Chris Matthews asserted "[t]here's only one way to read" Bill Clinton's comments on McCain-Hillary Clinton match-up
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews asserted that "[t]here's only one way to read" Bill Clinton's statement -- "I think it'd 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 ... instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics": "He's saying that if you pick these two people, you get two people who love their country. If you don't, you don't get two people who love their country." But others have in fact offered an explanation of Clinton's comments that differs from Matthews', demonstrating that, contrary to his claim, there is more than one way "to read that."
On the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews aired a video clip of former President Bill Clinton at an event earlier that day in Charlotte, North Carolina, where Clinton said of a possible match-up between Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain: "I think it'd 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's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." After airing the clip, Matthews asserted: "There's only one way to read that. He's saying that if you pick these two people you get two people who love their country. If you don't, you don't get two people who love their country." Matthews added: "You get this other guy [Sen. Barack] Obama who has all this other stuff, as if that other stuff is Obama's problem." But others have in fact offered an explanation of Clinton's comments that differs from Matthews', demonstrating that, contrary to his claim, there is more than one way "to read that." Indeed, Bill Clinton's spokesman, Matt McKenna, said of the comments: "Actually, as is indicated by the quote itself, President Clinton was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism. He was lamenting that these kind of distractions 'always seems to intrude' on political campaigns. This is consistent with his criticism of the 'politics of personal destruction,' which dates back 16 years."
Sen. Clinton's campaign posted McKenna's statement on its "Fact Hub" page in an entry headlined, "Fact Check: What Bill Clinton Said In Charlotte." Bill Clinton's response was also noted in The New York Times' political blog The Caucus.
Matthews also addressed Bill Clinton's comments later in the show. After re-airing the video clip of Bill Clinton, Matthews said: "You know, when he waves that finger at him -- I remember him waving that finger before. 'I did not have' -- you know, when he starts to wave that finger, I begin to wonder, what is he talking about? There's only two patriots running in this race and the other guy has all of these problems as if it's his fault?" The Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman disagreed with this interpretation, stating: "I don't believe that he's trying to suggest that Senator Obama is not a patriot. I think what he's saying is Senator Clinton and Senator McCain like each other and they have policy disagreements." Matthews responded: "You have two people that love the country and don't have all this other stuff. What's all of this 'other stuff,' and why single these two out as the patriots?" Zuckman replied: "I think what he's saying is if these two are in a general election together, it will be a great race. It will be an uplifting race where people can feel proud of their country."
In addition to Zuckman, Steve Benen stated on his blog, The Carpetbagger Report:
There's just nothing striking about the comments. He said Clinton and McCain are patriotic Americans who can face off in a campaign about issues. It wasn't a shot at Obama; it wasn't about Obama at all. I suppose one, if they were really anxious to parse the words and raise a fuss, could make a variety of inferences, but there's really no rational need to do so. At face value, his comments were harmless.
Also, in a post on National Review Online's blog The Corner, Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, wrote that she "was present" when Clinton made the remarks. She added, "In no way did I interpret Clinton's remarks as questioning Obama's patriotism. Clinton was making the case for his wife's electability against McCain, who last time I checked is the presumptive Republican nominee and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination." From Parker's blog post:
In no way did I interpret Clinton's remarks as questioning Obama's patriotism. Clinton was making the case for his wife's electability against McCain, who last time I checked is the presumptive Republican nominee and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination. He may have intentionally bypassed Obama in his leap to match Hillary against McCain, but he didn't say anything that could be construed as questioning Obama's patriotism. The sequence went as follows: He noted that Hillary polls ahead of McCain in Ohio and Florida and also that McCain leads "Hillary's opponent" (I quit typing here and don't recall exactly which states he mentioned in that part of his comment.) His point, obviously, was that Hillary should be the nominee and, in that case, she and McCain would face each other in the final contest.
