My too-long chain of responses with StillAmused below, has serious roots, related to the article in question (SA: I'm glad you, at least, are "Still Amused" at the dire straits the country is in, but we've wasted enough bandwidth, unless you've got something new to pursue).
The issue that attracted me to comment, is the pervasive, preening disdain in current American "culture," for activities and opinions driven by intellect. Fact is, we all think, and we all do it at a pretty high level of complexity; but too many people actually fight the idea that they are intelligent; unless they are using that intelligence in a game of one-up.
I'm not afraid to say I'm smart. I respect people who respect their own intelligence, rather than deny it for form's sake. To some, that will seem conceited.
I say whatever, to that. I know I'm not fricking Carl Sagan, but I know b**lsh*t when I see it, and I'm scientifically literate. And yes, intellectual.
Face it: smarts is the only thing we've got left, to drag us back from the brink. We'd better start using it.
----
First, shoot the tv.
My Recollection of Hillary Clinton at the 1995 Camp David Meeting
After spending much of the day doing the sorts of things that normal teacher/scholars do, I returned to the blogosphere to see a raging debate about who said what at the January 1995 meeting convened by the Clintons at Camp David to help them sort through the 1994 election debacle and help him prepare for the 1995 State of the Union Address. I was there (the only female intellectual-scholar invited), and the tenor of the discussion was one of the instances I was referring to last Saturday in my post on TPM (I also attended a late 1993 intellectuals' dinner at the White House, where similar discussions occurred). The early 1995 meeting at Camp David was a many-hours-long seminar featuring about a dozen intellectuals plus a bunch of White House insiders, talking with Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. It was a fascinating window into how the Clintons were coping with the massive health care debacle and Congressional election defeats of late 1994.
Ben Barber later wrote a 2001 book about this and other Clinton salons with intellectuals, and I remember him taking lots of notes at Camp David -- which obviously lay the basis for his 2001 account. In that book, which many of us read when it came out years ago, he gave vivid and accurate renditions of the discussions I heard and participated in, and I have spoken to other attendees at various Clinton salons who agree on Barber's accuracy. Obviously, contemporaneous notes and a book written years ago, long before today's arguments, are the best possible evidence -- especially since Barber is reportedly now a Hillary Clinton supporter. His previously documented reports are much better evidence of what was said in 1995 than instant "recollections" now scrounged up by the HRC and Obama campaigns.
Barber reports in his 2001 book that Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" about southern working class whites who did not support Bill Clinton. Two other scholar-particiants, Alan Wolfe and Harry Boyte, agree she said this. Reported demurrals (and not a clear denial) come from Clinton staffers Bruce Reed and Don Baer, not from the independent intellectuals in attendance. But independent witnesses who keep notes trump employees any day.
I have gone back to my 1995 notes to check my recollections of the event. My notes do not have any exact words, so I am not going to try to corroborate a particular phrase from Hillary Clinton or any other speaker.
But what is clear in both in my memory and my notes is that there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices -- usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.
I vividly remember at the time finding it impressive that Bill Clinton (NOT Hillary Clinton) showed real empathy for the ordinary people whose motives and supposedly misguided choices were under analysis. Ironically, just as Barber reported, Bill Clinton was the one who combined analysis and empathy, much as Obama himself did in his full San Francisco remarks.
I think this whole angle of "gotcha" politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America -- and I cannot fathom why the Clintons or George Stephanopoulos are descending to this dirt, not to mention the guilt-by-association crap. It is particularly despicable of them to criticize Obama for the sort of observation/analysis that was routine in and around the 1990s Clinton White House. And I cannot help but feel there is a psychological edge of pure envy in Bill Clinton's attacks: Obama is empathetic and charismatic as well as smart, just like Bill was back then, in those so much better days!
Over and out. I am going to try to find a way to preserve in amber my better memories and feelings about the Clintons, so as not to lose altogether the sense of admiration I once felt, but can no longer.
Related: Sam Stein: Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
... and MY final contribution:
You don't have a phucking clue who you're talking to, my I.Q. or credentials, the battles I've fought in my life (at some personal risk) against institutional and governmental abuses OR my concern for the "dire straits" facing this country (and the world). I respect true "intellectuals"... Hell, I are one.
