A couple of posts down, we looked at the inoffensive remark by Bill Clinton which the Obama campaign has twisted into logical pretzels. Even Andrew Sullivan seems to find this reading strained. This TPM writer (who appears to suffer from a serious mental illness) actually scries racism into the quote -- which he does not quote, knowing full well that the text does not justify his reading.
I wrote: "The willful misinterpretations of innocent commentary is all all all ALL coming from the Obamabots."
Well, that's not true. I forgot about the ridiculous fracas over Obama's trifling "typical white person" remark. But that's the only instance I can think of, going in that direction.
I defy any human being to utter twenty consecutive, extemporaneous sentences without saying something that cannot be construed as either an unintended insult or sexual double entendre. The original statement is rarely an act of bad will, but the misinterpretation always is. We often encounter this phenomenon when marriages go bad: One party says "The salad was great," and the other answers: "So you hated the roast?"
27 comments:
"I think it would be a great
thing if we had
an election year where you had two people who loved this country and
were devoted to the interest of this country."
So what is the point of making the statement? We assume that every election you have two candidates who love this country and are devoted to the interests of this country... so WHAT is the point of making this comment???
JS
I think you are right. It is easy to get caught up in politics and to see sinister ulterior motives in everything. I did it myself in my posting about Bill's "mugging" statement, which I have since deleted.
It does appear though that Hillary stretched the truth a bit about Bosnia.
The rule 1 villators were a couple of nuts (or the same nut) with drive-bys.
Gary: There will be more on Bosnia soon. You're a mensch, so I am sure you will modify your views.
JS, if the point was not obvious, then you have not been awake since 1980. Every election cycle, the Republican candidate (through proxies) questions the Democrat's patriotism, or finds a wedge issue on which to criticize character. All liberals and many centrists have decried this sort of thing. Bill Clinton was obviously referring to that. And you would have seen that obvious meaning if you were not crazed with Clinton-hate.
At this point, the Clintons could not say "Where's the restroom?" without the Obamabots finding some way to scry racism into it.
Well, I see that Hillary has now said she misspoke. The quote was:
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Actually, as the video shows, there was a ceremony, she kissed a little girl who read her a poem, as Chelsea and others stood around. No one running. Can we agree that she embellished the truth?
Gary, if you check the AP and other accounts, the differences are trifling. Certainly trifling in comparison with Obama's outright and unabashed debate lie about how well he knew Rezko.
You remind me of an old comic book by Howard Chaykin, called "American Flagg," about a policeman in the future named Reuben Flagg. In one issue, Rueben has to take part in a SWAT-style action. And he asks himself: "Why do I feel that this is a replay of the Warsaw Ghetto -- and I'm NOT on the Jewish side?"
Frank Rich is the main guy at the NYT pushing the "Hillary the liar" meme. And when did he do this kind of thing before? Oh yeah...he did it to Al Gore.
Gary, how does it feel to be reliving the year 2000 -- only now you cribbing a play from the guys who gave us Bush?
And I notice that now the Obama campaign has transformed Bill Clinton's innocent comment into not only an excuse to charge "McCarthyism" but also an excuse to bring up Monica's blue dress.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/24/obama-camp-desperate-clinton-will-not-be-able-to-winby-any-conventional-measure/
So tell me, Gary -- how does it feel to re-live 1998, only this time you're fighting alongside Ken Starr and Lucianne Goldberg?
Let me know when you're ready for a shower. The company you are keeping is stinking you up.
Joe, I'm a bit perplexed by your analysis here. On more complex issues, you seem to put things together very well at times, in ways many others wouldn't really even contemplate. However, with Clinton's remark, this is a textbook example of passive aggressive nonsense. Clinton is a good speaker, and well aware that people scrutinize his words. Don't forget, this is someone who is so detailed, even "is" can have different meanings. ;) Regardless, the breakdown of the comment is simple to show as an attack conside3ring what I've said about Clinton.
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Considering there is only one other person left in the race, this is not coincidence. This is just a passive aggressive attack. MAke the point, and a number of people will here. Then, if your intended target (or their campaign in this case) takes offense, claim the status of victim by never meaning anything as an insult. Here's how Clinton would have worded it if it wasn't an insult:
I think it's a great thing that we have an election year where people who love this country and are devoted to the interest of this country will be the choices for the voters. People will actually be able to ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.
