poliphilo | Mis-speaking

Mis-speaking

When Obama called his grandmother a "typical white woman" that was a genuine example of mis-speaking. I'm sure he didn't mean to sound so dismissive. What he aimed to say was she had typical views, but the adjective slipped out of its proper place in the sentence and located itself elsewhere- and he was left with a mini-crisis on his hands.

And when he announced to a flabberghasted audience that 10,000 people had just died in a tornado strike in Kansas- when the actual death toll was 12- that was- well- I'm not entirely sure what that was: he was tired, it had been a long day, he'd misheard something an aide had whispered in his ear. Whatever it was that caused the mis-speak, it wasn't anything that particularly redounded to his discredit; it wasn't a lie; it was just a little side-slip into the surreal.

I'm having greater difficulty putting a benign spin on Clinton's claim that she came under fire at Grozny airport. I know memory can play you tricks because my own memory is none too brilliant these days- but if I found myself remembering traumatic incidents that could be proved never to have happened I think I'd be worrying about my mental health. Being shot at is a life-changing experience; it isn't something that becomes a little fuzzy with time. Unless you're suffering from Altzheimers you know whether you've had that experience or not. Someone fired an air rifle in my direction once; it's indelible. No, this wasn't a simple mis-speak (I'm coming to hate that word); It was a construct, presumably agreed in advance between Clinton and her speech-writer- designed to big up her reputation as an international stateswoman and confer some sort of ersatz warrior glory- which would come in handy if and when she faces McCain. But it was stupid claim- because it was so easy for her enemies to check and falsify. Silly woman- she just went and swift-boated herself.

Politicians lie. It's what they do. I don't want to suggest Obama is cleaner than Clinton; I believe he's said all sorts of things that don't check out- about his relationship with that sleazy guy back in the hood, for example- but he hasn't yet screwed up the way Clinton has screwed up over Grozny. The thing about Clinton's mis-speak is it's so televisual, so meme-worthy. Already there's a clip on YouTube that says it all: first the self-aggrandizing speech, then the footage from the airport- featuring the reception committee she says wasn't there and the little girl she stooped to embrace. It's a killer, it really is- and if her candidacy continues it's going to get played and played and played.

As lies go it wasn't a bad one- it was a bit of puffery; it didn't start a war- but the trouble is it's not a lie that can be obfuscated by a lot of lawyerly talk. She can burble all she likes about mis-speaks- and all her opponent has to do is run the footage. There are no bullets, she doesn't run for cover; instead she smiles and greets and dawdles. Seeing is believing. Nothing but nothing can cloud the clarity of those pictures.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Grozny is in Chechnya I doubt she
went there... wasnt it in Bosnia?

with politicians the only sort of benign
thing I could compare it too immediately,
and I dont really find myself liking either
of these candidates or the republican one
much either, but with hilary clinton apart
from being self serving I can think of
performing artists I have met who tend
to embroider and recreate events as they
tell about them, things become exaggerated
more colorful more interesting in a way
perhaps it could be something like that?

Yes, Bosnia; just found the news report here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3depGF5E-0

Weird how Hillary didn't just massage the facts but created new ones. As you say, poliphilo, these statements were so easily refuted, even by the reporter (Andrea Mitchell) who went with Hillary in '96 on that same trip.

Yes, Obama needs to watch his step very carefully and not mis-speak, but his heart and head are in the right place.

It would be nice if the Democratic candidates just had a snack with graham crackers and juice and colored together for a while to some happy music, then came back in about two weeks, refreshed and ready (finally) to stop sniping and focus on the win.

well if he is elected I hope his heart is in the
right place but I suspect that is an interpretation
we all are quick to give to someone we favor, and
good of us in a way surely...
as to the creation of new facts ,this is what I
have observed in a good many performance artists
and public persons and it is the interpretation
I propose...
in some, I am thinking of a jazz trumpter, it seems
more playful than selfserving but a problem is that
the person who does this sort of loses track of
what really was...
the great poet Marina Tsvetaeva was like that and indeed
invented an infatuation with her by Rilke which did
not in the factual world exist
(though they corresponded)
but her life was so tragic that one can hardly regret
even an invented happiness

Well, there are so few times I've disagreed with you, Seraphim my friend! I can't personally liken Hillary's out-and-out lie with a riff from even a self-serving jazz trumpeter. Art doesn't lie, I hope, just by being an interpretation. I don't know the story about Tsvetaeva and Rilke, but often through history those stories have had two sides: one seemingly logical and one seemingly crazy. But as I say, I don't know that particular story.