I just don't take myself SO seriously that I can't let my hair down, employ a little humor to make a point and -- heaven forfend! -- do successful daily battle with my devious, machinating tee-vee, USING my intelligence to sort the occasional useful information from the steady flow of pap.
It's you who deal with that challenge by covering your eyes and hiding in the underbrush of your own thoughts and inflated self-esteem.
You haven't offered a single, cogent observation about the substance of Skocpol's contentions or characterizations... you only jumped in to defend the honor of "intellectuals" in principle -- even if one of them is making an ass of herself -- and, most importantly, to declare yourself a kindred spirit.
I commented on the article. That's what we do here.
It's filled with baseless characterizations, unsupported opinions and (as others have also observed) a haughty, peering-down-one's-nose preoccupation with "intellectuals".
Stopping strangers on the street to seek acknowledgement of one's intellect is the mark of a twit.
We're done here.
"there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance."
Hardly what one would expect in a 'hard-nosed' political strategy meeting at the presidential level, huh? And, just imagine... they never held hands in a candle-lit circle or 'shared'.
You mentioned "intellectual" five times.
We're impressed.
Self-involved and fatuous... much?
The fact that you hold water for non-intellectuals is hardly striking, StillAmused. In a world full of the artificially stupid, arrogant, and self-righteous (television viewers), militant non-intellectuals abound.
Some people see a life of the mind as the norm, however, and wouldn't go out of their way to impress those who won't/can't be impressed by such. I read the same passages as a simple reference to who had been invited to those soires: academics (ivory-tower posers, you might call them).
Don't bring a softball to a game of hardball, dude.
----
Kill your tv. Dead.
Aren't you the self-impressed poseur, casting aspersions on someone who, like many on this thread, considers Skocpol's droolings effete, arrogant and affected.
"A life of the mind," huh? You saw "a simple reference to who had been invited". I saw a preoccupation with the word, "intellectual", repeated FIVE TIMES so we wouldn't miss it.
Moreover, you completely missed MY point about the nature of the gathering and the absurdity of Skocpol's criticisms.
Holding water? Here's your bucket... "dude".
Kill your illusions. Dead.
Whoaa, who's got a paper cut??
Who you calling a poser, dude? I'm just pointing out that YOU seem to have much more of a problem with her calling herself an intellectual than I do. Or, for that matter, than she does. Is "intellectual" a dirty word, or something? She seems to be using it as a simple descriptive term, not a credential as such. It seems to be you, who thinks it's a brag.
My own little mention of a "life of the mind" seems to have been enough to excite your enmity, but seriously: I don't know what else to call it. I don't watch television, so I'm not killing my brain like you and your buds are (I assume). I spend my time using my brain for things that matter to me, instead of the national occupation of killing it by slow degrees of induced ignorance.
If you have a problem with my attitude, so (not) sorry. I don't let other people decide what my opinions should be.
(And if you think I missed your point, dude, then you missed MY point.)
---
Don't watch tv.
glad you are for Barack, ma'm, but could leave some of the dripping haughtiness of the academy and intelligensia behind you, please?
An interesting article, however let's see what has been offered up as a scholarly attempt to make a point.
Theda Skocpol is a really smart lady; how do I know? Because she said so! She's in intellectual and you aren't. Sorta Reminds me of the old SNL line "I"m Chevy Chase and YOU'RE NOT!" Hmmmmm.
I was the only woman (at least intellectually wise) who was there? How do we know? Because she said so! The rest of the femine attendees were base sluts? Ignorant admiring staff, worker bees?? I was the Queen bee!???
I didn't make copious notes that was the basis for a book? How smart was that? Purtty Smart if it made money if ya ask me! But, she, an intellectual wouldn't dare "dirty" my hands with such mundane machinations. However, I will be a "tattletale" and an "I told you so..: (Hillary is a liar nah, nah, nah nah)
Hillary was vindictive and cruel in opinion towards former Democrats who then vote Republican. Ok, but what does this indicate? I'll answer in a way that most "common-non-intellectuals" think:
Hillary or Barrak, what you say in private about your supporters and or your future supporters is how you consider your relationships for and to yourself. If you are an elitist, then it's only elitist that you will favor! If you are kind and decent, you will consider all the people! After all it is YOU who must SERVE US.