From the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: But, Mike Allen, like a cartoon character, Mike -- I want to ask you about -- you know the cartoons we grew up watching of the cartoon character that runs off the cliff and doesn't look down and keeps running, in fact, stays there in free space, as if there isn't a cliff they've just gone over. Hillary and Bill Clinton -- I want you to look at this. If this isn't a case of that, I don't know what is. This is Bill Clinton today talking about the situation in this race in this somewhat unearthly way.
BILL CLINTON [video clip]: John McCain is an honorable man, and as all of you know, he has paid the highest price you can pay for the United States short of giving your life. And he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other. They have big disagreements on foreign policy and economic policy. They have taken reluctant Republican senators all over the world to prove that global warming is real but there is a way to deal with it that grows the economy and doesn't shrink it. And we now have a bipartisan majority in the Senate to do something about this.
That's the kind of leadership this country needs. And I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.
MATTHEWS: There's only one way to read that. He's saying that if you pick these two people, you get two people that love their country. If you don't, you don't get two people that love your country. You get this other guy, Obama, who has all this other stuff, as if that other stuff is Obama's problem. He's getting pretty tough here, isn't he, in these last efforts to hold onto reality or something like a Clinton reality, Mike?
MIKE ALLEN (Politico chief political writer): Well, of course, Chris. And the Clintons, in fact, really believe that he would be a weak candidate in the general election. They, of course, for their own personal reasons, but they also fear, in a campaign like this, you have to believe this, that they would be much stronger candidates.
Now, Chris, as you suggested in your question, there's two reasons that the press hasn't -- has sort of been suspending reality here a little bit or holding off on a verdict in this campaign. And that is, first of all, because we've been wrong so many times, burned so many times. Why should this be the first time in this cycle that what we expect to happen will happen?
But second, as you referenced, it's the Clintons. People think that somehow, some way, they're going to find a way to get out of this. And this has to be very emotional time for them. This was such a personal affront today for Bill Richardson, who had two appointments from President Clinton, to go ahead and endorse their opponent.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Here's her husband, former President Clinton, what he had to say, some tough words today. I think he's still in a fighting mood.
BILL CLINTON [video clip]: John McCain is an honorable man, and as all of you know, he has paid the highest price you can pay for the United States short of giving your life. And he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other. They have big disagreements on foreign policy and economic policy. They have taken reluctant Republican senators all over the world to prove that global warming is real but there is a way to deal with it that grows the economy and doesn't shrink it. And we now have a bipartisan majority in the Senate to do something about this.
That's the kind of leadership this country needs. And I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.
MATTHEWS: You know, when he waves that finger at him -- I remember him waving that finger before. "I did not have" -- you know, when he starts to wave that finger, I begin to wonder, what is he talking about? There's only two patriots running in this race and the other guy has all of these problems as if it's his fault?
ADAM CLYMER (author and former New York Times reporter): Well, when he waves his finger, reach for your wallet.
[laughter]
MATTHEWS: Jill?
ZUCKMAN: I don't believe that he's trying to suggest that Senator Obama is not a patriot. I think what he's saying is Senator Clinton and Senator McCain like each other and they have policy disagreements.
MATTHEWS: You have two people that love the country and don't have all this other stuff. What's all of this "other stuff," and why single these two out as the patriots?
ZUCKMAN: I think what he's saying is if these two are in a general election together, it will be a great race. It will be an uplifting race where people can feel proud of their country.
MATTHEWS: That's a unique selling point?
ZUCKMAN: Look, Senator McCain talks about it a lot.
MATTHEWS: A unique selling point, so they're paired off more or less politically.
ZUCKMAN: Exactly.
I listened and thought that he was taking a direct shot at Obama's patriotism, or that he was being a little vague so that the audience could take it either way.
I'm really disappointed by this incident. I've been defending Bill Clinton's patriotism since 1992. He should have known from his own experience that this could be construed by the Obama camp to be an attack.
of course it was an attack. the clintons never say anything that isn't coldly calculated. it wasn't a slip of the tongue, just as his comments in south carolina weren't inadvertent.
You Obama supporters are crazy. Just absolutely bonkers.
And you've done a great job of destroying the Dems chance to win this November.
Just one question-- why does your adoration of Obama always involve hatred towards the Clintons? Can't you just admire your guy on his own terms?
