How much are the Clintons to blame for Gore's loss?

[Why Syzygy]

We know "Gore won". But, it was stolen because it was so close.
What role did the Clintons play in the 2000 Presidential elections?
Did their interference guarantee a Republican win? How did they get away with it?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711

But Bill also kept making counterproductive comments about the candidate, his message, and his tactics, some of which surfaced in the press. He might voice subtle misgivings, as in a speech in Connecticut when he said, "People ask me: Do you really think Al Gore is going to win? I always said yes." Or he could veer off message, as when he casually said at one fund-raiser, "Suppose Al Gore turns out to be wrong because there's a little bit of a recession, and we don't have enough money to keep all the spending commitments?" His criticisms made headlines after the third presidential debate, on October 17, when Bill was reported to have told congressional Democrats that he had "almost gagged" over Gore's failure to challenge Bush's false claim of credit for a patients' bill of rights in Texas. Gore strategist Tad Devine told Steve Richetti, Bill's deputy chief of staff, that the comment had helped raise Gore's unfavorable rating by five points in a week. "The president goes out and awakens doubts about Gore, and all the bad stuff … begins to come to the surface," said Devine.

It's all about Bill.

Four days before the convention opened, in Los Angeles, on Monday, August 14, Bill made headlines by engaging in a soul-baring conversation with the Reverend Bill Hybels, one of his spiritual counselors. In front of an audience of 4,500 in Hybels's suburban-Chicago church, the president revisited his experiences as a "sinner" at a moment when Al Gore least needed such a reminder. Bill once again insisted that he had sufficiently apologized for his "terrible mistake," allowed that he had "nothing left to hide," and said, "I'm now in the second year of a process of trying to totally rebuild my life."

Turn 'em and Burn 'em Hillary.

At a White House reception in late July for the winners of the Women's World Cup soccer championship, Hillary singled out "my dear friend Tipper Gore" as "a great athlete in her time." But by then Hillary had privately frozen out Tipper, who had given her steadfast support during the Lewinsky ordeal. Hillary never made clear her reasons for the snub, which became apparent once she started running for the Senate. Tipper was reported to be stunned, believing she had been cast aside because she was no longer useful.

Hillary's run for the Senate was WAY more important than a Democrat winning the White House.

As a sitting president, Bill was in a unique position to boost his vice president's candidacy by scheduling White House events to highlight his achievements. But in 1999 those resources were diverted from Gore to Hillary "in a big way," said one member of the Gore team. "The Clintons come first. That was their basic framework." From June through December, Bill and Hillary appeared at 20 events under the aegis of the White House, including a celebration of Hillary's 52nd birthday, where in typical style Bill larded his tribute with statistics on welfare, poverty, crime, and economic growth as he touted his wife as a "genuine visionary" needed by the Senate—the ultimate confluence of the personal and political. During the same period, Gore was featured only at a White House Conference on Mental Health—with Bill, Hillary, and Tipper.

So, they have experience at wrecking a viable Democrat's campaign.
These people are vampires. They feed off others and leave them for dead after they have sucked all the power from them.
Psychic vampires and vampires that do not care about anything other than getting their next fix.
Power tripping.

Will 2008 be the second time the Clintons elect a Repulican through their negligence?

[MADem]

1. Bill Clinton offered to campaign. Gore turned him down.

He was trying to do the "own man" routine, and wanted the distance due to the scandal.

In retrospect, he would have been better off playing the "forgiveness" card with Clinton, and USING him. It would have increased his margins, I'll wager.

[Why Syzygy]

6. Read the article. Skip to about page 3 to get to the election.

Bill was campaigning for Hillary. Full time. He upstaged Gore at every opportunity, and they both went to Gore events and solicited money for Hillary!!!

[MADem]

30. If we are to believe what Sally Bedell Smith says about this, then we can't cherry pick, now.

We also have to believe that Senator Clinton signed off on her husband's BIG decisions as President and she served as a co-president: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2007/10/21/author-sally-bedell-smith-hillary-signed-bills-big-decisions (pardon the reference, but it leads to NEWSWEEK and an NBC interview by Ann Curry);


AND, she also pretty much ran the JUSTICE Department during Bill Clinton's tenure:


And as you make clear, Hillary was in that crucible just as much as Bill was.

