Inspection- What Did Bill Actually Say and What to Do About It
I think, no matter which side you are on, you’re tired of the atmosphere surrounding the two Democratic candidates. Barack supporters blame the Clintons, Clinton supporters blame over zealous Barack supporters and… well, I did forget that the Republican side to this equation is probably enjoying it about as much as a fox terrorizing a henhouse while finding ways to make sure the hens are blaming each other.
Was there a veiled accusation in that paragraph? Damn, straight there was.
I’m annoying the hell out of my host at least on one site I write for because I refuse to bow to the Clinton’s are spawn of Satan meme’. My own admission that, even if the two could ever be on the same ticket, O’Bama should probably head the ticket earns me no points. No, I must be a believer. I must hate.
For a moment let’s put down our lightsabers: and accusations regarding who is using the dark side of the force…. (Frankly, I’ve always liked both light and dark meat: depending on how it’s cooked, but I’ll save that for my gourmet edition of Inspection.) I’ll do a simple expose here to explain at least a little of my reluctance to totally turn to one side or the other. I’m sure you’ve heard the most recent ravings of Bill Clinton where he declared Barack didn’t really love his country, or wasn’t patriotic enough.
Or have you?
When the story broke I searched the airwaves for what he actually said. I wasn’t near a computer. The major media, the news channels and even Sirius were carrying what O’Bama supporters were saying about what he said: nothing else. Well, correction, Sirius did cover it once; unfortunately when my wife just happened to be talking… so I only caught part of it. I listened to the next few Sirius news casts… and that one time was all I heard. (This was news on Sirius Left , just to be clear, not the old newsfeed they used to carry on that stream.)
Finally, just a few moments ago, I found it on the web…
”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 interests of this country,” he told a group of veterans on Friday in Charlotte, North Carolina.
He added, ”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.”
Wait a minute. Wouldn’t it be great if we had two people “who loved their country” during the actual election? Please, anyone, tell me where he actually claimed that either Barack or McCain didn’t? Isn’t it true that all this “he said, she said” is stuff that the media keeps on full boil is taking us away from that? Anyone else notice he’s also speaking to veterans: a specialized audience who would much rather hear any candidate: any politician, talk about their country, what’s best, and what they love about it, rather than some minister’s sound bites, or that “kid” must = “boy,” which probably, therefore, must also mean “nigger?” During that little stinky bit of controversy the end of that equation was never spoken, but somehow I feel it more likely those claiming “kid”=”boy” believed that than the person who first uttered “kid” had any intent to mean “boy.”
Once again I would be baffled by the inserting of words: what was not said, and then the sudden… almost playground-ish cry of, “He hit me, he hit me, please make him stop.”
Barack is more mature than that.
Hillary is more mature than that.
Yes, and for those snickering in the background, even Bill Clinton is more mature than that.
But I’m not baffled. Not a bit. Because I must ask… is the media more mature than that? Hmmm… I wonder. I also wonder how many of the street interviews that so quickly pop onto our screens are either planted, or the vast majority of more rational responses are edited out. Once they get the ball rolling then people jump onboard. It’s the old tin can telephone effect: only worse: they heard someone on the TV claim that Bill Clinton said, or actually meant to say. This creates even more conflict and conflict equals ratings, and four more years of Republicanism. More consolidation! Rupert will be happy! Our loving, supreme, deity, Korean Rev., will be elated! The power house talking heads, like Limbaugh, will be be of great cheer! Media owned by defense industry will be raking in the ratings and helping their owners get contracts! Big Business CEOs will be dancing in their penthouses! Well, the list of those who find this all oh, so, quite convenient is very long, isn’t it?
To go back to our sourced story for a moment, after the quote, the next paragraph: a single sentence, is probably one of the worse examples of news reporting I have ever read…
“Clinton was apparently referring to his wife and McCain, leaving Obama out in the cold.”
And what portion of his anatomy does the writer pull this conclusion out of? I can tell you which part: the part that decided long ago to flush objective journalism and insert snide opinions. Maybe this is how “journalism” is defined in France. Thank God our journalists are better and more objective, right?
Wait, like hell they are.
I find it amazing those who admit that Hillary and Barack are both quite intelligent, cunning, capable… also insist either is actually stupid enough to destroy the chances of either winning just to get the nomination. Yes, they are smart. Smart enough to know; if they work together on this problem, then maybe we can head onto Colorado with far less of this nonsense. Frankly I think the best solution is a deal struck between the O’Bama and Clinton camps. Don’t think it possible? You might be surprised. Barack speaks to the media, “While Bill Clinton and I do disagree, in many ways we are kindred spirits. I’m sure President Clinton didn’t mean to question either my patriotism or my love for this country. What I am sure of is that the media must ask itself whether their writers, their anchors, their pundits are turning a civil debate and discussion into something it’s not. If so… it is the media that must question its patriotism, how much they love, or even give a damn, about their country.”
Bill Clinton speaks; if this could all happen at the same press conference it would be a plus, and agrees with Barack and gets even heavier on the media and their responsibility. He’s done it before. He does it quite well.
The object here, obviously, is to fold the whole thing back on the media, the talking heads and other scoundrels who have everything to gain from this continued barrage of literal garbage. Then when the next “controversy” explodes they simply repeat the pattern: addressing how the media is helping to blow the controversy way out of proportions with the supposedly “wronged” party speaking first.
Once again, you might be surprised just how willing they might be to work together on this one problem, if nothing else. I think both campaigns might be open to such a suggestion because I have a suspicion all this has both candidates scratching their heads as what to do to tamp down the bile that the media seems far too eager to retch out of their oracle-like mouths.
Please feel free to forward this column to anyone active in either campaign. Maybe they’ll just chuckle at what they consider to be naivete’. Or maybe it might solve a problem that won’t be solved if we keep heading the way we’re going.
To me, it sounds like a plan for victory: for either Barack or Hillary.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.