It would be a great thing if Obama won the Democratic nomination. We need a candidate who is not a compulsive and remorseless liar.
Notice I didn't mention anything about Hillary there. I just pointed out that my Obama is not a liar.
Is that what you're talking about Carlile?
Except that Bill Clinton didn't use the phrase "we need a candidate."
If he did, then Chris Matthews interpretation would be correct, but he didn't.
Eric - he said it would be great if we 'had two people who...'
So let me rephrase, then. Regarding Obama winning the democratic nomination - it would be great if we had a person who values honesty and not just politics.
Better?
If your statment were:
"it'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who value honesty and not just politics, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff"
...then I would interpret your statement as a wish for an election about the issues and not as an insult against Hillary Clinton.
If you examine not only the words of the speech on Friday, but also that Bill Clinton said about Bush and Kerry in 2004 at the convention:
"We Americans must choose for President -- we've got to choose for President between two strong men who both love their country, but who have very different world views..."
And that Bill Clinton said another time in 2004:
"I hope that I'll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad. My experience is, most the people I've known in this work are good people who love their country desperately."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/14/se.01.html
...then it becomes apparent that Bill Clinton was expressing his longtime wish for a respectful general election and not insulting Barack Obama.
...then it becomes apparent that Bill Clinton was expressing his longtime wish for a respectful general election and not insulting Barack Obama.
But that is not nearly as much fun to talk about. :p
"You Obama supporters are crazy. Just absolutely bonkers. And you've done a great job of destroying the Dems chance to win this November.Just one question-- why does your adoration of Obama always involve hatred towards the Clintons? Can't you just admire your guy on his own terms?"
Right Carl,
The Clintons are always innocent. Look, I supported Bill Clinton in the 90's. I think he did a bang up job overall. That doesn't excuse the way they have ran this campaign. To excuse it is to agree with it and that is troubling in terms characterizing ones ethics and character in general. That being said, I wonder how in the world you believe that a candidate with a 55% disapproval rating has a better chance than Obama? To insinuate that Obama has more baggage and ammo for the 527's than Hillary, gives us a glimpse in to your perception of reality. All they have on Obama is radical statements from his Pastor from about 6 sermons out of close to a thousand in the last 20 years. I bet if you think real hard, you can come with more than that on Clinton in two minutes. In reality though, comparing the dirt on each candidate as a deciding factor on who is the best general election candidate is rather silly.
To me the deciding factor is who most identifies with life in America. Which candidate more identifies with the complexities and day to day issues families face today. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have been in Washington for the past twenty years. To some that is somehow more noble than being in a church pew at Rev. Wrights church one time a week. I feel more trust and respect for a guy who only three to four years ago was buying groceries, buying gas, taking his kids to the doctor, paying mortgages, going to Wal-Mart, etc. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are life long politicians who essentially represent the same monster. Can't you see that?
All they have on Obama is radical statements from his Pastor from about 6 sermons out of close to a thousand in the last 20 years.
That is because Obama doesn't have a past. This is an individual that went from no one to a potential Presidential nominee. I think that was exactly what they were getting at on the Simpsons this week when Ralph Wiggam was the Presidential nominee.
That is because Obama doesn't have a past. This is an individual that went from no one to a potential Presidential nominee. I think that was exactly what they were getting at on the Simpsons this week when Ralph Wiggam was the Presidential nominee.
Past? You said he didn't have a past? Maybe his past is not as colorful as Hillary and Bill but then again who does, but he definitely has a past:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (pronounced /bəˈɹɑːk oʊˈbɑːmə/;[1] born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.[2][3]
Born to a Kenyan father and an American mother, he spent most of his early life in Honolulu, Hawaii. From ages six to ten, he lived in Jakarta, Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. He married his wife, Michelle Robinson, in 1992 and has two daughters. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office and serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. After an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2003.
The following year, while still an Illinois state legislator, Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.[4] He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.[5] As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he co-sponsored bipartisan legislation for controlling conventional weapons and for promoting greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.
"I feel more trust and respect for a guy who only three to four years ago was buying groceries, buying gas, taking his kids to the doctor, paying mortgages, going to Wal-Mart, etc. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are life long politicians who essentially represent the same monster. Can't you see that?"
This is fantasy. Idol worship. And not true. Like saying Obama walks on water.
Yikes! So a guy buying groceries is like a guy walking on water?
All I have to say to that is, "See guys, this is where inveterate, irrational hatred of the Clintons will lead you: insanity and stupidity."
- carlileb5935 / Tuesday March 25, 2008 1:58:42 AM EDT
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803240001?f=h_latest
CARL,
Really? Perhaps you would like to enlighten me then on the servants Obama had before he became a U.S. Senator. Are you really trying to argue that Hillary Clinton or John McCain is more in touch with the realities of American life than Obama? Really??????
You Clinton supporters are crazy. Just absolutely bonkers.
And you've done a great job of destroying the Dems chance to win this November.
Just one question-- why does your adoration of hillary always involve hatred towards Obama? Can't you just admire both Bill & Hillary on their own terms?
?????????????????????????????????????????
I wasn't a big fan of Clinton back when he was president. I voted for him because he was so obviously a better choice then Bush I or Dole, but it wasn't with any enthusiasm. His status in my eyes grew over the first six or seven years after he left office, but that was probably a result of how he looked in comparison with what we now have.
On topic, I think that it was meant as a subtle shot at Obama with built in plausible deniability.
It was more the exclusionary aspect of the phrasing than a direct shot. I think the intended suggestion was that a contest between H. Clinton and McCain would match his description, pushing Obama into non-factor status. Still, he left the phrasing vague enough so that it could interpreted reasonably in a number of different ways.
If it were given in an extemporaneous conversation like H. Clinton's "as far as I know" phrase I'd be unlikely to ascribe other motives to the phrasing, but this was a prepared speech and so I'm more inclined to think it was carefully planned.
If that's so, how in the world could Clinton explain how Obama doesn't love his country? Just what advantage would that have?
Although your love for the Clintons is genuine you missed their "political game 101" schooling. They DON'T have to explain just put the suggestion out there that that they may have said Obama was not patriotic and the media along with the right-wing wackos will take care of the rest. After experiencing the misinformation media themselves, the Clinton's have leaned to play the word game quite well.
Bill Clinton has been saying for years that campaigns should be about "who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad."
He knows about the questioning of his patriotism in 1992 and that the Democratic nominee will face simliar questioning of his or her patriotism whether that nominee is his wife or Barack Obama.
He's saying that ideally those attacks wouldn't occur.
If someone with a different history than Bill Clinton made a similar statement, then perhaps it would be correct to interpret the statement the way Chris Matthews does.
But Bill Clinton's remarks should be read in the context of his message since 1992.
MMfA's article is technically right. Matthews should've said "the RIGHT way".
I'm not sure if Ibuy this, that Clinton was deliberate about this.There have been a number of things said by both Clinton's that have made it much easier for me to favor Obama, I just don't see this one as that calculated.
As for Matthews opinion about there only being one way to read this, he may only be admitting to his own limited faculties.Often the less talented or thoughtful aren't that great at seeing the alternatives. Chris may have a lot in common with this guy.
If even the National Review columnist said it was not a 'shot', then the context must have been totally clear.
But, what's the need for evidence, if you're Obama-maniacs?
Brabantio, I think you phrased it perfectly. At best, you can analogize it to a husband commenting to his wife about how attractive another woman is. He wasn't saying that his wife wasn't attractive, or that she wasn't just as attractive, but whether it was directly meant or not, that's how it's going to be taken.
The context is already laid out from the discussions of McCain/Clinton being the "most civilized ever", etc. It's hard to believe anyone as smart as Bill would NOT have thought of that while making the comment he did.
Bill Clinton was saying that IDEALLY the respect between John McCain and his wife would be reflected in the other players in a general election between them.
Clinton knows his wife will be smeared if she's the nominee. He wasn't born yesterday. He knows about the smears against him in 1992 and Democratic candidates since then. Bill Clinton specifically said months ago that his wife may get smeared over the drivers licenses issue.