Yes, yes. Hillary’s interests and involvements were so extensive and so little known. She was almost in charge of the Justice Department. I was really surprised to find out that her office was represented every Thursday at the meetings where they would screen candidates for U.S. attorney and the federal judiciary. What First Lady had ever done that? She interviewed all the candidates for attorney general. It was at her insistence that the attorney general be a woman. She spent twice as much time with Kimba Wood as her husband did. And she insisted that a woman be secretary of state. She absolutely insisted on that, and she got that through. This is really, really unprecedented.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/bedellsmith_qanda200711?currentPage=2

Now, let's have a little gander at Ms. Sally Bedell Smith's overall reputation for veracity, courtesy of our friends at Media Matters:

Wow! Clinton insiders "at last" feel "able to talk"! Just imagine the pressure they must have been under not to talk all these years. Quick, grab a copy of For Love of Politics so you, too, can be riveted by these "illuminating interviews" that John Podesta and Betsey Wright at long last feel comfortable giving!

Well ... maybe you shouldn't bother.

That "illuminating interview" with John Podesta occurred a decade ago. And Sally Bedell Smith didn't conduct it; Ken Starr's office did. And if, for some reason, you still care after all these years what Bill Clinton said to John Podesta about Monica Lewinsky, you can save yourself the 20 bucks Smith's book would cost you by reading online the deposition Smith cites for her quotation of Podesta.

But if you do go to all that trouble, you'll find something curious: The deposition does not contain the quotation Sally Bedell Smith says it contains -- not even close. Smith quotes Podesta quoting Clinton as saying "I did not screw that girl" and "she did not blow me." Smith's endnotes claim these quotes come from "Grand-jury testimony of John Podesta, June 16, 1998, vol. 3, p. 3311." You can read that page for yourself here -- but you won't find anything like the words Smith says are there.

And what of Betsey Wright, the other "Clinton insider" who, according to the Post's Burleigh, was finally willing to talk to Sally Bedell Smith? If Smith and Wright have ever spoken, it isn't readily apparent from For Love of Politics. A few minutes with the book's index and source notes finds that quotes attributed to Wright are drawn from a 1992 Time article, a 1993 Washington Post article, 1994 articles in Time and The New Yorker, David Maraniss' 1995 book First in His Class, and James Stewart's 1996 book Blood Sport, among other previously published sources. None are attributed to an author interview of Wright.

In short, the "illuminating interviews" Burleigh touted turn out to have been conducted not by Smith, but by several other journalists (and independent counsel staff). And they aren't new details offered up by long-silent "Clinton insiders who feel at last able to talk." They have, in most cases, been available in published sources for at least a decade.

And, in at least one case, Smith quoted someone -- John Podesta -- as saying something that does not appear in the cited source material. That (alleged) Podesta quote is the first example the Post's Burleigh gave to support her contention that Sally Bedell Smith has "got some illuminating interviews with Clinton insiders who feel at last able to talk." Had Burleigh checked the book's endnotes, she would have known that this description was false, that Podesta's comments are quite old (if he said them at all). Had Burleigh taken five minutes to check Smith's endnotes rather than simply praising her for the supposed coup of getting Podesta to talk, she would have been able to tell Post readers that the words Smith quotes Podesta saying do not appear in the source material from which Smith claims to have quoted
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711030001


There ya go. In for a penny, in for a pound.

[JackORoses]

33. if only there had been no scandal. who's fault was that again?

[MADem]

36. It wasn't the fault of any candidate running in 08. nt

[murielm99]

2. Of course the Clintons are to blame for everything.

Funny...we used to see that belief expressed only on right-wing political boards.

[democracy1st]

12. Is Hillary recieving help from the rightwing?

[FrenchieCat]

3. Bill and Hillary are never responsible for anything!

Hillary is not responsible for Bill's adulterous behavior and lies although she picked her husband.
However, Barack Obama is made to be responsible for his pastor.

[aquart]

14. Generally, people aren't considered responsible for what they didn't do.

Except in the Obama cult.

[crankychatter]

4. take 'em to church brothah

hoo YAH

k/r

[bluestateguy]

5. Clinton could have used his Justice Department to deliver Florida for Gore

As sson an Jeb Bush and Kathy Harris started engineering their coup, Clinton could have very well invoked the Voting Rights Act (which applies to Florida) to send the boys from Washington in to shove aside all of the state people and ensure that Florida's votees were counted correctly.

[aquart]

15. "to shove aside all of the state people"

Because it's such a small, compact state. Run by one candidate's brother. Yeah, that woulda worked.

