Apparently, sometime during the "Compassion Forum" hosted by CNN, Hillary Clinton had the compassionate idea to insult Al Gore, former VP and true victor in the 2000 Presidential race. She said that voters didn't respect him: "Large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand, or relate to, or respect their ways of life." Making matters worse, she lumped Gore along with that snooty, French-worshiping elitist loser John Kerry, who supports Barack Obama. Source: Huffington Post. Most hilarious is the fact that HRC states that "large portions of the electorate" concluded that Gore was fake, because he won the popular vote. Senator Clinton also took jabs at both Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry at a campaign stop in Scranton, PA, calling them "elitist" and "out of touch."
This was a profound mistake, especially in the light of the recent, poorly-sourced Scotsman article suggesting that Gore might not hold out on his endorsement after all.
During the 2000 Presidential campaign, Al Gore made no secret of explicitly wanting to distance himself from the immoral escapades of the Clinton administration. Although he has held out his endorsement during the 2008 Democratic Primary and suggests he will continue to do so, this is not a foreordained conclusion.
Ideally, HRC shouldn't anger her other nationally-recognized Democratic colleagues before the Convention. Numerous sources have indicated that elder statesmen such as Gore and Kerry are highly regarded by many super-delegates as party leaders with great stature. By trashing Gore as an "elitist"-- which was largely an artifice of the corporate media during the 2000 campaign-- Clinton not only smears her husband's former VP with right-wing frames, but she does it by grouping him in with Obama himself.
Why not let the sleeping giant lie? Gore might want to become involved in the campaign if his name is being dragged though the mud, and lumping him in with Obama might be doing Obama a great favor before the Convention rolls around. It's no secret that the Clinton campaign has made innumerable short-sighted gaffes, trading off perceived short-term gains for other long-term opportunities. I suppose HRC is playing for the so-called Reagan democrats in PA, WVa, IN, and NC; but will they trust her statements about being a gun supporter seriously? How will they react to her trashing a former VP, the 2000 presidential election victor, and Nobel prize-winning environmental activist?
Why would a Democrat want to say these things about other Democrats? Doesn't she know she has to work with Gore and Kerry in the Senate, if nothing else? Now that the Republicanesque Mark Penn is gone, there are no excuses left for why Clinton should be attempting to damage unaffiliated Democratic party members.
One concluding point: in the Huffington Post piece, please note Obama's response to HRC's characterization that voters rejected Gore. To paraphrase the junior IL Senator, "With all due respects, I believe Gore won." That's a strong endorsement of a so-called elitist loser.
Note: This is my first diary, so I hope that I've contributed something meaningful. Also, as you might infer from my handle, I am a student of Univ. of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), which currently employs neoconservative legal "academic" John Yoo. To my esteemed Dean Edley: Fire Yoo, or we'll fire you. Note to the note: Edley is an adviser to the Obama campaign, so before you excoriate him, please keep in mind he's with the good guys.
Edit: Corrections of wording and accuracy. Many thanks to Turnersq's diary here, which helped me fix some errors. Apparently, Hillary has trashed Gore and Kerry so many times today that I can't keep track of things.