As for Hillary's story, I can't see that she was merely interpreting reality. The Bosnia airport story is small potatoes, but she's had a long history of inventing stories to suit her projected image. One wonders, what next? (And I can imagine how the kind people of Bosnia might feel on hearing her new interpretation of her '96 visit....)

of course it may be a lie
but just to be clear about what I
am proposing and the same to Tony who
seems to be thinking something else in his
response to me, that this is a process of
reinvention which can work surely in writing
or in speaking and in thought, one simply
remakes events as one goes along...to a
greater or lesser extent.
It was the characteristic of Tsvetaeva that
she reinvented things and relationships and
events in this way , that in different ways a
number of people I have known do this,
and I am suggesting that it is possibe
this this rather than any awareness of telling
a lie is behing Hillary's peculiar pattern
of behavior.
but of course it can be not that but a lie,
but just to be clear about what I am suggesting.

the last few lines about Marina Tsvetaeva seem to me like poetry.

I love that image of them settling down with their juice and crackers to do some serious coloring.

You're right; they must be awfully tired by now. It's not surprising they're making gaffes. There's this to be said for your system of selecting candidates, that it really does test them to the limits.

You're quite right. It was Tuzla airbase in Bosnia. All I can say in my defence is I mis-spoke.

Maybe it's a story that grew in the re-telling, but I understand she was reading from a script, so it wasn't an off-the-cuff mistake

no I would propose the possibility
that the reinvention is thorough and
becomes the memory...
with such people of course a massive
dose of opposite testimony can bring
them to see well I guess it wasnt etc

That can happen, of course. George IV was convinced in old age that he'd led a cavalry charge at Waterloo.

exactly! perhaps it is a pathology
of course. and in a self absorbed
personality it will appear as
all sorts of self serving stuff...

Baron Munchausen might be the archetype?
I cant think clearly back to the book
through the rather terrible movie.

The Baron as I recall had gifted friends
with various super powers and I hope our
next president will have that...

Now didnt in a more amiable vein Zorba the
Greek color everything a bit? that would
be the sort of attractive type, not self
absorbed but larger than life.

Or how about Sir John Falstaff?

I knew a character of that type once. He knew everyone, had been everywhere, had done all sorts of interesting things- only he was making it all up- and when you asked him to exercise his skills or use his influence on your behalf he inevitably let you down. Such people are fun to read about, but in real life they're a menace.

I don't know about the UK, but in the States race is still a highly charged issue, no matter how much people try to deny it (the right tends to deny racism in society, the left racism in themselves, and neither side is being honest). Imagine the uproar if a white politician referred to someone as a "typical black man" - enough said.

I really don't care that Obama's reverend might hold anti-American or racially controversial opinions, or that Obama himself is as guilty as anyone of stereotyping someone based on gender or race. After all, we all do it to some degree or another, and to deny it is the height of self-delusion. So I do not see these social gaffs (and that's all they are, I believe) as something that will have a significant impact on my vote this November. But from the standpoint of pure politics, Obama is not endearing himself overly well to the majority white vote in America, a demographic that, right or wrong, does not react well to either blunt national critique (it's seen as unpatriotic) or negativity toward whites (for the boomer generation, at least, it brings up ugly memories and fears of past racial discord).

The mark of a good statesman is partly a question of whether one can sidestep these potential landmines, and/or mitigate the damage. It will be interesting to see how well Obama weathers the storm.

As for Clinton - I think you're spot on. Her capacity to lie is no greater than any other person seeking office, but in the age of YouTube she should know better than to do or say anything that contradicts video. It feels as though this is just one more nail driven into the coffin of her candidacy, and it's getting almost ghoulish watching the media vultures hovering around the corpse. Something is going to have to give in the next month or so.