The above is non-offensive to anyone currently left in it and there's really no room to inerpret it as an insult. However, as it is, I've just seen too much passive aggressive nonsense from people, especially in politics, to not consider Clinton's statement an attack.
This isn't an example of the progressives going bonkers over nothing. Rather, it's responding to an ambiguous insult which the Clinton camp, and numerous commentators, have pretended was innocent and are now attempting to use to vilify the Obama campaign further. Personally, I think Obama should be putting a few of his people in check, simply because the best route is not to respond to such nonsense.
But, let's not pretend anyone seeing this as an attack is an "Obamabot." It's insulting to the rest of us.
Joseph, I'm not going to get into a street fight on this. Limiting my response to the Bosnia statements I do not think the differences were trifling. Her earlier statements did not reflect what actually happened. For me to say that she embellished the truth is to be charitable. I am amazed that she could misspeak to the extent she did. It was a major gaffe and raised legitimate questions as to whether Hillary Clinton has exaggerated her accomplishments in her husbands administration.
It seems to me that Hillary has little to no chance to win the nomination and maybe she's just getting desperate.
The blue dress comment was a cheap shot and the Obama campaign has apologized. The McCarthy comment was out of line. I am not here to defend everything the Obama campaign has said or done. I just hope the party can come together in November.
John, I don't know what to do. You have signed your name and you have been polite. But every word you write just makes me want to say "Fuck you."
My god, if you can actually interpret Clinton's words that way, you are just...nuts. I'm trying to be nice here, but I don't know the nice word for it.
By the way, since the progs have been recapitulating every damned Starr-era fable, we've also heard many references to that "Meaning of "is"" bit. I looked it up, not long ago. You should do so too. It was part of his Grand Jury testimony. And while it was not his best phrasing -- I would like to see YOU keep your cool so well under those circumstances -- if you see it in context, his meaning was perfectly clear and easy to understand. What's more, ifyou look at the whole passage, it is clear that his inquisitors were being assholes.
You know how I can prove that semi-objectively? Because that testimony was broadcast.
And that's when Clinton's approval ratings shot through the roof. That was the morning when the country turned against Starr and saw through the whole right wing charade. THAT morning, more than any other morning.
So go ahead. Play the Starr game. I think after this morning's "Monica" comment, the public is finally going to see Obama and Kos for what they are: Our new Starrs.
if you check the AP and other accounts, the differences are trifling.
Joseph, can you please point me at the AP articles you've read that give the account you refer to? I'm sorry if this is too off topic and if it is then I'll wait for the elaboration you mentioned.
I've seen the youtube video of her describing it and the youtube video of her arriving and it seems like a lie. But I'd like to hear more context.
zach, this is getting ridiculous. You don't know how to use Google? Josh Marshall is kind of fair, even though he is trying to damn Clinton.
I have this nifty Firefox add-on that puts a Google search toolbar right on top of the browser.
Hey, listen, to all those who have interpreted the Clinton remark in odd ways, a couple of points:
1. Let's see YOU speak in public without uttering a sentence that a horde of enemies can turn against you.
2. Scroll down to my post about Al Franken. Obviously, something has to be done about that man's severe anti-Irish prejudice.
Gary, I will have more to say about Bosnia anon.
But I have to say that at this point, I do not want the Democrats to win.
Even if Hillary is the nominee.
I want the Democrats to fail and for history to blame MARKOS MOULITSAS and the progressive blogs. Their sins are the same sins as those committed by the right in 1990s. Then as now, those sins must not be crowned by success or they will be repeated.
If Obama had flubbed up with this Bosnia untruth you would have gone nuts and jumped all over him.
She told the equivalent of an untruth. What she claimed to happen is not seen in that video or the pictures. Own up to it.
You've become a shill for Hillary Clinton.. just fess up to it. We'd all have a lot more respect for you if you did. Because otherwise nothing you do makes any rational sense.
no one "hates" Clinton. I like both Clintons. But we dislike what they are becoming in order to win... we hate all of this insane double talk that is primarily coming from her supporters who can only see one side of the issue like you. No one says Obama is perfect or the Messiah, or any of that other stupid shit. That's coming from Clinton supporters who have totally come unhinged.