[karynnj]

23. Yes it would have

The first point that he the justice department should have gotten involved was BEFORE the election. A clerk in the Palm Beach office looked through the Felons list and found the name of her husband. After verifying from her husband that there was nothing she didn't know, this was brought to the attention of her boss. As a result, the list was scrutinized and found to have problems - it was not used in that county. This story made the national papers, so the federal attorneys in FL obviously heard of it. There was also controversy because the county was opting not to use the list, which was used through the rest of the state.

A quick federal investigation was warranted and could have resulted in that list being thrown out everywhere. In addition, it might have been the rock, that when removed, showed the other dirty tricks and could have led to the election being monitored.

[graycem]

7. Didn't you know?

It's them or nobody? They ARE the Democratic party.

[vi5]

8. At this point I loathe them, HOWEVER....

....on that issue and that election I blame Gore as much if not more for distancing himself so profoundly from Bill. At the time Bill was still wildly popular and if he had run as part of that team he might have done better.

Just a gut instinct on my part, but one I feel pretty strongly about.

[karynnj]

25. Bill was not "wildly popular"

His JOB approval ratings were high, but his personal approval ratings were not - and even they were inflated by loyal Democrats not wanting to pile on.

Consider that Bush's most successful theme was "bring honor and decency back to the White House". The people who still loved Bill were with Gore.

[vi5]

29. Good points....

However, I think Bill presence could have energized quite a few of the younger voters who were lukewarm with Gore. I know a lot of them felt like Gore was bland and status quo and attempting to move a little more right than he actually was, and Bill for better or worse was an energizing force for a lot of young voters who just weren't as excited about Gore.

At this point this is all conjecture. And believe me, I'll heap any amount of deserved blame on Bill and Hillary at this point for what they've done. I just don't think that the 2000 election is something I'd pin that much on them.

[Yossariant]

9. I thought it was de riguer for the pink tutu Dems to blame Nader for their spinelessness.

The GOP is wright about one thing.

The Democrats are incapable of leading.

[skepticscott]

10. Let's put it this way

If Bill Clinton had kept his pants zipped, he would have had a much more successful presidency, and we'd now be near the end of Al Gore's 2nd term. We wouldn't be in Iraq and we'd probably be making substantial progress in the areas of global warming and renewable energy. As it is....

Odd indeed that Monica Lewinsky would be such a pivotal character in human history.

[Yossariant]

17. LOL! If Jimmy Carter had... If Ted Kennedy had... If Dukakis had ... If MCGovern had...

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

[polmaven]

26. Honestly!

I really never thought I would see the "If Bill had kept his pants zipped" talk so rampant on a Democratic/Progressive site!

As another poster began her journal..."Once upon a time at DU"....That "Bill and Monica are to blame for...." was railed against when it was brought up on conservative sites. To see it here so often now, because Senator Clinton has the temerity to challenge Senator Obama is distressing!

[skepticscott]

35. You may not like it

but facts are facts. If you'd care to dispute the truth of my assertions, have at it, but I suspect you know they're on the mark.

[bowens43]

11. Gore lost becuase he was a piss poor candidate.

His loss was his fault and his alone.

[Kokonoe]

19. Thats exactly right,

If he just let corp media stop ridiculing him,
he would have been viable.

:sarcasm:

[newspeak]

34. yeah, because everyone knows Gore is a liar

those talking heads on the telly told me so. They said he stated he invented the internet--and just because he stated the wrong name of the person he was with at FEMA--see he didn't really do any of those FEMA jaunts. Yeah, I heard it by the blathering talking heads so it must be so.

And, when I questioned my friend who was in journalism (newspaper) and actually had some schooling, why she didn't like Gore--she stated because he is a liar. I asked her to tell me some of his lies, besides the internet one which I proved her wrong. She couldn't name one. The mainstream media strikes again!!!!

[aquart]

13. What bloody stinking nerve.

Obama's creepy cultists really stick at nothing.

[izzie]

16. Just blame it on the voters.

Yes I think the Clinton's like power. I never under stood either Kennedy or Clinton running in NY state for Congress but the voters did vote for them.

[cali]

18. They aren't. Sorry. Here's the fucking bottom line.

Gore was not a good campaigner. He couldn't defuse the MSM framing of him, and often he played right into their hands. In the end, whatever the Clintons did or didn't do, really wan't much of a factor.

[NJmaverick]

20. I would say their blame is on par with Nader's

[Tactical Progressive]

21. I believe DHL's get full credit for losing the 2000 election

Dem-hating-leftists spent the entire 2000 campaign year savaging Al Gore "The Corporate Whore" as a "DINO" "Republicrat" who was "not a dime's worth of difference" from George W. Bush.

