Your Title is incorrect.  Clinton did not say Gore or Kerry were out of touch, just that they were perceived as out of touch.

Clinton just managed to say that the people who smeared Gore and Kerry as inauthentic, as fake, as elitist, and so on, had something of a point.

Infuriating.

distinction my friend

She said last night that Gore lost and it was because of this.

But Gore got more votes both nationally and in Florida.

And she takes no responsibility for how Bill Clinton's sex life hurt Gore with culturally conservative voters.

It will great to hear Gore endorse Obama within 72 hours.

I think Clinton is the most elitist person running for President. Even McCain is more down to Earth, though he will get my vote - ever.

Thanks for the well reasoned, non hysterical diary.  There are certianly legs to this story, but maybe not the ones that Clinton would like.

today in the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/pol itics/14watch.html?_r=1&ref=politics &oref=slogin

I can't wait until she replaces Maureen Dowd.

I think Clinton is touching on the fact that there were some key weaknesses in Gore and Kerry and that she can do better.  I've heard many Dems say this about those candidates - that they were weak nominees.

Gore endorsed Dean and that did Dean no good so hopefully Gore will just stay out of it.

Clinton's criticisms of Obama's "bitter" comments did not come off well in front of a labor audience.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/04/14/888068.aspx reports:

The New York senator brought up the issue near the top of a speech sponsored by the Alliance for American Manufacturing, to quite a few murmurs in the crowd.

"I understand my opponent came this morning and he spent a lot of his time attacking me," she said, before being interrupted with several seconds of murmurs and groans from the crowd. "Well, you know, I know that many of you, like me were disappointed by recent remarks that he made."

More groans and at least one "No" from the crowd.

"And I think it's important that, you know, we give people the chance to really compare and contrast us," Clinton continued. "You know, I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive."

A few more "No"s.

Perhaps someone can demonstrate how Hillary is "in touch" with "average Americans", and why she is somehow any more electable than any of those three.

Frankly, she's the LAST person who has any business whatsoever making this argument, as someone who has been living on the taxpayer's money for 28 of the last 30 years. When was the last time she had to pay for gas or pay off student loans or an electric bill  that dipped into her grocery money?  

Clinton may be on to something here.  Quick: does anyone know if Anthony Kennedy owns a gun?

Otherwise, he would be sitting in the White House. The media hurt Al Gore by painting him as a liar, and the Supreme Court sealed the deal. Bill Clinton's sex life didn't cost him the election. But his running away from Clinton probably hurt him as much as anything. If he had asked Bill to campaign for him more, he would probably have won by a wide enough margin to keep Bush from stealing it. And Kerry was a terrible nominee. He nailed his own coffin shut with that video of him weaving back and forth in his speedos.

Hillary is waaaaaaaayyyy finished...God, I can't wait for her to go away, YUK!

We are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.  Gore and Kerry were both seen elitist (or least that is what Karl Rove made them out ot be).  Remember when Gore stood up and walked over to Bush during the debate and it made him seem overly snobby and Bush defelcted with a giggling "hello".  Bush connected.  Remember Gore saying he invented the internet? Hillary had a point about perception. Don't get me started on Kerry.  That was a hard vote in my opinion because Kerry wis an elitist snob.

She was simply remarking that Obama's comment will increase the perception that many people have of the Democratic Party in general - that we are an elitist party, run by liberal radicals (many from San Francisco) who don't respect those who have views different from our own.  That is what she was saying, and it's entirely true.  She didn't paint Gore or Kerry as such, what she said is that a "perception" about them was successfully launched that they were out of touch and elitist.  Hillary praised both of them and deemed it unfortunate that such a distorted perception could be successful, but alas it was.  Regardless of whether you believe Gore won or not.  Hillary is speaking in a real world, and reality shows that many people probably didn't vote for Gore and Kerry because they felt they were elitist and out of touch.  The same will definitely hold true for Obama.

Senator Clinton wasn't maligning anyone, she was stating the obvious.  That the republican machine and the media were successful at labeling Kerry and Gore as elitist and out of touch with the average american.  She wasn't saying they were.  And Obama will be easily labeled this way as well.  The Clintons know hot to combat this and will be able to win in November.

it's that she poses precisely the same problem, and this is another episode of Clinton "projecting" her weaknesses onto others (when given an opening), with the hope of deflating the same arguments against her.
She can do this because Obama, by and large, won't attack her in this way. Remains to be seen if it will work enough to yank the rug out from under him.

Bill Clinton's sex life didn't cost him the election. But his running away from Clinton probably hurt him as much as anything. If he had asked Bill to campaign for him more, he would probably have won by a wide enough margin to keep Bush from stealing it.

Really? Like, the same way he helped so many down-ballot Democrats hold and pick up seats during his tenure in office? Clinton's "sex life" (if we must call it that) may not have cost him a 3-way election, but it also never got him a popular majority either, and the party suffered historical losses while he an Hillary flourished.  You'll have to do better than that if you want to convince the rank-and-file to walk over that cliff again.

Given how the right and talk radio will be jumping all over this, I cannot see how echoing the talking points of the right in a Democratic primary will be in any way acceptable or beneficial to Senator Clinton.

Not everything is fair game, and now that Penn is gone (is he?) who can we blame when the "elitist" label backfires on the Clinton camp? You should've left it alone, Senator Clinton. You should've thrown Obama a rope like he did for Biden during that Iowa debate. But it seems you're incapable of such niceties.

Lizard--you are right. Hillary would have been much better off, and gotten way more mileage out of it, if she had just said something like "while I don't necessarily agree with Senator OBama's assessment, I will leave it to others to analyze his comments." But yes, she doesn't not possess the requisite political sense to stay above the fray.

Clintton did not say Gore and Kerry WERE elitist, fake, out-of-touch, but successfully portrayed as so by the GOP, resulting in Preident George W Bush for 2 terms.
Infuriating, yes, but also factual.
Historic American Populism pits "Powerful Elites" vs "The People."
"The Elites" continues to be a powerful concept in American politics. For Democrats, the Wealthy are elites.  For GOP, elites are Democrats in Academia, in the media, in government.
It's Us vs Them in every election.
The winner is candidate who can convince more voters that he/she is "us," and will fight for "us."

This "bitter" fiasco has been manufactured by hillary and the stupid media.  Obama is telling the truth and americans know it.  Obama is the only candidate with the courage and integrity to tell it like it is.  People are bitter out there, and they turn to things to take it out on, like immigrants, etc.  I see it all over the country.

If americans can't handle the truth, and believe Hillary's dishonest framing of this issue, then they deserve a Bush 3rd term under Grandpa McCain.

It's Hillary and McCain, and the media, that are out of touch.  The clinton's made over $100m in the last 10 years, while Obama was out pounding the streets helping the working people of this country.

I want to make a point about Clinton's reaction to Obama's remarks that I have not seen others make. Specifically as a gay man, I want to explain why his comments rang true for me, and why her reaction to them exemplifies why I will never support Clinton.

As a gay man, I watched as Bill Clinton signed away my federal marriage rights.  I watched as President Clinton signed away my right to be honest about who I am and still keep my job in our armed services.

I have watched 8 years of media-wide and country-wide gay bashing by a huge majority of the population of this country.

I have watched as state after state have passed, for the first time ever, constitutional amendments limiting a group of citizens rights rather than expanding them.

I have watched as an entire religious movement has coalesced and flourished around the idea that I am a second class citizen, that the best thing you can say about me is "to hate the sin but love the sinner."

Having seen all of this, I would very much like to know a good reason why my fellow citizens feel it has been excusable to treat gay people this way.

I actually found that Obama once again had the only even remotely understandable (and frankly the most generous) explanation of this countries attitudes regarding human rights as they relate to gay people.

Everyone, including Hillary Clinton, knows Obama was right.  People close down and look for scapegoats as their own prosperities grind to a halt. This is an understandable reaction.  But it does not make it right.

And it certainly does not excuse Clinton's attempt to capitalize on Obama's accurate and honest assessment of why people have the attitudes towards gay people that they have displayed during the Bush and Clinton presidencies.

In her attacks on Obama's "bitterness", Clinton is implicitly saying it is an acceptable, defensible  part of people's belief system for them to be bigots towards gay people.

And this is precisely the reason I could never support Clinton. Nothing is beyond reproach for her or her political machine.

don't forget she added that he said it in SF, again playing to the bigoted base of her new constituency, the Hatemongers.

I think America knows better than Clinton...

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/0414 08DailyUpdateGraph1_b1v9n2.gif

Two points:

1. How about actually reading Hillary's statement? "We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004," she said. "Large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand, or relate to, or respect their ways of life." She didn't say that SHE felt that way about either man, and she didn't say that either man lost the election because of it - she simply said that "large segments of the electorate" felt that way. I don't know how anyone can argue with a straight face that that statement isn't true. However ridiculous we may think it was, an awful lot of people DID feel that George W. Bush was more in touch with who they were than either Gore or Kerry.

2. For the last frackin' time, "elitism" is an attitude. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual's socioeconomic class or educational attainment. Bobby Kennedy, for instance, was certainly not from the working class, but he was no elitist. Any of us should be able to think of dozens of wealthy and/or highly educated people who have worked their hearts out for people less fortunate than they, and who have managed to do so without the "Lord of the Manor" condescension that sometimes seems to characterize Barack's less scripted statements.

Full disclosure: I support Hillary, but I intend to support Obama in the GE if he gets the nomination. However, I sincerely hope he figures out a way to connect more genuinely with ordinary people, and I hope he does it fast.

"Al Gore was mentioned earlier. I think Al Gore won," he says.

How could Al Gore have won in Obama land?  Florida votes don't count in Obama land

He was for Democracy before he was against it and now he is for it again?

Bill and Hillary lived in the White House for 8 years, THATS winning...Gore and Kerry lost to GEORGE W. BUSH! The 2000 election should never have been close enough to steal but Gore ran a crappy campaign, he picked LIEBERMAN as a running mate does anyone not remember that?

Kerry was awful, should have been Edwards

Throwing Kerry and Gore under the political bus is just pure stuipidity.  Then again, virtually everything HRC has touched this year has been idiotic.  

I am meeting new people daily that is like me:  admiring what the Clinton presidency had accomplished but disgusted (surprisingly) by Hillary and her despicable tactics!  Are you guys seeing this at your neck of the woods?  

HRC is trying to do something similar to what BO did... talk about "why people vote". She (and he) are taking shop. But, talking in two entirely different contexts.

She's pointing to the lessons of the Gore and Kerry losses and implying that history might repeat itself. Her basic argument at this point is making the case that "Obama CAN'T win." She's desperate to sell that idea.

Obama has avoided making the case that "Hillary CAN'T win." He seems to prefer to let voters provide those clues rather than polls or guesses.

"Hillary CAN'T win." is a conclusion I happen to believe... just so you know... I never thought she could be elected. I feel that more strongly as I see her wrestle with a good opponent.

Obama also tried to position the voting habits of people in the rust belt and the issues they align with:

1. Guns and the messages from the NRA w.r.t. who to support.

2. God: GWB used the leverage here and made a new Repub base just by aligning with the Christian Right around abortion, prayer in schools, and the intergration of Church and State.
   
3. Illegal Immigration: see Lou Dobbs for this new lever at work.

But now the context of these "political lessons" is important... crucial.

Obama was speaking to a group of supporters and the question was "How can we relate to the typical PA voter that needs to be convinced to support you?" His answer was an attempt to explain the issues and difficulties a volunteer would face. NOTE: One of the supporters turned out to be less than that... more of a mole that was eager to expose a soundbite without any context. And she nailed a doozy. Obama let his guard down and talked shop "in public". Yes, we'd like such candid disclosure from the HRC campaign about what they are actually thinking these days...

Now, what Hillary is doing is IMHO totally unacceptable in a primary. She's attacking the character of an opponent for personal benefit within the same party. GWB did this to McCane.

Maybe my preference for the messages and style of Obama make it difficult for me to see him doing anything similar. But, I think the results speak for themselves... HRC looses support when she goes negative. I'm expecting the dust to settle on this kerfuffle the same way the Rev Wright issue did... as Obama talks to the issue people will see that he isn't someone that looks down on any particular group but someone that will err on the side of the poor and the disenfranchised... without respect to race, religion, gender or sexual preference.

That's why I'm hoping PA speaks up for the candidate with the most integrity and sees through the self-serving manipulation... and this phase of the nomination process is ended.

NOTE: PA didn't get to pick the Republican candidate either. Why? Because at some point before the convention it's usually OVER. That's a good thing democrats. That indicates that a party represents a measureable point of view.

Our party is actually a mix of agendas of people that can't vote republican to get what they want. There are a dozen reasons why. Maybe this era of the America can creating some unifying messages to invigorate the party once more.

One can only hope... hope = good. Hope is really the only lever we have worth pulling to get something done. All the other levers divide us and make it appear that we are learning democracy from Iraq's problems and NOT showing them a model of compromise and fairness that works for all.

jonathan, i see where you're coming from, but i respectfully disagree.  as a loyal democrat who worked on gore's campaign, i can easily see where gore came across as elitist and out of touch with the pulse of the public at large.  (the aura of "i'm so much smarter than you" coming from him was at times palpable)  and as for kerry, well, he resonated even less for me than gore did.  indeed, far, far less--with one of the main reasons for that being kerry's liberal-elitist vibe, which was a turnoff for me.

in fact, i think the glib arrogance demonstrated by both of them in eschewing bill clinton--gore by distancing himself from bill's administration in 2000, and kerry by ignoring bill's campaign advice in 2004--is the flip side of the very elitism hillary is alluding to!  which is why i find it ironic that hillary's being criticized for an all-too-valid foible that (pre-2001) gore, kerry, and obama have in common.  not only do i think she's right, i think it's dangerous and arrogant for democrats to ignore history just because she's the one describing it.  i'm a loyal democrat, and i still get annoyed as heck by the elitism i see TODAY and EVERY day WITHIN OUR OWN PARTY.  (exhibit a is the obama blogs.)

here's a crude analogy:  a poor farmer, by pointing out a rich yuppie's elitism, does not thereby become an elitist (against elitists), does he?  i mean, that makes no sense.  well the same goes for criticizing hillary for making a valid point.  and i don't want to hear about how she's rich or went to elite schools, ad nauseum infinitum--there's a reason why she does well with the rural vote, and a reason why she's made inroads in upstate new york.  her ATTITUDE toward them is one of respect and care.  i really don't think a privileged liberal like me is in a place to declare indignation just because her attitude toward me is not as solicitous.  after all, i thought i was a democrat.

and i think that if he were elected, he would have made an excellent president, but he did not connect with the American people. He tried and tried, but the poor guy was successful. I saw it around me with my friends who were democrats and were not "hot" about voting for him. As for Kerry, i was never a supporter of his. I voted for him just because he had a capital D next to his name.