At that preposterous (and unconstitutional) "Compassion Forum" last night, Hillary Clinton took a FOX-style swipe at both Al Gore and John Kerry--asserting that they lost because they were "elitist" candidates (just like you-know-who).
Now, one might actually agree that Gore and Kerry are elitists, just like most other leading Democrats, including, of course, Hillary herself (and, one fears, Obama, too). There is, however, no excuse for Clinton's claim that those two candidates lost their elections: no excuse, even though the myth that Gore and Kerry "lost" has been repeated all but universally for years, by nearly everybody in the media, the Democratic Party and Bush/Cheney's GOP.
It was therefore a cause for raucous cheering when Obama said, "I have to say, I think Al Gore won." It was a statement to be wildly cheered, because no other candidate has dared to make that necessary claim (in public).
Not that there weren't problems with Obama's statement. One was that equivocal "I think," suggesting that Gore's victory is a matter of opinion--when it's a fact that Gore prevailed in Florida. The media consortium that finally went through all the ballots there determined that, if all the votes in that state had been counted, Gore would have been declared the winner, and, therefore, the President of the United States. (For the exact numbers, see the attached Table 1 from the media consortium's report, which is available on-line at
This may come as news to you, since Gore's win was thickly obfuscated in the press reports, which cast it as a victory for Bush. That's the Big Lie that we got from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CBS News et al., which is especially weird, since those very institutions were all part of the consortium that carried out that vote-count. They lied about Gore's win because, by the time the vote-count was complete, it was two months since 9/11, and the nation was "at war," so that it would have been just too damn troublesome to tell the truth.
And, once having lied, it was impossible for those outlets to redeem themselves by coming clean; and so they keep on variously claiming, even now, that Bush beat Gore. A few weeks ago, for instance, the Times's Nicholas Kristof wrote a column likening Hillary's diehard drive against Obama to Ralph Nader's theft of Al Gore's victory in 2000. The column resonated strongly all throughout the media and cyberspace, with everybody and his brother parroting that line, and nobody (unless I missed it) pointing out that Nader could not possibly have made Gore lose, because Gore didn't lose; and if the Democrats were too damn cowardly to fight on his behalf, that's not Ralph Nader's fault.
In any case, the other problem with Obama's statement was that it referred to Gore alone; when there is mountainous (and ever-growing) evidence that Kerry won Ohio-- evidence that is no less persuasive for the many loud and groundless claims, by various would-be "debunkers" on the right and left, that no such evidence exists. (There's also copious hard evidence that Kerry won, or did far better than reported, in many other states from coast to coast.) That Obama wouldn't go so far as to point that out as well is disappointing--although no surprise, since he has always held (in public, anyway) that Kerry "lost" Ohio.
And so, while it is marvelous indeed that he proclaimed the truth about Gore's win, we can't stop pushing him, and everybody else, to face the facts about Bush/Cheney's second theft of power. We just can't stop: because the next election is quite likely to be stolen, too; and the only way to stop it--or, once it's happened, to get the people ready to resist it-- is to tell the truth, at last, about what Bush/Cheney and their men have done to this democracy, while Gore and Kerry, Clinton and Obama and a lot of other Democrats have let them get away with it.
Obama to Clinton: Al Gore Won the Election in 2000!
By mark karlin Created 04/14/2008 - 10:46am
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher
April 14, 2008
Add this to Senator Hillary Clinton's list of craven pandering: she doesn't believe Al Gore won the 2000 election, even though he beat Bush by 542,000 votes and beat him in Florida, except that the Supreme Court stopped the recount.
But Barack Obama will have none of accepting the GOP mugging of democracy in 2000 as Clinton has done. In the so-called "values debate" on April 13th, Obama chastised Clinton for lumping Gore and Kerry together as "elitist" candidates -- and claiming that's why they both lost their elections.
Obama becomes the first major candidate to acknowledge the truth about the stolen 2000 election as he issued this rejoinder to Clinton's disowning of the real vice-president during her husband's administration: "I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier," Obama said. "By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won."
The Washington Post offers details of what Obama was responding to.
>From the April 14th WP : [1]
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) asserted Sunday night that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), through his recent description of sentiments in small-town America, reinforced a stereotype of "out-of-touch" Democrats that doomed the party's past two presidential nominees.
"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," Clinton said at Messiah College, referring to former vice president Al Gore and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). She repeated her view that Obama had been "elitist . . . and, frankly, patronizing."
Perhaps Senator Clinton's shameless and disingenuous tag-teaming with John McCain against Obama will meet with some success in Pennsylvania, as wielding dishonest wedge issues have in the past with workers left behind by NAFTA, Wal-Mart factories in China, and the neo-liberal trade policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations (and Reagan and Bush administrations before them).
1 | 2
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