He wasn't making a prediction, just making a plea for respectful towards his wife.
"And I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
People who love this country and were devoted to its interests, as opposed to what? I don't see how that is relevant to "respect" among political opponents. How is the scenario Bill presents different in any way from what we would expect from Obama vs. McCain?
Bill Clinton has two concerns:
a) He wants his wife to be nominated
b) He wants her to be treated respectfully as the nominee
This quote was about "b." It was similar to what he said about Kerry and Bush when they were clearly going to be the nominees in 2004.
If his remarks are being misinterpreted, he should say so. He should also mention Senator Obama by name, rather than calling him his wife's opponent, and say that he thinks he is as patriotic as anyone else in the race.
We all have to ask ourselves which is more important, that the candidate we support is the nominee or that we don't have another Republican administration?
In hindsight, the best decision Hillary's campaign could have made was to let Bill sit out the primaries. Bill has only added controversy where Hillary needed none and his constant presence plays right into the argument that she is not sufficiently independent of Bill.
As for this dust-up I agree with the previous poster who suggested that Bill's remarks were a subtle jab at Obama with an element of deniability.
"There's only one way to read that" is a personal viewpoint, not a statement of absolute objective reality. It means as far as he can tell, there's only one reasonable interpretation. He explains what he thinks, and it does make sense. Besides that, he said it before anyone else on the show offered another perspective, so it's not like he dismissed contrary views out of hand.
This is neither misinformation nor bias as far as I'm seeing.
This is misinformation because there are reasonable people who don't believe Bill Clinton was questioning Obama's patriotism.
Bill Clinton said in 2004:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/14/se.01.html
"I hope that I'll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad. My experience is, most the people I've known in this work are good people who love their country desperately."
This was the same theme, not about Obama.
Bill Clinton's message is that it's normal for politicians to be patriotic, but that Democratic politicians are often portrayed as unpatriotic ("other stuff.)
Bill Clinton was attacked by George H.W. Bush in 1992 for having organized a teach-in against the Vietnam War at Oxford.
Clinton is saying that ideally his wife will be treated as patriotic by the Republicans if she's the nominee.
I don't think I can blame Matthews for not buying that explanation. I'm not sure it matches the context, and the wording is very odd. "And I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country..." That doesn't sound like a matter of public perception, it sounds like a matter of what the candidates actually are. Maybe he meant it that way, but it seems very poorly phrased for someone of his rhetorical abilities.
He didn't phrase it perfectly.
But given that he didn't even mention Obama in these two sentences, he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't questioning Obama's patriotism.
"spiraling downward".
Obama, not Hillary is almost certainly going to be the nominee.
I doubt the Wright episode will affect the nomination and the election is more than seven months away.
Obama’s unfavorable rating has never been 51% before in the Rasmussen poll.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977291334&grpId=3659174697241980&nav=GroupspaceHillary's negatives have been high for ages. Just because Obama has lost some ground there doesn't mean he's going to lose the nomination by any means. Popular opinion may not have as much effect on the delegate count as you imagine at this stage of the game either.
I think it's pretty hard to look at the whole picture and say Obama is "spiraling".
Brab,
Fair enough. Saying Obama is either spiraling or slipping or some other euphemism doesn't matter to me. My comment was with regards to Bill sticking his big foot in his mouth when conventional wisdom dictates that he not say anything while Obama tries to recover politically from his association with Pastor Wright.
Now Bill is having another one of those 'moments' where he not only takes the focus off his wife's opponent, but makes both himself and his wife look bad.
ps. At this point I still think Obama will win the nomination and the election.
AA, I realize you're focusing on a trend, Obama's change in the polls in the "unfavorable" area,but it's always good to look at more info when using polls. (The site you linked to seemed to be the blog of somebody who hasn't been able to think clearly since hearing "G.D. America").
Try not to swallow everything the way it's spooned out by the media.According to the same poll you cited, the "unfavorable " ratings are HRC - 55%, McCain - 42%, and Obama 51%. Trends will go one way or another, and a lot of it's normal fluctuation within a long election cycle.
What you see as Obama's downward spiral is a drop in a few points, at a time when the media has been obsessed with a minor issue that they've been able to use to play the public's fears and emotions.
Remember, A large part of the general public, the same people represented in these polls, have not even reached the point where they can look at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue rationally, and are reacting in a primitive, instictual way to something new and threratening to them.
"Remember, A large part of the general public, the same people represented in these polls, have not even reached the point where they can look at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue rationally, and are reacting in a primitive, instictual way to something new and threratening to them."
That's right, irrational. A preacher, no less, repeatedly saying, 'God damn America."
Hahaha.... That's the most novel attempt at sidestepping I've seen in a long while! Hat tip!
ps. Does this latest retort fall under your 'rational' umbrella? ;-)
I'm not sidestepping anything, I'm asking a very direct and simple question. Feel free to answer it for Carlile if you want, AA. Or you can just keep posting vague little accusations that only make sense to you, followed by happy face emoticons.but pace yourself, it's only Monday.
;0)
Col.
Classic straw man argument and a rather weak one at that. What's next, are you going to ask which letters cannot be used in Church? Nobody argues that any of these words cannot be used in Church. Everyone, (present company excepted,) realizes the order of the words and the context in which they are used is what is at issue.
I'll admit, I am in a good mood today. (Must have been going to Easter Sunday Service where, in addition to praise and thanksgiving, our Pastor asked for God's blessing on America.)
I appreciate your concern but no need to worry as I have plenty of smilies. Just because we disagree does not mean we cannot have a little fun expressing those disagreements. :-)
AA,
I think we can all assume that because Wright uttered those words that you won't be votng for him in November. Thank God, we were able to find some dirt on Wright before he became President.
I would never venture a guess as to know the mind of God. Whether he blesses this country or another one is not important.
Are you implying that he blesses us at the expense of all of the other nations? Does he bless only our allies and us? What if he were to like some other country more than he likes us? Say, Luxembourg or Sweden. Not that I'm saying we're to blame for any problems. But you can't really even begin to make a case against Switzerland. may be god likes the Swiss more than he does us?
Could you live with that.
To me the whole concept of God choosing to bless or damn any nation is ludicrous.
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "
God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.
-Irving Berlin
Can you answer any of my questions? Without resorting to jingoism.
God bless America, and nobody else.
Okay, that was in that Chris Rock movie where he ran for president. But it was funny in the context of the movie and the way Chris Rock says it.
Worrier,
I thought your question was tongue in cheek. Thinking Irving Berlin's song is jingoism is to misunderstand the meaning of the words, "God Bless America".
In my view, asking God to bless America is simply a prayer asking for God's blessing for everyone in our country and the country as a whole. It is a prayer asking for "good things".
To ask for God's blessing does not imply that God will not bless anyone or any other country.
Hope that helps
I have no problem with that sentiment. But I know from my own experience that many people believe that God blesses America and excludes other nations. To me, that's the same as what some of the Extremist Muslims have been saying.
We need to get God and preachers away from the discussion and agree that we, not God, created this mess here on earth, and that we, not God, are the only one's who can solve the problems.
Worrier,
I know many who feel America has been blessed far more than any other country, but not in place of other countries.
I agree that people cause their own problems from a Christian perspective. In other words, I think most of the problems people cause themselves are a result from falling away from God and specifically the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus kept it simple with two admonitions. He said love God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and with all your mind. He then said to love your neighbor as yourself. If we would all do that, no matter which religion we follow, the world would be much, much better.
Jesus kept it simple with two admonitions. He said love God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and with all your mind. He then said to love your neighbor as yourself. If we would all do that, no matter which religion we follow, the world would be much, much better.
I disagree with the part about loving some mythical being; I do agree with love your neighbor as yourself (unless he's George W. Bush).
"repeatedly saying, 'God damn America."
-Carlileb
He said it once, and it was in 2001. But I'm sure you'll keep repeating the "repeatedly saying" line.
DB,
A quick count shows Rev. Right said "GD America" three times in that speech. So in that respect Carl is correct that Rev. Wright said it repeatedly.
ps. Uttering it once was one times too many.
Ya'll are right, my fault.
I still contend it's a non-issue anyway...though the smears will push a few people away from voting for him.
It's funny, I was listening to NPR this morning, and they were discussing the race. A woman called in and said she would not vote for Obama because he said he would re-negotiate NAFTA, then she said he contacted the Canadian government to ensure that that wasn't the case. So those smears do work on some people.
This is the exact quote:
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. Naw, naw, naw. Not God Bless America. God Damn America! That’s in the Bible. For killing innocent people. God Damn America for treating us citizens as less than human. God Damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is Supreme.”
Loonz, that is the quote, and while much more is exposed in that quote than in the isolated "God damn America", it was part of a longer sermon.
My point in asking other posters to be more specific about their problems with Wright's words was to try to force them (kicking and screaming, apparently) to actually try to understand the message.
Wright was talking about a few things; God, Damnation (or damnable acts), and America. I think what he was getting at was how easy it is for some people to keep pushing the happy talk (or posting the lyrics to "God Bless America"), while asking God to just go ahead and bless us, never mind what we've done in the past.
I've noted here before that I had a pretty short career with the church, and while I don't believe in any supernatural creation theories, I'm always open to hearing a message from religious people that doesn't sound like it's been packed up in the attic for a few centuries.
There are things in Wright's sermon that I don't agree with, but parts of it are the most honest stuff I've heard from a clergyman in my life. Probably the most Christian things, too.
And there are quite a few people, most self-professed Christians, who can't get beyond three words.God, Damn and America, in a discussion of God, Damnation, and America.
And the only way to not understand what he's saying is to believe one of two things;
That America, along with all of the great and beautiful parts of its history, doesn't have a record that includes discrimination, enslavement, violence and the killing of innocent people, here and abroad.
Or, that these things do not violate Christian principles, and are not worthy of damnation.
Of course, nobody believes either of these things, they just would rather not look at them honestly. Rev. Wright is a rabble rouser, just like many other people I like. He served some stuff up pretty raw, and it's pretty interesting to see how people divided up over what Wright said. Some of us appreciated the opportunity to bring up some difficult topics. Others have a more childlike raction, screeching and giggling over the naughty words, and pointing out what a bad man Wright is for making these same people uncomfortable.
I don't have a problem with what Wright said. The Media has been constantly looping only a portion of his comment:
I posted his full comment to add more context.
After I read the full comment a few days ago, it didn't sound as damning as the media portrayed it to be.
Irony,
Thanks for the laugh!
Carl,
Are you saying that Hillary didn't effectively indicate that McCain would be a better President that Obama? She alluded to that. she is pissed because she just got plain ol' beat and so are you. Give it up and support the parties eventual nominee or support McCain. This divisiveness breeded by Clinton and their followers is not helping anyone. If we lose in November would you feel some type of weird gratification just because your first choice of candidate did not make it? Put your country first Hillary second.
This morning Bill Richardson's comments about the man who said Bill engaged in McCarthysism(I can't remember his name) were twisted to be a rebuke of the Obama campaign, when if you read his words they were not a rebuke of the Obama campaign.
I really can't defend Hillary or Bill at this point, and I was disturbed about what the Republicans did to them when they were in office.
Matthews was just on the radio with Ed Schultz and they were talking about this. Matthews daughter is apparently pretty involved in the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania.
Schultz was on board wth Matthews opinion here, they are both down down down on the Clintons.
Flyscat in the pepper...
If either Bill or Hillary farted while standing upwind of Obama on the same stage, Tweety would no doubt see this as an attempt to blame the smell on Obama.
One benefit of this extra-long primary season is that it really brings out the idiocy and pettiness of spittle-flingers like Matthews.
I hate to say it, but many of H. Clinton's words come very close to doing just that.
I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold, I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.
She went on in the same speech piling effusive praise on McCain.
