did it either or FDR did it too for that matter. I just can't imagine why we should have either known about it or why it was our business.

Some of our greatest presidents have ben philanderers and I can't see that it effecyed their ability to do their job in the least.Maybe it made them better presidents for all I know!

I have always thought a presidents sex life, or lack of it was not our business and i think we functioned just fine when the press and everyone else agreed that this was a 'private ' area. I balme the GOP and Ken Starr for making this an issue. he is actually far more responsible for kids dcisrespecting the president because of his behavior than the president. The only difference between Clinton and the others is Starr publicized it.

[karynnj]

51. My Edwards comment referred to your GD-P comments

near the time Kennedy endorsed. But if you want to believe I read it every day - do so. Frankly, I doubt it's that interesting.

[saracat]

53. So apparently it was at least twice you you were "researching"because you also posted in faux

outrage recently but I don't really think you stalk everyday.Shoot, I don't post everyday! I just find it very sad that people are now taking offense at things they themselves agreed with at one time just because they don't like the source of the comment. After Edwards suspended Ididn't have a dog in this fight but I now believe that this primary has finished me off.It is very sad all around. I am hoping my local candidates do well.

[karynnj]

54. No, it was ONE thread and only one thread as I said

and it was not Faux, or even False, outrage. You also ignore that the thread which was attacking Kerry with NO Edwards info was OT. I responded - as I said - to point out the truth.

What did I disagree with that I previously agreed with? - name one thing.

As to no dog - you spend every day defending the dog you dislike less.

[saigon68]

55. ...

[AX10]

10. Donna Brazille?

:rofl:

Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see.

[smiley_glad_hands]

22. Who would you rather have? Jim Gilmore? lol

[Muttocracy]

11. interesting - Brazile is still undeclared superdelegate nt

[jillan]

14. So she says. She is all about Obama. Not a very good poker face.

:)

[Muttocracy]

16. I'll trust your instinct - haven't heard much from her directly

or seen her face (radio will do that to you! half the time I'm surprised what people look like!)

[jillan]

19. I will never forgive her for bashing Kerry after he "lost' the 2004 election.

That was wrong coming from a Dem strategist.

[Muttocracy]

23. I didn't get much political news back then.

Do know Gore lost, though I don't know how much of that was related to her... Mostly I hear her on "News and Notes" on NPR as a panelist and she doesn't stand out to me one way or the other.

[smiley_glad_hands]

20. She was on or the chair of the committee that took a hard stand against Fl and MI.

She has been vocal on the subject and has been backing the DNC and Dean.

[Muttocracy]

29. thanks nt

[grantcart]

27. she is in the 'Pelosi Club' will vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates

[Muttocracy]

30. thanks nt

[jillan]

13. I support Hillary and winced when she said that.

[Muttocracy]

17. one of the bad things about the primary dragging on is

they're both going to accumulate more goofy remarks that can be used against them in the fall.

[jillan]

18. Thankfully Howard Dean is keeping track of all McCain's goofy remarks too.

He's racking them up as well.

As Biden said tonite, it will be over soon enough.

[Zhade]

31. Why do you support a proven liar?

NT!

[Political Heretic]

37. Probably because anyone who thinks any candidate has never lied about trival matters is nuts

I think its great to point out Hillary's silliness in being caught in such a stupid lie, but I'm not going to get all high and might about the fact that she did. Anyone who thinks any presidential candidate, including Barack Obama, doesn't lie or at least magnificently stretch the truth in the course of campaigning for office is seriously kidding themselves.

Frankly, and this may be the only time you ever hear any Obama supporter on DU ever say this, so save it - Obama's whole production as a bold anti-war candidate who strongly opposed it from the beginning is a magnificent stretch. Not, perhaps a total lie, but a phenomenal amount of spin. He opposed it, and wasn't in a position where his opposition mattered, and he did nothing about it. It wasn't like he was out there boldly raising the issue. He said, "I oppose the war" and then basically the subject didn't come up again. That's not exactly "leading the charge." But of course, he's running for office now, and opposition to the war is popular. So suddenly he presents himself as if he was the national leader championing war opposition from the beginning. In reality he said little, did nothing, and when he got to the Senate he discovered matters were complicated and proceeded to vote the exact same way Hillary Clinton did every single time.

And I can say all that and still support the man. I know exactly why I support him, but it certainly is not because I think he is St. Obama somehow "above" politics.

Politicians lie. And when they don't lie, they spin and stretch the truth so much that it is effectively the same.

There are better reasons to ask a hillary supporter why they still support her, AND there are plenty of reasons to support her, even if I may disagree with them, despite the fact that she got caught doing something silly.

[mitchtv]

21. Brazile and Schrum

I'll file those valuable comments

[NJSecularist]

26. I liked this comment from 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.”

It really is ironic the type of crap Hillary is trying to pull...

[grantcart]

28. exactly and the people smell it

[fujiyama]

33. I don't blame these people for being pissed

Hillary's campaign has been laughably dishonest.

A couple that has made over 100 million dollars calling anyone elitist is idiotic. Hillary obviously is enjoying burning all bridges...With the way she has acted, she'll never receive major party support for another run....

[Number23]

38. The Real World

..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.”

Damn, that one's GOT to hurt.....