I know, it's almost too surreal to even believe. But that is exactly what DHL's said and did, in all of their natural honesty and decency.


It's important for Democrats to remember this for two reasons:

1) These Dem-haters from the left handed this country over to the hard-right for nearly a decade of rule. It is DHL's who are most responsible for the bloodshed in Iraq and the trillions of dollars taken away from the working class and put into the wealthy's pockets.

2) These very same DHL's, who like to call themselves DLC-haters, are the ones who have been mindlessly, dishonestly and viciously attacking Hillary Clinton just like they did Al Gore.

I can't believe that any Democrat would give them the time of day or credit anything they say as having a scrap of honesty in it.
The fact that they are raving against Hillary every second they can - just that fact ALONE - should be enough consideration for any Democrat to support Hillary Clinton without question.


The Clintons tried to help Al Gore, but he felt he was best off distancing himself from them with Joe Lieberman. What horrible political judgement that was.

[polmaven]

27. Thank you!

Very well said. :thumbsup:

[Liquorice]

38. Exactly! nt

[karynnj]

22. Bill Clinton got away with it because it was passive/aggressive

rather than overt. Overtly, he had nice things to say of Gore and "of course" he was on his side.

The clearest example of that is that the "master political mind of his generation" had to know that giving that interview dealing with fixing the problems in his marriage caused by Monica a few days before the convention would steal that time and remind people that Bill was still there and Monica was still being talked about. At the time, it was seen as Bill Clinton not wanting to leave the stage. On this, he did an encore. In late June 2004, after most of June was given over to deifying Reagan, he put out his book and went on a month long book tour. In most venues, the first topic was Monica and he said it was "because he could". Even then, the "behind the scenes" comments that were in the press were that Bill just craved the spotlight and that the Kerry people were not happy with him - in that order and not written to suggest the Kerry people had any right to be livid.

In neither case does this set the desired tone. (In 2004, it was actually worse as Gore got 9 hours of network convention coverage, Kerry got three. He needed that time to introduce and define himself. June was lost to Reagan - July was lost to Bill speaking of Monica and that the Democrats - other than the fringe - backed Bush on Iraq, which was NOT Kerry's position.)

The second example was the constant leaking to the press - in both elections - that the campaign was doing the wrong things. Now, he had the phone numbers for people at the top of each campaign and the candidates. He could have given them his insight personally and privately. What he did was continually second guess the campaigns and bad mouth them. This was seen in 2000 as Clinton just not having enough discipline. In 2004, it was taken as fact - even though Kerry did better when Clinton's advise was ignored.

I have no idea whether Bill Clinton consciously preferred them to lose - so they couldn't even temporarily eclipse him, but his actions looked at together show he was a net negative. I wonder if at heart he knew that both Gore and Kerry were far better men than he could ever be.

[Why Syzygy]

32. Okay, YOU get it!

It was the money, the upstaging, the passive aggressive, all small things that create the problem.

I guess it's a good thing the Clintons are front and center this time, so they can be dealt with head-on.
Are you and I the only ones who see the similarities for all three of these elections?

[karynnj]

37. No - there are several of us who reached this painful conclusion

I really do think it is better that it is open. I remember reading that the Kerry people were not happy with Bill's book's timing at the time, but I absolutely didn't get the significance then. In both cases it was he takes all the oxygen and he naturally grabs the lime light. Always said in a - "it's just who Bill is" way with almost affection. The idea that it would be very likely to hurt and it was clearly planned was lost on me.

The thing is that the Clinton people - point to what he did and can say in one sentence he campaigned 6 weeks out of the hospital. We need paragraphs to explain what we see - and it is nowhere as clear cut. Oddly, one outcome of this election if HRC does not become President is that in light of the overt actions this time - the actions in 2000 and 2004 may be re-examined.

[Vinca]

24. As I recall, one of Shrub's talking points was bringing dignity

back to the White House and the sheeple bought it hook, line and sinker. Gore was in a bad spot, given what had happened. The bottom line is, he actually won and what a crime he wasn't seated.

[JohnnyLib2]

28. Hindsight is usually better than this.

??

[uponit7771]

31. We can't put it past her any more !! That's whats REALLY REALLY sad!

[Texas Hill Country]

39. they are not to blame. Gore made a choice to distance... it was the wrong choice.

[haymakeragain]

40. If bill hadn't gotten the hummer from Monica and lied about it, No Bush.

simple as that. He fucked up royally and now many here want to reward that family with the White House again. Beyond the pale.