JS
Oh for pity's sake, Joseph.
If your take on Bosnia is as vapid as your analysis of the Bill statements (which, subtle as they originally seemed, really are taking on something of a not-so-subtle pattern, sorta like McBush's Iran-al Qaeda connection repetition), then you've entered the wingnut core. Have you completely lost your capacity to be objective and even-handed?
And dude, if the Democrats lose in the fall, it will be because over-the-top, authoritarian, my-way-or-the-hiway zealots like you nit-picked this all-too-human process to an Olympian death.
Just like YOU predicted over a year ago.
How many times do you have to hear that you have become your own monster for it to sink in??
When will you calm down enough to recognize all this sound and fury is generated by supporters and grousers like yourself who just seem to live for fights like this? And the media jump on it because it's the sideshow, it gives them something to talk about, to obsess over. I honestly thought you were above all that.
We have a damn election to win and a country to turn around, and look at you! You're so caught up in spewing venom over sandlot bickering you don't even have the first clue anymore what all this is really about.
Sorry to be so forceful, but do you have any idea how hard this is to witness, the demise of a perfectly good citizen into the bitter naysayer.
No sir, Joseph. If Democrats lose in the fall, it will be because of people like you.
So snap out of it!
"If Obama had flubbed up with this Bosnia untruth you would have gone nuts and jumped all over him."
No, I would not. In fact, there are plenty of Obama lies or flubs or psuedo -lies that I just have thought unworthy of a second thought.
"But we dislike what they are becoming in order to win... "
That is a lie. They have "become" nothing. The Obama forces have created a campaign of smears exactly similar to the one that bested Gore in 2000. That is when this former Obama-voter turned against him. I bet you STILL believe that shit about Hillary and Bill using racist code-words. If you do, then you want some other blog. Try Kos. You'll feel comfortable with the guys shouting "Vince Foster! Vince Foster! Vince Foster!"
Slick's subtext re-enforces the 2-party myth, just in case someone mounts a so-called '3rd-party' effort, the fucken ingrate, as if he would have won without Perot's challenge.
Hillary didn't lie any more than Reagan lied when he retold old made-up movie scenes as historical anecdotes. She must have been recalling something, or maybe it happened to Eleanor Roosevelt. So what? we get to see her anew when she was still a ravishing babe, a nice side-by-side to the Wright video loopiness.
Has there been any speculation about her message being code, based on her St. Patrick's Day scarf accessory and its fit, in much the same way Bill wore a specific necktie for his coded TV messages about assignations?
And don't forget, Bill now wears a hearing aid and takes god-only-knows how many cardio meds, so he's always a potential crazy uncle.
Joe. First off, you are misinterpretting why I made the point about the whole "is" thing. This was how many years ago? Bill Clinton is an excellent speaker and is well used to people going over his words with a fine comb. It's why I simply can't believe that his statement wasn't a passive ggressive attack, simply due to the fact that it was so sloppy.
Again, read how I said he could have made the statement before. There are 3 runners left in the race. Personally, I couldn't care less for McCain. I think Clinton is being a lot nicer to him than is warranted. But, from a calculated "high road" sense, giving him praise there is logical. What isn't logical is, if the assertion that he holds every remaining candidate in such high regards, is to make a statement with negative implications that names nobody, when he mentions 2 people and there is only one other person in the mix.
Again, this is a textbook example of a passive aggressive attack. One of the biggest issues I've been having with the Clinton campaign is how often they've been making use of passive aggressive attacks. It's just lame. I'm not here to pick a side between candidates either as I'll be voting Democratic in the end anyways at this point. But, I'm not about to excuse one candidate's obvious negative crap while hanging out another for it. Both of the candidates' campaigns have been engaging in juvenile and negative nonsense against each other fairly regularly. This is another example of just that.
Have you never dealt with passive aggressive people in competition before? Because this is the game that gets played. Make a vague insult disguised as a compliment, and then play the victim when called on it. Again, this is why I think Obama could use some new people, as this should have been ignored. Nothing angers and short-circuits the passive aggressive type than when there is no reaction from their statement at all. They eventually commit verbal suicide as a result once the impatience and frustration gets the better of them. With Obama having the leads that he has over the past months, I just don't understand why anyone in his camp gives a crap about this kind of stuff. But, at the same time, I see no reason why we should pretend this was some innocent compliment that all the meanies are intentionally taking out of context.
John, are you fucking with me?
Seriously. I think you are doing to me what I once did to music promoter Bill Graham, just for the entertainment value. (I once wrote about that incident, so you can look it up.)
Well, Graham died at the age of 60, in a plane crash, as I recall. When I met him, I felt sure that a heart attack would take him out.
And if I don't want to die young myself, I'm going to have to find a way to ignore people like you who just cannot see the obvious.
Sorry -- I thought I had recounted on these pages the tale of how, purely to relieve boredom, I did a number on Bill Graham. Turns out I haven't told that story. One of these days, perhaps.
No, Joe. I'm, not fucking with you, and despite two insulting posts, have been respectful the whole time. I just ask that you take a step back from it. Let me change the scenario a bit for you. Perhaps it's because I'm from the north-east, and have lived and experienced how the passive aggressive game is so accepted and prevalant elsewhere in the country, that I just don't buy that this was an example of an "innocent" compliment.
Again, this is Bill Clinton. This is a man who was almost removed from office over his words. This is also a man who is a very talented speaker. In a nutshell, he's a perfect example of someone in this country who understands both the power and the consequences of words. Prsonally, I liked Bill Clinton as a President a lot. He wasn't perfect, but he was an A- in my opinion. I've heard him make some incredible speeches, where if he wanted to be incredibly positive, he was. Do you really believe for a second that, if Bill Clinton wanted to be positive, he wouldn't have worded his stament exactly as how I did? Especially since it's a natural answer if that's what you actually believe?
Then, in the present, he comes in with this vague insult. It's intentionally vague. you may think I'm being nuts but, if I was on the Clinton campaign, I would absolutely be advising people to go this route, since the Obama campaign has bitten every time. The Clinton campaign makes some bullshit passive aggressive attack, the Obama campaign bites, and the Clinton campaign plays victim. It is the ideal means of political attack when neither candidate really has anything of big substance to go after the other with. It's why the Obama campaign looks stupid when they go on the direct offensive against her, and it's why the Clinton campaign looks stupid when it goes on the passive aggressive attack against him.
The ultimate sadness of all of this is that they are both hurting each other. I'd say it's going to hurt her more than him though. The more she dodges giving direct answers, while people associated with her use passive aggressive attacks, and they pick and choose whether she is the same or different than Obama, the political dishonesty of all of it empowers the Nader campaign. Her campaign basically damages herself and Obama with this nonsense. Obama, on the other hand, especially when he's enjoying a lead, damages himself when acknowledges any of her negative shit with further negative bullshit. Personally, like so many other Democrats, I wish the both of them would cut the crap already and start focussing on McCain.
You've got the gift of calling bullshit on so many others. Don't let that dull in this particular instance. You're making excuses rather than being your usual measured cynical self, in a situation that is screaming for cynicism.
John, I know you have tried not to be insulting. And I really want to act likewise.
But...look, I simply cannot think of a non-insulting way to convey the sentiment "You've gone nuts."
If you think I'm nut,s Joe, do you think it might have to do with the possibility that you've become the same as an "Obamabot" for Clinton? Seriously think about that. You're a Democrat right? What's up with the scorecards on who did what, and all the silly he said/she said stuff on this blog lately? As an observer of politics, and as a Democrat first, it should be easy enough to spot this for a passive aggressive attack.
Either way, I'm beyond caring at this point. The more the Clinton campaign continues with passive aggressive nonsense, the more people she alienates which means, if she's the pick, Nader gets votes again and McCain wins. Kudos to her campaign on a job well done.
I used to read this blog for interesting analysis of current events. Now I just come to see Joe get serially taken down by anybody with a lick of common sense and time on their hands. What on earth happened? Something in the water??
I'm reduced to cliches. One day you'll regret this -- mark my words.
Post a Comment