Sen. McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign; I will bring a lifetime of experience; and Sen. Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002
There is nothing wrong with offering some level of praise to the likely candidate of the other party, but she absolutely should not have compared Obama unfavorably to McCain. As long as he is a possible, much less likely, nominee that kind of phrasing is beyond the pale.
I can't picture ANY of the other Democratic candidates from the earliest part of the campaign stooping so low as to suggest that the other party's nominee would be better qualified than any possible nominee of their own party. It's not rational.
Just re-read my post. My comment in between the two quotes wasn't meant to suggest that they came from the same speech. She made the first statement more recently and then further praised McCain in the same speech. The second quoted statement was from an earlier speech which I presented as a second example.
I figured if I didn't correct myself someone else would.
Drafted,
I'm sure Obama would simply wave it off. ;-)
Bill was taking a shot at Obama, but it wasn't exactly below the belt. He is stumping for Hillary, taking shots at Obama is part of the game at this point. I'm for Obama, and I lost alot of respect for Bill Clinton earlier in the primary, but this is just nitpicking. This wasn't a cheap shot or particularly dirty politics.
Dazed,
Accusing by inference that Obama doesn't love his country is not a shot below the belt?
I'm surprised some posters here have not yet accused Bill of being on Karl Rove's payroll. :-)
It never ceases to amaze me the hatred that many (most?) Obama supporters have for the Clintons. It's getting positively psychotic-- and it questions just what's behind much of the Obama support.
You guys have Daddy problems, some of you? Need a hero or something?
We'd better all saddle up.
LOL
You manly men forming a Pissy Posse. ;-)
Even thought the Colonel is on the west coast and I'm on the east coast, it still amazes me how our virility comes across the internet tubes.
Only someone as secure in his own masculinity as you and I are would be willing to admit to that.
The news operates of cycles 15 minutes, and then past history is forgotten. If we look at Bill's context of the many comments the Clintons have made to raise McCain over Obama, there is no other interpretation for this comment.
See this blog for other examples:
1) the lifetime of experience remark
2) the Commander in Chief threshold
3) MI dems will vote for McCain if they don't get a revote
4) Tow people who love their country
If there weren't a pattern, the argument that this was nothing would hold. But, Hillary and Bill have repeatedly raised McCain over Obama. That wouldn't be doing that here is just too generous.
I find this particular MMfA item to be pretty thin, just as their defense of her 60 Minutes/"as far as I know [Obama's not a Muslim]" remarks.
Particularly in light of Hillary's recent comment's about she and McCain being the only two that pass Hillary's idea of a commander-in-chief "test".
Come on! She personally oversaw the trimming of no fewer than 8 White House Christmas Trees and 8 White House Easter Egg Rolls!
We should interpret Bill Clinton's words in the context of his own past remarks (not based on what his wife has said.)
Bill Clinton on Friday was saying about his wife and McCain something similar to what he said at the 2004 convention about Bush and Kerry,
He described Bush and Kerry as "two strong men who both love their country."
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/billclinton2004dnc.htm
That is not the case now. Now there are three candidates, and now Bill Clinton is EXCLUDING one of them.
Bill Clinton on Friday was saying about his wife and McCain something similar to what he said at the 2004 convention about Bush and Kerry,He described Bush and Kerry as "two strong men who both love their country."
George Bush was the Republican nominee for President and John Kerry was the Democratic nominee for President. That compliment makes sense, it was not the primary, the Democrats had picked their nominee. THIS compliment however does not make sense, we are still in the Democratic primary race and Bill nor Hillary have any business giving compliments to any Republican, period!
This is not intended to be a "gotcha", but since so many people are using Rev. Wright to assuage their guilt over not supporting (and possibly not voting for him should he be the nominee) Obama, this provides some context for me personally not being behind the Clinton campaigns for many years. I know I'm not the only person here who has voted democrat while holding their nose in many, if not most, presidential elections; not that Obama is automatically that candidate for me. Kucinich or yes, that's right, Sharpton would have been the candidates who could have kept my fingers completely away from the nasal area in the booth. But check this out if you care for some background:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich