Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Clinton: “RFK Jr. Made Very Persuasive Case" For '04 Election Fraud

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:55 PM
Original message
Bill Clinton: “RFK Jr. Made Very Persuasive Case" For '04 Election Fraud
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:35 PM by kpete
In the latest RS there’s a new story on Blackwell’s gutter tactics in the Ohio governor’s race, and how the vote may already be stacked against his challenger, Ted Strickland, a Democrat.

Also in the story is a box on p.44 about former President Bill Clinton’s response to the Kennedy article, which I found interesting:


In June we published Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comprehensive analysis of voting fraud and among those convinced by the piece was former President Bill Clinton. “I read Robert Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone, and I think all of you should if you haven’t,” he recently urged the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. “Before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won Ohio…But I thought Robert Kennedy made a very persuasive case.” Clinton singled out Ohio’s secretary of state, Ken Blackwell, as the main culprit, calling him “a world-class expert in voter suppression” who did “everything he could to keep voters that he thought were Democrats from voting, in every way that he could.”

more at:
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3949

Asked his opinion about Robert Kennedy Jr.'s recent article in Rolling Stone, charging that John Kerry, not George Bush, won the majority of votes in Ohio and thus won the 2004 presidential election, Clinton said Kennedy made "a compelling case."

And, he said, "I think there's no question that Al Gore would have won Florida" if all the votes had been counted accurately and all the people who wanted to vote had been able to.

http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. But how can that be?
By listening to alot of people on DU Bill Clinton is a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Yes, what about it. Does that mean he can't be right sometime?
He undercut the unions with NAFTA like a Republicon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. If he's so damn smart, why did it take him so damn
long to figure out there was a stolen election in Ohio?

He waits for nearly two years before he mentions this? Only after the Real big dog, RFK, Jr, makes the case against Blackwell.

He's part of the problem IMHO....should have spoke up long ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. Thread under hijack---LET'S ROLL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CollegeDUer Donating Member (452 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Bill Clinton's an "Establishment Democrat"
He's "in the Washington Beltway" -- the club. He doesn't want to rock the boat that much. He was a saint compared to the man we have now, but I wouldn't call him a working class progressive at all. He's too far removed from those people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. No, Clinton's not "in the Beltway."
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:17 PM by Shakespeare
He's an established fundraiser (a huge distinction), and a party lion in that regard, but he was never accepted by Washington's "inside the Beltway" crowd. Occasionally, you can catch little glimpses of Clinton's lingering (and justifiable) resentment over this fact.

Sally Quinn, wife of Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, wrote viciously about the Clintons throughout both terms of the administration--she was more or less the "official" voice for the beltway insiders, and she was nasty and ruthless. The Clintons lacked the social creds of the east coast intelligentia, and were treated accordingly. Woe be any (fornerly) poor southerner who dares to be part of that inner circle.

Edited to add a link to an excellent story summarizing Quinn's (and, by extension, the in-the-beltway crowd's) disdain for Clinton:

http://archive.salon.com/media/1998/03/09media.html

And one more note: I was working and living, literally, inside the beltway during this time and watched a lot of this up close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CollegeDUer Donating Member (452 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think you pointed out a great ill to our democracy here
That even the "elite" are not elite enough for a "higher elite."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Welcome CollegeDUer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. "He was a saint compared to the man we have now. . . "
And that might be the best we can do. Unfortunately, politics is all relative.

Welcome to DU, CollegeDUer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
29. Welcome to DU.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 10:16 PM by Vidar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Need to change your title
its ELECTION fraud not VOTER fraud. Big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. thanks
I should know better - too much wine and talk with the girls last night...

Keep watch out for me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
byronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I got myself trained up on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. AP, nah; Reuters, nah; kpete OH Yeah! Check this out.
We were there... itizen Clinton Speaks Out: Former President Raises Cain - Almost July 3, 2006 .... featuring DUers mod mom, PATRICK, blm, Atomic Kitten, and MikeNY... WAY TO GO CLINTON...KEEP IT UP!!!!!!!

Snip:

Former President Clinton spoke to the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies on June 17, 2006. He gave the keynote address which covered a number of topics. He even provided his answer to “the fundamental nature of the 21st century” – “interdependence.”

During the question and answer portion of the speech, an audience member made an inquiry about election fraud. Clinton’s response might have gained front page status or at least editorial page controversy if the United States had a function media. It does not.

Audience member to Clinton: Talking about elections, Robert Kennedy Jr. just wrote an article in Rolling Stone claiming the Bush Administration stole the last election. Do you think it was, and how can we guard against something like that going on in the future?

President Clinton: I must say I read Robert Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone and I think all of you should if you haven’t. And before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won Ohio… I… I …thought it would have been ironic if he had lost the election in the Electoral College and won the popular vote, that is if he went out the same way he came in. But… but I think that… I think that -- two things, I think there is no question that Al Gore would have won Florida if all the votes had been counted and the people who intended to vote for him had their votes counted.


This answer is remarkable on several levels. First, he tells the audience to read the article making the case for a stolen election in 2004. Second, he states that Gore’s loss of Florida was due to the most obvious form of election fraud, a failure to count all the votes. Finally, Clinton goes right up to the edge of saying, “…And before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won Ohio… I…” This is what is known as a pregnant pause, a moment of simultaneous reflection and silence, in this case, causing him to stop just short of saying “…I…now think he didn’t.” He pauses again when he seems to come back to the first part of the question, was it stolen: “But… but I think that… I think that…” He then continues with what is perhaps a revealing statement about Gore winning had all the votes been counted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. It appears that at least Rolling Stone read this article - a shame no one
in the corpmedia picked up on what was said, and I think it's safe to say that was what Clinton intended when he stayed below the radar with this lowtoned remark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. The association that hosted him wondered about this too.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 08:45 PM by autorank
The ran a piece on their web site saying, why isn't anybody covering this except this Michael Collins guy; ;)...you quotations are great...

From: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0607/S...

Poster blm immediately questions the motives for Clinton’s description of who won 2000 and 2004 tying this stance to a larger group of centrist Democrats seeking to move the party toward consistent “moderation:”

Many of them have spent the last 2 years completely ignoring how well Kerry did and reinforcing their own SPIN that the party needs to be more centrist, Kerry was too liberal and scared the American people and didn't connect with them bull shit.

Those who want to benefit from that scenario PROMOTE the lie and have no interest in machine fraud and will not acknowledge it. Was Clinton just throwing out vague support to assuage the believers in the audience while being completely aware that a full endorsement actually helps change the storyline to one they DO NOT WANT - that Kerry won by a remarkable number. A VERY ELECTABLE Democrat.


SNIP

The dialogue was summarized on a note of pragmatism by poster blm:

We SHOULD make Clinton be MORE RESPONSIBLE for his own words, and I say we promote the heck out of them - AND hold him to his recognition that RFKs article is compelling and you'd have to be one helluva candidate to rack up that many votes against an incumbent.

SNIP (can't resist putting this on in)

A most succinct summary was offered by poster PATRICK

The main Dem leaders are a giant step behind the truth and nowhere near doing anything about it- and thinking this is the wise course and stance. Maybe their private beliefs about fraud are more on track, but with their dedication to keeping this below the public radar and absent from public policy, it truly becomes not only inconsequential but a service to fraud itself.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. WOOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. Now he needs to read Fooled Again and the Conyers report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. Score a big lightbulb for a 2006 Rolling Stone article for an ex-Pres?
Is that what it takes? Ya mean, he's just finding this stuff out?

Scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. Big Dawg is on Charlie Rose's show tonight -- future of Dem Party is topic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Well, if Clinton really BELIEVES the RFK article he should use his cache
to say so PUBLICLY - something he has NOT done since he made this remark to ALTERNATIVE PRESS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. Total Leo
Patient, gracious people, Leos. The expend a lot of second and third chances. Be very scared when a Leo says nothing for a long time then suddenly speaks out. When they attack him for this, keep in mind, he's already planned on that probability.

Bill Clinton taught me a final lesson in the foolishness of hero worship. I like him. He's the very best possible politician - among the likes of FDR, Lincoln and Washington. He's good. He's damned good but he is a politician. He must ride the rhetorical fence because that's what politicians do. One can only hope that along the way, our elected officials leave the service of our country no worse than they found it. Sometimes a politician leaves us better. Bill Clinton is one that left us better off.

I think this is big. Clinton's statements are deliberate. I hope they unleash the yappy attack pundits on him. I hope it becomes a thing. Go ahead. Poke the lion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. Kicked
and recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
20. Edwards was adamant about not conceeding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. So was Kerry, until the election legal team could come up with no evidence
to continue in a court case and the math was not there for them as well. Edwards had no evidence to give a judge, either.

Then they conceded, in hope that a whistleblower would come forth - - as in most corruption cases, a whistleblower is needed where there is no concrete evidence in hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
24. Too bad nobody wanted to listen when we were screaming about Blackwell
BEFORE the election...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
25. Before this thread gets hijacked further I would just like to say
Thank you Mr. Clinton, I have great respect for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomburn Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. BIG DOG! WOOF WOOF!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
28. Great to hear it from the Big Dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
30. Welcome to the party Bill, you're late
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 21st 2014, 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC