For those of you who haven't been following the US election, Obama recently said the following (click here for the full transcript); some are calling it "Bittergate":
The truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. 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. And it's not surprising then 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.
Suddenly, people started complaining that he thinks Pennsylvanians are "bitter". I had thought, until now, that we were past the point of the media taking words out of context all he really said was that people can get bitter if they've had job trouble for the last 25 years and the administration has ignore them. He's trying to address those people and say that he wants to help them, but some of Hillary's supporters are attacking him over what seems like nothing. It's sure as hell not as big of a deal as Hillary's blatant lie about Bosnia, which they dismissed as "misspeaking". Apparently, it's OK for Hillary to lie, but it's not OK for Obama to use one imperfect word (as she showed once before when he used the word "denounce" instead of "reject", even though "denounce" was actually more logically correct in context).
That aside, I have a more interesting note: why is it that we add "gate" at the end of every political scandal now? Watergate didn't have anything to do with water (it was related to the Watergate building in DC), so why was Clinton's sex scandal dubbed "Monicagate"? It seems that the media is running out of ideas they can't find any real problems with Obama, so they take a small word out of context and add "gate" to the end so that it sounds more important. Was Bittergate really as bad as Watergate, or even as bad as Monicagate?
Imagine what it'd be like if we made a big deal every time President Bush misspoke and said something like " "Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." (Feb 28, 2008).
Shan-ul-Hai, the chief author of Globally Rational, is a self-described cosmopolitan scientist. His articles typically involve the application of evidence-based logic to some of the world's most interesting and thought-provoking affairs. His background as a Pakistani-American supplements his training as a scientist and his skill as a writer, leading to a myriad of of unique perspectives.
» left by Susan Thom(12,047) Susan Thom (1 year 194 days ago.)
hi Shan-ul-Hai,
i thought this was a well executed, interesting article that has something to do with all of us, so we should all read it.
it flowed nicely. it appears you have a "writer's mind"
and that's a good thig, brilliant being one of it's adjectives,
thanks for sharing,
best regards,
sue thom Respond to this comment
» left by Steve Radford(1,017) Steve Radford (1 year 191 days ago.)
Very thoughtful piece. I know it wasn't your main point but how in the world did we identify scandals before watergate?
» left by jennifer cuddy (1 year 181 days ago.)
Ah, I totally agree about Hillary's oft ignored 'lie!' She should be removed from the campaign for that. And wasn't she with some movie star like, Sharon Stone, or someone? She's utterly delusional.
I think Obama is the only delagate that has the backbone and the credentialing to take on the role of President. He was a civil rights attorney, for Pete's sakes!
» left by Anonymous (1 year 181 days ago.)
The most significant difference between Hillary and Obama, in my opinion, is honesty and judgement. Obama seems like he'd actually deliver on his promises because they're all logical and he has a history of honesty. Hillary, on the other hand, is a classic politician. Respond to this comment
» left by jennifer cuddy (1 year 181 days ago.)
So True! And Hilliary's type of political statesmen is on the 'outs.'
We need a new breed of leaders, and Obama just might be the perfect candidate!
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
