Bill Said This?

<p>Interesting isn’t it, how mercilessly the Clintons are going after Obama for the “bitter” quote, when Bill said something very similar in tone once upon a time.</p>

<p>[Bill</a> Clinton Flashback: “All These Economically Insecure White People…Are Scared To Death” - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Bill Clinton Flashback: "All These Economically Insecure White People...Are Scared To Death" | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

<p>

</code></pre>

<p>Now compare that to what Obama said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Compare the two observations, made by each man. What makes Obama’s quote such an abomination, while Clinton’s words never caused a ripple? What makes Obama “elitist”, while Bill was “a man of the people?” Could it be hypocrisy and opportunism on the part of the Clinton Campaign, the McCain campaign, and certain media entities? Could it be the timing of the upcoming, make-or-break Pennsylvania Primary where the Clinton’s are concerned? All of the above?</p>

<p>yep, same old divide and conquer[ or confuse]. The Clintons will say anything and do anything to win, and then demure or deny them later on when their words come back to haunt them.</p>

<p>

This is the reason that the Republican has been getting progressively more white and the Democratic party has been getting progressively less white. Sad, but true. I think many white Republicans would probably benefit from a many Democratic policies but the party surrendered a lot of what “middle america” values. Also the reason why the Republican party has become less the party of the wealthy and more the party of Whites.</p>

<p>yep poetsheart - I read about this on Saturday, but have been waiting for the media to pick up on it. Does seem a bit hypocritical to me. I hate the idea of the Obama campaign getting involved in tit-for-tat, but I think it’s time to run a commercial or take out ads about this one. Let Pennsylvania see the hypocrisy in Hillary’s attack.</p>

<p>What do you want to bet the media doesn’t pick it up, teriwitt? What’s their motivation?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Do tell, Mr. Payne. How is it that you think the Republican party better represents the interests of “whites”.:rolleyes:</p>

<p>I never said they do. Read carefully.</p>

<p>Point no. 1: “people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it.”</p>

<p>Point no. 2: “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.”</p>

<p>Point no. 3: “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”</p>

<p>This is the inartfully expressed part. I believe Obama is saying that, in light of points one and two, it makes sense that people are bitter over the loss of jobs that have been gone for 25 years, and that they are cynical whenever “government” or “politicians” promise a return to economic prosperity for them and their children. The “Clinging to religion” part refers to faith-based explanations for why things have gone to hell in a hand basket, moral issues like abortion and homosexuality, which are still very important in rural and lower middle class religious life. Issues of distraction, like gun rights, are things that can restore some semblance of a feeling of power to people who feel they’ve been rendered powerless, when it comes to providing a better life for their families. The issues of illegal immigration and anti-trade provide explanations for why there are fewer jobs for working class Americans, and act as a release valve for yes, bitter frustration. I believe Obama was trying to express all these thoughts in that one very compressed and inadequately expressed sentence. But all of this was said by way of expressing the importance of </p>

<p>point no 4: “our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives.”</p>

<p>If you’ll read the entire quote with some attempt at objectivity, forgetting that you hate the man’s guts, you might glimpse that he actually feels sympathy for the plight and frustrations of the men and women in these small towns, that he understands where they are coming from. He expresses this well in the beginning, but then things loose cohesiveness when expressing the more complex idea of people’s logic when attempting to cope with these problems. </p>

<p>I think it’s extremely unfortunate that contemporary politics has come down to this microscopic parsing of every word that comes out of a candidate’s mouth, this constant surveillance for opportunities to twist words and convey meanings out of context, because once it starts, there’s no controlling how far, or how absurd it becomes. Hillary and Bill are being extremely hypocritical in their attempt at Obama assassination, by hammering on this quote. But hey, as long as no one calls you on it, as long as it achieves its end, the means are justified, right? But they’d better watch out. If Hillary does manage to win the nomination, the Republicans will do what they do best, which is dig and rip and discredit every word that ever came out of either Clinton’s mouth. And in the context of their collective public life, that’s a LOT of words. They’ll be getting as good as they’ve given Obama and then some, and they won’t be able to control it by any means, because once you lower the bar for political mudslinging, it’s open season on you too.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sorry Mr. Payne, but you seem to be making a difference without a distinction. If “the Republican party has become less the party of the wealthy and more the party of Whites”, whites must axiomatically believe that its the party that best represents them. So, I’m asking you to better explain what you meant—political parties being all about “representation” after all:rolleyes:. Are you a white republican (I don’t presume to assume)? If so, what about the Republican party most appeals to you as a white person?</p>

<p>poetsheart - I really have no clue; it puzzles me. I really don’t want to think that the Clintons have that much influence over the media. </p>

<p>Everytime I try to come up with an excuse for the media for not covering this (it happened a long time ago, they don’t want to run stories about a spouse’s views, etc.) it seems as if they do pick up those stories about Obama. I also think Hillary continues to make this such a huge overblown story so as to distract from the Mark Penn thing, and Bill’s ties to the China/Olympics situation (which, again, is another looked over story).</p>

<p>

Yes, that is true obviously. Just like Blacks/Hispanics/Asians feel better represented by the Democratic party.</p>

<p>That is not what you said initially though. The question is whether I actually think they are better represented by the Republican party. I don’t know.</p>

<p>

I’m Libertarian. I voted for Arnold though.</p>

<p>While people are making a tempest in a teapot over Obama, Clinton’s remarks were different because he was accusing GHWB of trying to play on people’s fears, not saying he thought they actually had them and acted based on them, while Obama actually was the one who was discussing those people’s fears in a seemingly dismissive way (I don’t actually think he meant anything bad by it, it was just badly expressed).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry 1of42, but Clinton did indeed say that they had these fears:

</p>

<p>“Scared to death”. Furthermore, he does indeed very forcefully assert that their fears cause these “economically insecure white men” who have had “the living day lights” scared out of them to blame quotas, and “look across the racial divide” to assign blame:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>To a large extent, I happen to agree with Clinton’s then assessment of this prevailing socio/political dynamic as it existed during the 1991 Presidential campaign. I also happen to believe there is merit in Obama’s reading of much of the current Midwest voting demographic. Like you, I don’t believe he was being dismissive, but merely expressing an understanding of human nature, and what’s more, a desire to provide hope. </p>

<p>But Bill Clinton, the man who in my estimation, put a much finer point on things with his statements, has the gall to condemn Obama for a similarly expressed view. It’s the unmitigated hypocrisy that astounds me.:rolleyes:</p>

<p>You are indeed correct, and I did in fact miss that line in your post. Now, I still think it’s different, largely because calling somebody “economically insecure” is much less fraught with negative connotations and apparent elitism than the whole package of things Obama mentioned. The other difference in statements is that the 2nd statement you mentioned in your last post was a hypothetical - “if they can keep us looking…”, vs. Obama’s statement which basically made it sound like he thought that those tactics had succeeded and small-town people were all a bunch of redneck gun nut fundamentalists.</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s what he meant, but it’s basically what he said, and he needs to apologize for making an unintentionally offensive statement, and move along.</p>

<p>I’m sorry 1of42 but you are splicing meaning as if preparing slide specimens for microscopic examination. Bill’s example wasn’t just hypothetical. He was, for all intents and purposes saying that scared white people were blaming quotas and minorities for “taking away their jobs” just as they were being manipulated by the BushI administration to do. If Obama had spoken of “economically insecure white men” I doubt you would so carefully parse their meaning, or be so forgiving of such an overtly racial message. We agree that Obama’s one sentence about “clinging to guns and religion” was poorly worded, and probably not indicative of what he actually meant, but you seem to have no problem with the Clintons’ apparent hypocrisy. You may be right that Obama should apologize for his unintentional offense, but he did insist that his words did not come out the way he meant them, so I wonder if an apology would really make that much of a difference. And I doubt an apology would make the Clinton campaign stop using those words as a jack hammer.</p>

<p>But there is a difference between what Bill said and Barack said. Bill talked about insecure whites and how the first Pres Bush was playing on their emotions; but Bill did not denegrate those “insecure whites” by calling them:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Bill Clinton said insecure whites are scared; Barack Obama said “they” are bitter and insinuated “they” are racists. It’s a pretty big difference in my mind.</p>

<p>BTW, Bill Clinton didn’t win a majority of the popular vote.</p>

<p>No poetsheart, I truly, truly believe that if you simply read the text of those speeches, the messages are different. I think in the end that they actually meant the same thing, but if you read them, there are subtle differences - both in syntax and semantics.</p>

<p>I think the most clear difference, though, is diction. Obama used words like “bitter” and “cling”, and a lot of “anti-”. Clinton used “insecure” and “scared” - both of which are substantially less negative, far less likely to offend, and probably also much more true.</p>

<p>And yes, I splice deeply. I’m a subtle person. ;)</p>

<p>

This is what saddens me. A man can say something that is true; another person can understand what he meant, but still be persuaded that he “basically” said something else - and then demand that he apologize for the thing he didn’t mean and which is actually a calculated distortion of what he did say.</p>

<p>This is why I label this brouhaha as an example of the “new PC.” It’s not that Obama actually said anything that was untrue or mean-spirited - but because his words can be taken out of context and twisted to seem to mean something he didn’t intend, he should apologize for not being politically correct in what he said.</p>

<p>

What part of what Obama said about “clinging” is true?</p>

<p>From Answers.com</p>

<p>Dictionary: cling (klĭng) </p>

<p>Sponsored LinksSign supplies - All types
Local / National sources for Static cling window decals
[signsearch</a> - the search engine of the sign and graphics industry (welcome)](<a href=“http://www.signsearch.com%5Dsignsearch”>http://www.signsearch.com)</p>

<p>WindowAlert - Save Birds
Prevent birds from hitting windows. See our new, high-tech decals here!
[url=<a href=“http://www.WindowAlert.com%5DWindowAlert.com%5B/url”>http://www.WindowAlert.com]WindowAlert.com[/url</a>]</p>

<p>intr.v., clung (klŭng), cling·ing, clings.
1)To hold fast or adhere to something, as by grasping, sticking, embracing, or entwining: clung to the rope to keep from falling; fabrics that cling to the body.
2)To remain close; resist separation: We clung together in the storm.
3)To remain emotionally attached; hold on: clinging to outdated customs.</p>

<p>It sounded to me like Obama used the first definition in his statement. People often do cling to that which gives them support while times are tough.</p>

<p>He never said that <em>those who are religious are so because of the economic circumstances</em>, as Clinton would like you to believe, but rather, in bad economic times people sometimes look to their religion for support, and perhaps vote on issues according to their religion (abortion) rather than what might be better for them economically. I think that is true.</p>