Former President Clinton Raises Cain - Almost

Thursday, 6 July 2006, 9:34 am
Opinion: Michael Collins

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.

This is my speculation but the pauses reinforce the interpretation. Just a moment later, he addresses the specific question asked, “Do you think it was (stolen)…”

“In this case, I think… You know, I don’t have an opinion, but I thought Robert Kennedy made a very persuasive case and what was clear is that the Secretary of State (of Ohio), now their candidate for governor, was a world class expert in voter suppression and that he was doing everything he could to keep voters that he thought were Democrats from voting, in every way that he could.”

Once again, we have a pause, a presumed reflection and a switch from “I think” to “I don’t have an opinion” paired with a compliment to Robert F. Kennedy’s article, “a very persuasive case.” It appears that the usually fluid speaker’s pauses allowed him to regain his scales-of-justice like balance and pull back from throwing the country into an uproar. Clinton would have set off a fire storm by endorsing the argument that 2004 was stolen and the obvious conclusion, that the Bush presidency is illegitimate.

Regardless of what was not said, Clinton said enough to cause a major controversy. He strongly endorsed the “persuasive” arguments Kennedy made and told the audience that it was worth their time to read the article. This speech was in public at a major convention in Little Rock, Arkansas. Clinton’s endorsement of the RFK Jr. article as persuasive and a must read would have caused a major stir just two weeks after the article’s publication.

It did not. This is just another example of the total lack of a functional main stream media in the United States. There was no reporting on the Clinton endorsement on or after the 17th of June. When the transcript of the article became available on June 30th, it was immediately published in Notes from the Underground, the blog of author and voting rights advocate Professor Mark Crispin Miller of New York University.

Response to the Clinton Statements

One struggles to find any sort of media coverage of Clinton’s remarks except at Miller’s blog. Given the significance, analysis is a requirement. Absent main stream media words and wisdom from the likes of the New York Times, network newsreader Katie Couric, and radio’s acerbic Don Imus, I sought out a reputed hotbed of activity on election fraud and election integrity, www.DemocraticUnderground.com (DU). (Note: This wasn’t difficult since DU is one of the forums where I post.)

DU has been the meeting place for a variety of researchers and activists since the 2004 election. Posters including TruthIsAll, the originators of black box voting research on voting machine problems, and an election law attorney known as Land Shark represent a cross section of this new faction of the larger voting rights movement.

The forum was named by Salon Magazine’s resident election fraud denier as a highly influential source of information on election fraud (Salon's article attacking Kennedy argument that 2004 was stolen was sternly rebuked in short order.) The Salon writer claims that DU was the leader in compiling a great deal of the extensive evidence in the Kennedy article. Given the thoroughness of the Kennedy article reflected by clear and persuasive analysis and extensive references, this can be taken as the compliment that it was not intended to be. Other than the author’s affirmation, Salon provided no evidence for this claim, however. No one at DU has ever made such a claim.

On issues related to election fraud, DemocraticUnderground is actually main stream.
A recent Lou Dobbs poll where 84% of respondents favored abandoning electronic voting reflects an equally strong sentiment on DU. A Zogby Poll showing nearly 40% of respondents believe that “2004 was stolen” is lower than the DU consensus, one suspects, but still shows that the forum’s consensus aligns with a large portion of the population.

The Democratic Underground Comments Dig Deep

Nevertheless, Democratic underground was open for business on July 1st and discussion was immediate on Clinton’s endorsement of the stolen election 2004 article. Reactions were varied but a number of important points were made that the main stream media would have missed in any event.

Two threads (here and here) were started by poster autorank (me) with quotations from the article and a brief statement as to the political significance of a Clinton recommendation that it be read by all in the audience. This was supported by poster AtomicKitten who said, “Bill Clinton…delivers a punch in easily understandable every-man terms. This gives me hope that our democracy just may survive electronic voting machine fraud after all.”

While other posters were glad to hear that the profile of Kennedy’s support was raised by the Clinton endorsement of the article, there were a number of sophisticated points worth exploring. These arguments speak to the nature of political stance versus political truthfulness.

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.

This post goes to the central issue of election fraud researchers, namely that the election was stolen not only in Ohio but across the country. This argument is extensively supported by evidence presented on DU and elsewhere. It also begins an interesting colloquy on motives regarding the discussion of stolen election 2004.

Poster mod mom points out that as an avid reader, Clinton must have come across the research supporting stolen election scenarios in 2004. She remarks, “I hate to sound cynical, but could this comment originate from the knowledge that the public is picking up on this issue and the Clinton's don't want to be left out of the loop?”

MikeNY was more direct when he said,

Where was he in 2000 and 2004 when Al Gore needed this type of support? It’s important to him now because its election time... don't tell me he didn't look into these irregularities in 00 or 04. That would be obscene of him to claim that.

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.

This strikes at the heart of the Clinton remarks; an extremely popular former president endorsing an article from a well known public figure claiming that election 2004 was stolen. Why comment on this now? Why do it in a question and answer session? Why not repeat the endorsement and commentary on 2000 and 2004 everywhere? What is the impact of staying below the “public radar?”

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.

Independence Day

July 4th is the national celebration of the United States victory over colonial domination. The many assumptions that operated at that time included the right of a free people to determine their own future. Fundamental to that right is the right to vote. The evolution of the franchise provides a rich history of attempts to contract and expand voting opportunities. In any form of voting, the overwhelming consensus is that there must be honesty in producing results.

The passion for electoral honesty and political truth displayed on Democratic Underground represents an unvarnished commitment to truth not only in elections but in political dialogue. These activists are taking the advice of election law attorney Paul Lehto who argues that the citizens, not the politicians must be the sentinels of democracy. Why? Because the elections belong to the citizens, not the politicians, and as our right, we the people are obligated to protect and guard that right.

© Scoop Media