Point taken. A British poltician would have been roasted too. Difference is there aren't any black men or women within snatching distance of the top jobs in British politics.

I suspect Clinton has made herself unelectable with her airport remark. There's no way she's going to make us forget those pictures. Now's the point where she should conceed defeat and declare her support for Obama. The longer this process goes on the more damaged the Democratic candidate is going to be.

I'm just scared to death that all this foolishness is going to end with us getting another Republican autocrat in office. That would be HELL.

It is becoming more and more a distinct possibility. Notice how quiet McCain's camp is right now? Just waiting for the bloody victor to emerge from the Democratic fight, and then pounce.

*shudder*

It's a distinct possibility. McCain is going to be attractive to a lot of people.

That's what I am afraid of.
Our favorite candidate dropped out of the race some time back. *Darn it!*

I maintain that not all the voters have been heard from yet, and yes, although it looks like Mrs. C. will not win the nomination, these voters have the right to be counted. ALL the voters! Also, I have stated this elsewhere on LJ -- If there is to be a convention to select the candidate, then why are the media and others trying to decide it NOW? I still think that the two will have to split the ticket. Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, whether they like it or not. They need each other. Independents are swinging almost 70% to McCain now, probably sick and tired of the bickering. Clinton supporters are threatening to vote Republican if Obama is chosen, while Obama supporters are also saying the same thing if Clinton is chosen. As the polls stand now, McCain is shown as beating either one of them by a margin of 5%, while the same polls show Obama ahead of Clinton by only 2%. So it looks like if the election were to be held today, McCain would win, UNLESS both Democrats were on the ticket, thereby rallying the support of all Democrat voters.
1960: Democratic National Convention. John F. Kennedy's acceptance speech for the nomination: "I NEED you, LBJ." - after months of bickering and dislike. JFK needed the support of the South and the West, and Johnson was popular there.

So perhaps the two camps should get together now and do a deal.

Tearing each other to shreds when they should be fighting McCain- it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Race in America is a subject of which it is almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion in the political or media sphere despite constant calls for one. For example, witness the feigned "outrage" that resulted when Hillary claimed that without Lyndon Johnson, the 1964 Civil Rights Act never would have been passed. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history knows that this is true.

But Obama claimed that this was an attempt to "downplay" the importance of Martin Luther King. Talk about dishonest!

Yes, that's a confected argument. LBJ was an evil sonofabitch but- from what i've heard- he was passionate about civil rights.

So was Nixon (the guy who gave us "affirmative action"), and Spiro Agnew!

Nixon could have been a "great" president, if only......

A prudent and fair man would have left his grandmother, the woman who raised and supported him, out of it. He put her in danger. Recently a mob marched to her home, burning an effigy of her. Obama's comment was not only unwise, but stupid.

I didn't know that. I'd assumed- without really having thought about it- that his grandmother was dead. Using her like that- to make a cheap political point- was an act of betrayal.

The picture of poor downtrodden Jeremiah Wright Jr is something that, as a Philadelphian, I'd like to address. His father, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Sr., was one of the first two African Americans to receive an advanced degree from The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, not terribly far from his church, in 1949. His mother rose to assistant principal at Girls High, the "elite" public high school for girls in Philadelphia (public=taxpayer-funded here in the U.S.), the one that the high achievers went to. Young Jeremiah himself was a student at Central High School, the "elite" public high school for boys. Grace Baptist Church, his "home" congregation when he was growing up, has a website here:

http://www.gracebaptistgtn.org/

Being black in Philadelphia was no picnic in th 1950s and the 1960s, but there was more opportunity here than Mr. Obama's defense of Rev. Wright would indicate.

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr. is not mellowing with age. See this article from the current issue of The Trumpet, the publication of Trinity Church:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html

I don't think that "typical white person" remark was unintentional, either. Obama reads his big speeches off a teleprompter and that speech was surely fine-tooth-combed by his campaign staff. I suspect that he and his handlers calculated that the line would resonate with one portion of his audience and fly under the radar of the other. It worked precisely the opposite of what I think were their calculations.

It's a little off at a tangent, but Wright's twisting of history really gets up my nose. The Romans weren't Italians, they didn't run an apartheidt empire, and crucifixion was execution after due process of law and not a lynching. Someone also ought to bring it to his attention that the Romans were completely colour-blind and that a number of their emperors (including I believe the great Hadrian) were Africans.

I still like her better than him!
As for "coming under fire", that has been happening to her every since her husband took his first oath of office as President. The press has been after her ever since. It turned me off back then, and it still turns me off. I arouses my sympathy for a woman whom I believe will be an excellent president. I am much more concerned over other issues - Reverend Wright, for example. Like Mrs. Clinton said, "We cant choose our families, but we do choose our pastors."
By the way, shades of sexism! Mrs. Clinton is almost always referred to as "Hillary" in print and otherwise, while Mr. Obama is almost always referred to as "Obama". I have NEVER seen him referred to as "Barak".

I agree that the media sometimes calls her Hillary to downplay her equality on the political playing field, and that's shameful in the 21st century. But as a woman not trying to be sexist, I even notice myself calling her Hillary, too. The reason I do it (and probably one reason it's done in the media) is to distinguish between Bill and Hillary. If someone said, "Clinton was stumping for the rancher vote in Texas today," it would be unclear which Clinton. One equalizer, I guess, would be to call all the candidates by their first names, including John.

You may have noticed that I make a point of referring to H.C. as Clinton. I believe she should be accorded the same respect (and disrespect) as her male peers. Anything else is sexist and patronising.

By the way, shades of sexism! Mrs. Clinton is almost always referred to as "Hillary" in print and otherwise, while Mr. Obama is almost always referred to as "Obama". I have NEVER seen him referred to as "Barak".

I have seen him referred to as Barak, and I have referred to him as Barak. When I first did it, it was because I'd forgotten which was the given and which the surname. It's not a John Smith everyman sort of name, after all.

Why are we calling her Hillary Clinton and not Hillary RODHAM Clinton? She dropped the maiden name to appeal to voters as a return to pre-Dubya days, and I think for many, calling her 'Hillary' rather than 'Clinton' is a way to resist that. (For many others, it could be just the opposite--she was 'Hillary' when she was the First Lady, too.)

Edited 2008-03-28 19:26 (UTC)

Very interesting...

Clinton said, laughing, that "when things were too dangerous to send the President, they'd send his wife."

A pundit said, Haha--like they'd send his wife and only child under sniper fire because it was too dangerous for him.

I am so very burned out about all the "burbling," Tony.

And--I will admit this here--I HATE HER PANTSUITS.

I have an Obama bumper sticker on my car.

This long drawn out process of selection is a real ordeal for everyone concerned.

Clinton is almost totally devoid of charm. I offer that as an observation rather than a judgement. Charm, after all, has nothing to do with judgement or competence.

She didn't misspeak. She said it distinctly, and more than once. When she was called on it by someone else who'd been there, she made a point of huffily repeating it ("Now, that's what happened"), and when she was called on it, she got snarky with the reporters asking questions ("Come on, guys, this is nothing").

Memory is an iffy thing, not a videotape as much as it is a murky crystal ball. I wouldn't fault her for having misremembered events, though I would fault her for not having one of her people go back and re-check before she gave a speech about it, and I fault her for her pissiness about being called on it.

But taken in tandem with her past aggrandizing, her belittling of Obama in terms of experience (she doesn't have all that much herself--she wasn't the President, she was just married to him) and her attitude after being caught, I don't think she misremembered, I think she just outright lied and didn't expect to be caught.

And I don't want someone that dumb anywhere the big nuclear red button.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Mis-speaking

Grozny? + artists

Re: Grozny? + artists

Tsvetaeva

Re: Tsvetaeva

inventing

Re: Tsvetaeva

Re: Grozny? + artists

Re: Grozny? + artists

no subject

no subject

Munchausenism /Zorba

Re: Munchausenism /Zorba

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Grandma, typical white person

Re: Grandma, typical white person

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject