Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
-
Apr 15, 2008 Posted by Rich Harwood
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.
-
Re: What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
Apr 25, 2008 | Joel Aldor | joel.aldor@gmail.com
Great read, Rich!
-
Re: What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
Apr 22, 2008 | Beverly Lawson | bugs2847@aol.com
When I read Rich's well-written piece, my first thought was to wonder what would Rich say to his waitress. What words of hope? Compassion? Encouragement? Even a query about her interest in the campaign. What would Rich say? And yes, I would like to know. Then, I felt challenged to come up with what I would say to her. What are her main concerns? When does she have anytime for the rest of her life and not be exhausted? Thank you for asking.
-
Re: What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
Apr 16, 2008 | Bethe Hagens | bethehagens@gmail.com
I am an anthropologist, and Obama's mother was an anthropologist, and I am beginning to sense her spiritual presence in his speech. I think his use of the word "bitter" was important and in some way prophetic.
In traditional Eastern medicines, "bitter" is a property that is yin, cooling. A bitter flavor reduces excess, is a purgative, cleans the arteries and heals constipation. It clears stagnancy, lowers blood pressure, and is one of the most underused and least appreciated flavors. Bitters are especially helpful for people who are slow, overweight, or lethargic.
I guess what I'm wondering is if people are experiencing bitterness in a healthy way--by becoming more involved in their spiritual communities, by participating in traditional regional activities (such as hunting) that I may or may not personally practice. Maybe Obama has put his finger on the wellspring of communal energy that "bitter" flavor unleashes.
I'm certain he didn't intend this, but I find the man's words prophetic in ways that I continue to propel me into more community engagement.
-
Re: What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
Apr 16, 2008 | Stephen Buckley
The meaning of the word "bitter" is not being debated. It has already has a defined meaning, and if there is confusion by some people on what that meaning is, then they should pull out the dictionary to find out what "bitter" means (or go to http://www.answers.com/bitter ).
Perhaps Obama used "bitter" when a better word to convey his thoughts would have been "frustrated". A person can be frustrated, but not so far as to be bitter.
From what I remember about his subsequent clarification of his use of "bitter" (and I may be wrong on this), I do not remember him saying that his use of "bitter" was a poor choice of words. It sounded like he was trying to say that that was how HE uses the word (vs. what the dictionary says). He would have taken a lot of wind out of this controversy, if he had just simply said "Sorry, what I really meant was that some people are frustrated."
The meaning of words is very important. We can not have meaningful discussions if we each can decide what we want a particular word to mean. That's why we have dictionaries.
-
Re: What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
Apr 15, 2008 | Beth | bethbloomfield@yahoo.com
I know of very few people who are still "truly bitter (and angry) about the inability of their political leaders to address their genuine concerns." That's because most everyone I know has long moved past those early stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining), and now live in the last two -- depression or acceptance. We no longer expect, or even merely hope, that our political leaders can address any concern with success. I'm putting my hope into the power of communities and the nonprofit sector -- that's where I find the change I can believe in.
-
Re: What's Missing in Obama and Clinton's Bitterness Battle
Apr 15, 2008 | Julie Fanselow | jfanselow@everyday-democracy.org
This story of the Denny's waitress and the current campaign's misplaced priorities has me reflecting on these questions:
Would someone who works 32 hours straight have the time to be a citizen?
If she even has next Tuesday off, would she have the energy to vote in the primary, or would she need to spend the day catching up on errands (and sleep)?
Somehow, those of us working in the civic engagement/public innovation field need to remember that although many people would love to have more of a say in their communities, so many people are so busy just getting by that they don't have the energy to add a single extra obligation to their lives.
How can we be sure that their voices, ideas, and frustrations are heard?