Printable Version
Tell a friend
What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
In the face of people’s real lives, Senators
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's escalating
war of words about “bitterness” seems to be an
utterly silly, even a potentially destructive
distraction. As this battle is fought on 24
hour news networks, I can’t help but think
about my waitress this past weekend at a
Denny’s Restaurant in rural central
Pennsylvania.
I walked into Denny’s at 6AM last
Saturday morning. I was in town taking my
daughter to an accepted student's day at a
local liberal arts college, while most the
other people in the restaurant were readying
for a day fishing or hunting. One of only two
waitresses on duty, my waitress scrambled
between 10 tables and the kitchen, all the
while calling me “honey” each time she stopped
by to refill my coffee. As I went to pay my
bill, she told me that she had been at the
restaurant since 6AM the previous day, and that
she was to work until 2PM that afternoon.
As I quickly totaled the number of hours
she would working that day, I couldn’t help but
think of Senator Obama’s comments about how
people in small towns across Pennsylvania and
Indiana feel “bitter” these days, seemingly
left behind in a world changing around them;
nor could I forget Senator Clinton’s rapid
response to his comments, arguing that Obama’s
words demonstrated that he was “out of touch,”
an “elitist,” someone akin to the wind-surfing
Senator John F Kerry.
This most recent spat between the two
campaigns took place as the candidates
participated on Sunday evening at the
“Compassion Forum,” held at Messiah College
outside Harrisburg, PA – a quick drive from
that Denny's. I listened carefully as each
spoke of their personal perspectives on faith,
and the connection they see between their faith
and goals of fighting poverty. Both these
individuals said that such a fight is a moral
imperative.
But what does such a moral imperative
mean when it comes to the Denny’s waitress? I
keep thinking about her as I wonder about this
recent war of words. I don’t buy that Obama is
out of touch, though I do believe that he must
translate his message of hope by speaking more
directly and plainly to people in need. And
while I do believe that Clinton would fight
hard for those in need, I wish she would not
lower herself by playing with words in ways
that taint her own credibility and seek to
cripple her opponent.
The very war over the nature of the word
“bitter” makes empty the notion of a moral
imperative to fight poverty and lift up all
people. It is a digression from the real
issues. No, let me put a finer point on that:
it is a transgression of a public trust not to
play with people’s realities. Indeed,
while we may hold different meanings for
“bitterness,” we do share a common knowledge
that people are in search of an alternative way
forward – of a politics and public life that
reflect our better instincts. If there are
disagreements about the candidates’ ideas, so
be it. But that is not really the debate right
now, is it?
Perhaps the irony of this debate should
not go unnoticed here: two candidates who
profess to offer a new direction for the nation
are caught up in a duel of words over the
meaning of bitterness, when what we all know
with certainty is that people are truly bitter
(and angry) about the inability of their
political leaders to address their genuine
concerns.
Here’s my prescription for our current
malady. I would ask both candidates to take
five minutes to reflect on their words of faith
during the recent Compassion Forum. Then I'd
ask them to share two sentences about what
their notion of faith calls them to say to my
waitress from Denny’s. What would they say to
her about her life and future as she finishes
one of her 32 hour shifts. What words would
reflect a sense of meaning in her life, and
what word would offer her a sense of
possibility about what tomorrow could bring.
These are the words I wish to hear.