We is all fucked, big time, whatever the truth is, except this is another GOPer story that was shoveled out of the barn!
Posted by tempus at October 5, 2007 07:38 AMJust curious. Since the author is Sally BEDELL SMITH and not Sally Smith, could it be that Sally is related to the late Walter BEDELL SMITH, former U.S. general, arranger for the surrender of Germany (when all those Nazi rocket scientists and Nazi others scrambled over here), and the same Walter BEDELL SMITH who was director of the CIA in the early fifties?
Sally BEDELL SMITH also wrote a book about JFK. JFK, since his murder in broad daylight in Dallas in 1963, has had his character assassinated endlessly by authors who have been connected to the US intelligence.
It should not be a surprise that someone related to a head of the CIA would be up to no good, would be comfortable with producing disinformation and that the purpose of that disinformation would be to push the electorate to the right. That is, if Sally BEDELL SMITH is related to Walter BEDELL SMITH.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at October 5, 2007 07:49 AMGee, how does Sally really feel about Hillary?
She left out the kitchen sink and phantom lesbo lovers.
Posted by TIKI AL at October 5, 2007 08:25 AMOh, it's only begun.
Posted by Judith at October 5, 2007 08:50 AMYou'd think Bill and Hillary both got busted trolling for sex in a bathroom stall.
You'd think Hillary asked Bill for a divorce while he was recovering from heart surgery, because Hill desperately needed to boink someone younger, right now.
You'd think Bill had a male prostitute with run of the fucking white house.
You'd think they were so fucking weird, they would buy sex and be into diapers with their hookers.
You'd think they chatted online with teenagers in their care, lasciviously about sex and masturbation.
You'd think the Clintons were really fucked-up, creepy people that should be shamed and no one should ever listen to, if not freakin locked up.
Oh wait, never mind.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 5, 2007 08:54 AM
I think it is a very good article (and don't need anybody "translating" it for me since I'm fluent in English). It confirms what before could only be perceived through fuzzy lenses. I hope that one day Gore will speak and know that he will only do so when it no longer matters to the political careers of any of the actors.
Why is it so difficult for Democrats to understand that many people held two opinions on Bill Clinton: approval of his job performance as POTUS and disgusted by his personal behavior? Why is that so difficult to acknowledge? One person that "got it" was Karl Rove. What do you people think GWB was alluding to in 2000 when he campaigned on "restoring honor and dignity to the White House?" It may seem stupid to us that people would vote against Gore and for GWB because of Bill Clinton's sexual infidelity but it's not completely irrational. For three decades people in this country have been primed to view liberals as sexually promiscuous. Bill Clinton gets caught with his pants down. Gore is Clinton's VP and a liberal. Better vote for the nice man from TX because when his daddy was in the WH, we didn't have any of these disgusting stories about sex in the WH.
We've also known that Gore's campaign was always strapped for cash. Had he not needed to take primary matching funds (which Bill Clinton did NOT do in 1996), his campaign wouldn't have had to go dark for several months.
iirc the article didn't even bother to mention the fact that Gore outperformed Hillary in NY. She got 55% against an incredibly weak opponent and Gore did better than that against GWB.
Why won't the Hillary supporters be honest and admit that they are corporatist Democrats and not liberal/progressives? Why hide behind the same sort of bs that politicians on both sides of the aisle endless shovel our way. And also admit that you don't really care about the occupation of Iraq and would support a President Hillary ordered continuation of a Bush initiated bombing campaign of Iran just like you supported Bill's continuation of the bombing of Iraq.
Posted by Marie at October 5, 2007 09:52 AMCircular firing squad, my ass.
What amazes me is that Democrats are dumb enough to play the game the media always likes to set them up with.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 5, 2007 10:23 AMi am a huge fan of al gore...and he was elected in 2000..and it was stolen..good to keep that in mind when placing blame on why he lost..having said that... it was closer then it should have been...the repugs lying attack apparatus painted goe as a waffler and a liar..he kind of let them..incredulous lies that they perpetuated..al gore says he invented the internet..he never said that..it was one of many many lies they told ..its what they do....the clintons have been vetted over and over and survived the reptilian attack dogs..hillary clinton will be the next president of the united states..and she will do a hell of a job...i am starting to think that even if gore entered..she'd beat him..she is incredibly intelligent
Posted by dennis at October 5, 2007 01:19 PM(and don't need anybody "translating" it for me since I'm fluent in English).
Fluent? Well, the jury's still out on that one, chickie. Still, it's odd; with all that book-larnin' o' yours, you've never heard of a literary device?
And also admit that you don't really care about the occupation of Iraq and would support a President Hillary ordered continuation of a Bush initiated bombing campaign of Iran just like you supported Bill's continuation of the bombing of Iraq.
Translation: If you support Hillary, you support death and destruction.
Hear that, folks? Marie says that if you like Hillary, you like war, you're a corporatist, and you're a liar if you say you're a progressive.
Anyone wondrin' where Jill Bains went? I think we just found her!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 5, 2007 01:42 PMTranslation: If you support Hillary, you support death and destruction.
Hear that, folks? Marie says that if you like Hillary, you like war, you're a corporatist, and you're a liar if you say you're a progressive.
Well, Hill votes for Bush's wars, including the next one. She takes zillions of dollars from big pharma, whose sole purpose is to totally screw the very many for the enrichment of the very few.
Labels aside, it looks to me Marie simply has her eyes open.
Posted by Sharkbabe at October 5, 2007 02:33 PMMarie,
You said:
"I think it is a very good article...It confirms what before could only be perceived through fuzzy lenses"
I take that to mean that you agree that:
(1) Bill Clinton was wrong in assessing that Gore would win in 2000 despite Bill's failings
(2) Hillary had no right or business running for the Senate since Gore was running for President and Hillary had to bow to Gore's wishes
(3) It was terrible that Bill did not host more fundraisers and White House events for Gore, even though Gore didn't want Bill within 100 miles of him at all times
(4) Momentum shifted away from Democrats because of Clinton's failures, so much so that Gore won a much larger % of the national vote in 2000 than Bill won in 1992 or 1996.
That's the only meaningful interpretation of your statement.
Posted by eriposte at October 5, 2007 02:44 PMMarie,
You said:
"It may seem stupid to us that people would vote against Gore and for GWB because of Bill Clinton's sexual infidelity but it's not completely irrational"
I don't know anyone who said what you claim they said but you are entitled to make up claims and debunk your own claims if that makes you feel better. Also, your statements make it clear you didn't make any attempt to argue based on facts. The majority of Americans voted for Gore, not against Gore. They voted for Gore despite Bill Clinton's infidelity and their apparent disgust for Bill Clinton. They had more intelligence than you give them credit for.
Oh, and by your logic, since you support Gore, and Gore embraced Joe Lieberman as a Vice President no less (!), and he also embraced Bill's bombing of Iraq and some other countries, I assume you were and are also a strong supporter of bombing Iraq and those countries.
Posted by eriposte at October 5, 2007 02:55 PMMarie simply has her eyes open.
Yeah, so did Terri Shiavo.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 5, 2007 03:09 PMWell, if Smith's idea was to set Dem supporters at one another's throats (and eyes), it surely worked.
Posted by gtash at October 5, 2007 04:51 PMeriposte: I take that to mean that you agree that: ... That's the only meaningful interpretation of your statement.
Wrong and wrong.
(1) Don't care what Clinton concluded. He had a vested interest in that conclusion; so, it's irrelevant to me. What did bother me in 2000 is that rank and file Democrats assumed that Clinton was nothing but an asset to Gore's campaign. It was clear to me then and now that the reality was more complex. If GWB hadn't been running on "restore honor and dignity to the WH" which kept the whole Monica episode front and center in the minds of voters, he might have been more of an asset to Gore because Americans tend to have short memories. Gore had to walk a tightrope because of that and got a lot of flak from Democrats because they couldn't imagine that there was a downside to having Clinton out there for Gore. I appreciated the polling information included in the VF article that confirmed what seemed to me should have been obvious to Democrats.
(2) Not sure how you got that from what I wrote. As I'm not a resident of NY, I had and have no opinion on that issue. Nor did I find it interesting that there was a variety of opinions on that question among advisors/aides whatever for Clinton or Gore. Political strategist disagree; so what?
(3) Money is how politics works. It's customary for the person in the oval office, the head of his party, to do as much as he can to raise money for his party and the nominee. However, Gore's problem wasn't GE money, but primary money. If a President remains impartial during the primary, it would be inappropriate to engage in primary fundraising efforts.
(4) What momentum? In one way the public was very sophisticated in their assessment. They disapproved of Clinton's behavior but they also disapproved of the effort to impeach him for that. They were harsh in their judgment of many of the GOP loons in Congress that ran that circus and voted them out of office. Otherwise, that tiny sliver of the electorate that are known as swing voters weren't dissatisfied with the balance of power in DC. That should have favored Gore. So, you tell me why they ending up splitting 50/50 to retain or change that balance. How could someone who'd never received 50% plus one in his two presidential bids have been a natural asset?
Gore's campaign fell on a thousand and one small cuts. We can never know if any single one shifted votes or if it was an accumulation of small ones. For example, did Gore's dreadful TV make-up in the first debate hurt? I have no clue. What we do know about that incident was that his schedule was so pressed for time that he was late in arriving for the debate and that likely left no time for last minute checks by his team before the debate began. But why was he late? Why had he been unable to take off a lot of time from the campaign trail to prepare for the debate like GWB did? My guess, based on what I've read about the campaign, is that Gore had to spend more time fundraising during the GE than GWB did.
Rank and file Democrats were simply not motivated enough to chip into Gore's primary or GE campaign. Why not? Perhaps we were indifferent to him. That's what the polls indicated throughout the race until his acceptance speech. Perhaps it's because the DEM Party didn't retool while the decline in union membership (13.5% in 2000 - source) reduced the financial support from this funding source. They never told us that Democrats will lose if individuals don't start contributing a little bit. It took until 2003-4 with the Dean campaign for us to begin to appreciate and understand this.
However, in the 2000 post election mess in FL, Gore's team did tell us that they needed money. Did we respond? Sure, but not well. Gore got $5 million and GWB got $15 million. That disparity bought the GOP more and better talent to fight the battle. Would the outcome have been different if Gore had had more money and better lawyers? Don't know but it wouldn't have hurt.
Did Clinton want Gore to win? His behavior didn't say yes, but that can't be construed that he wanted him to lose either. Do I blame Clinton? No. He's made it quite clear where he stands on policy issues. If that's what Democratic voters want, they have the right to choose that. I, however, will never again join them.
Posted by Marie at October 5, 2007 05:17 PMeriposte - second comment: I don't know anyone who said what you claim they said ... Not sure what part of 2+2=4 that you're missing. If one couldn't imagine that Clinton wasn't an asset on the campaign trail, weren't they rejecting the possibility that the Monica thing had any relevance to voters? That no swing voter could possibly have cared about that? Or if they did, they couldn't possibly have used it against Gore? I merely articulated how someone could easily have done that. I listened carefully to some of those voters in 2000 and while they couldn't quite articulate their logic, it was essentially what I laid out here. That's how they decided to vote for GWB.
Joe Lieberman -- Gore has even admittted that that was a mistake. He has yet to disclose how he made that decision which I'd be very interested in hearing. He did try to atone for that by endorsing Dean and not Lieberman in 2003.
Iraq bombing. I don't know what Gore's position was on that at the time nor how he views that today. All I have to go on is that he strenuously and publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq. And did so before the Senate vote on the IWR. Hillary voted for that (had done nothing to atone for that vote) and Kyl-Lieberman. Gore has moved on and grown since 2000. There's no way of knowing if the Gore was there all along and would have surfaced if he'd won or if his defeat was a life changing experience. I sensed a better Gore underneath his public persona in 2000 which was enough for me to support him but I'm under no illusion that it would have surfaced and materialized in President Gore - the institutional government in DC could easily have overrulede his better angels. Gore's a fairly conservative and politic guy. So, my eyes were wide open to the possibility that with Gore we'd only get more of the same DLC formulation, not as bad as what Bush/Cheney were offering, but not great either. If he'd won and that's what we got from him, it would have been difficult to support him for a second term.
Posted by Marie at October 5, 2007 05:50 PMSee? It looks like she's tracking the red balloon, but that's just autonomic reflexes.
Anyhow, great dissection of the article, eriposte. Thanks!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 5, 2007 07:32 PM