The following comment by the writer of this article points out a distaste for "gotcha" politics and doesn't even realize that they are playing that same game they say they hate - and they expect us to listen and believe what they say? How crazy are they?
"I think this whole angle of "gotcha" politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America -- and I cannot fathom why the Clintons or George Stephanopoulos are descending to this dirt, not to mention the guilt-by-association crap."
It's curious to me that the writer of this article can not recall the exact word Hillary spoke but says that Ben Barber (who allegedly did make note of words uttered by Hillary) is now a Hillary supporter! How curious!
thank you so much for posting this very insightful and informative blog . .. I really hope those still blinded by the myth of the clintons or those who are planning to vote for hillary because they want a woman at any cost in the WH will read it and act on it ... the clintons back in the WH would be a big mistake . . .
Thank you, Theda, for a very insightful contribution. Look, people, the point here is not to vilify Hillary for her coldly analytical look at the politics of the working class. It's to point out her hypocrisy (a term Skocpol gracefully and studiously avoided).
It's the same up and down the line with Hillary, and by the way, one of the oldest tricks in the political book: identify your own vulnerabilities and project them onto your opponent, go on the attack and force your opponent to defend, and once your opponent defends, says this is the real issue in the campaign, and turn up the volume on your attack. If it sticks, it brings your opponent down to your level; and at best, it may deflect attention from your own vulnerabilities by attaching them to your opponent. Concerned because you've always been perceived as an "elitist," out of touch with the working class? Call your opponent an elitist, out of touch with the working class. Have a troubled relationship with the truth? Call your opponent a liar. Botched the only major policy initiative entrusted to you in your 8 years playing second-fiddle in the White House, and have little in the way of substantive legislative accomplishment to show for 8 years in the Senate? Call your opponent "all talk and no action." And on and on.
Obama is also guilty of these offenses. So what. . . Blame all not just one. . . .
Dean Skocpol, you wrote: "Over and out. I am going to try to find a way to preserve in amber my better memories and feelings about the Clintons, so as not to lose altogether the sense of admiration I once felt, but can no longer."
Perhaps you should hope that the Clintons will also be able to remember you in a better light than you shine upon yourself in this post. As an observer who has a high regard for President Clinton, Senator Clinton and you, Dean Skocpol, I would respectfully suggest that you reconsider some of the opinions expressed or implied in your post. As divided as we may be in our political opinions, shouldn't we maintain respect for each other as citizens?
You can have respect for a person because they are another Human being while not having repsect for the person they have become because of their poor choices in their life.
And I suppose you can also have respect for a person because that person is another human being and at the same time not respect that person because he or she is inane, if you get my drift.
Dean Skocpol, you wrote "I think this whole angle of "gotcha" politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America -- and I cannot fathom why the Clintons or George Stephanopoulos are descending to this dirt, not to mention the guilt-by-association crap."
Isn't this exactly what you are doing? Transposing a snippet of speech from one context to another? Because you are an intellectual and a noted scholar, you are aware that many commentators have written about how much Senator Clinton has learned and changed since the time you are recounting (Senator Clinton herself has remarked on this). After all, you are talking about a single event that occurred thirteen years ago.
As far as guilt-by-association is concerned, if you are talking about eating spaghetti at an Italian restaurant in Little Italy the same night as a reputed mobster, then yes that is "crap." If you are talking about someone whom you have acknowledged as the man who led you to your spiritual awakening, married you to your wife, baptized your children, mentored you spiritually and served on your campaign committee as well as your pastor for 17 years, then it's not crap - it's profoundly indicative of your character. And if your remarks disrespecting the "typical white people" of Pennsylvania and other Midwestern states were uttered a few days ago, that probably means a lot more than two words (allegedly) uttered 13 years ago.
It looks to me like BeyondContinuityTheory, not Theda Skocpol, is the one made uncomfortable by assertiveness in other women-- in this case, Skocpol's.
Skocpol is the most talented historical sociologist writing in English, she's enormously respected by her colleagues, and she got where she is through her own hard work and talent, not by marrying a once-popular politician.
If Skocpol found Hillary Clinton's cold elitism and Machiavellianism disturbing it's something we should take quite seriously.
I was sitting outside today just trying to enjoy my back yard. I put on some of my favorite music. I wanted to catch up on some magazines that I had not had a chance to read over the last few weeks. I started with The Nation.
I first read All Aboard the McCain Express by Rick Perlstein who tells the story about McCain and how much the conservatives hate him. But if you notice now it is a love fest because that is who they have and they don't like to lose.
I read Chalabi's Lobby by Aram Roston who says we were pretty much manipulated into this war by this guy. His hatred of Saddam Husseim and the stupid politics of Bush/Cheney were what this guy needed.
I read a story by Nir Rosen "Inside the Surge" also. I'm sure if you want to read these stories they are available to you.
What struck me today as I am sitting in my home reading and listening to music that there is so much bullshit going on today about the election. This should be so easy for the democrats. There is a war that our loved ones are dying in, and we are fighting about what candidate to choose. A democrat has to be elected, if not we are signing death certificates for thousands of people. We need to end this bickering and choose our candidate and beat the Republicans.
All Democrats are not alike and you ought to know that not all Dems will vote for Obama if Hillary is not the nominee. IMO - electing Obama is like electing Bush (who also said the words 'change' and 'uniter not divider' . We certainly did get change (a change for the worse) and there is more division thatn I can ever immagine! IMO - the only change I can see in an Obama presidency is the fact that we will have a black rather than white president, we need more change than just skin color and Obama is not the one. So I see many people voting for - anyone - else.
Oh my goodness! It's true! This is an Obama blog. My remarks after 5 pm in favor of Clinton are posted half way down the page.
OMG! You've discovered the monitor shift-change time gap, stop the presses! Did it occur to you, BET, that when the night guys come on, the flow is backed up? Did you check the times on the comments after yours? Good chance the times are within minutes or even seconds of each other, because they were all put up (wait for it) at the same time, as in, batched.
If that makes an Obama conspiracy to you, more power to you. Or you're just looking for bias, because Obama is the better man (see, even I'M doing it!), and HuffPo contributors have figured that out.
---
Just say no, to TV - Nancy Reagan.
Keep doing what they do - inundate. It is the Obama plan to inundate so we must too. Your not alone.
Hillary's words, voice and face spouting her lies. You can't say this is not true when there is actual footage of her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz9VdoHZshA&NR=1
Free people might want to also check out www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008 (some interesting facts about Obama), and his voting records and where the money is coming from. Enjoy.
As Jay Leno put it the other night: "We deserve the candidate that we get". If people are not smart enough to see through the BAGGAGE and garbage that has been thrown at Obama then we might just end up with McCain. I feel the troops are the one's that will suffer and DIE because there are so many stupid people that believe that flag pins, and bitter remarks are more important.
Issues people like : war, economy, healthcare, enviroment, taxes, jobs, gas prices, homes lost, these are just some of the things that we have to concern ourselves with. Everyone needs to turn their TV's off and not pay attention to the unbalanced media that plays 24/7 into our homes. They are slanted and wear us out with trivial things like flag pins. I for one am sick of all of them!
I'm a 64 year-old white female who strongly supports Obama. I like Hillary as a senator. I am apalled by her words and actions as a candidate for president.
So her words and actions on the Presidential trail do not show her for who she really is? How can you like her for one job versus another when the words and actions you are reffering to (I think) show her to be less than truthful, possibly a little spiteful and even potentially doing anything to win? These are characteristics of a Senator that you admire?
Simple, in the Senate, she's 1% of the vote and voice of the title "Senator". President is 100% of the voice of "President". In the Senate, having "one more woman" primarily representing the needs of a state, instead of a country, does more good than a divisive individual president would.
I am 31 years old and female. I am very worried that if my "elders" in the feminist movement get their wish for "a woman" president this election, *I* won't see *another* woman president in my lifetime. I really do fear that Hillary will set women back 50 years and that chauvinists will point to the wreckage of her presidency as a reason to not elect another woman for that long.
But, as those of us who are watching carefully understand, this isn't about "all women" the way that Hillary supporters want it to be. It's about ONE woman, Hillary, because that's who they've got. Nevermind that she's not the strongest candidate (on any scale, not just votes/delegates - she's also run a weaker campaign financially and planning-wise in ways that make me very nervous about handing the leadership of our economic policies to her). I think America is ready for a woman president, but THIS woman would do great harm to future woman presidential candidates. And that's a bigger issue than anything any individual particular woman cries out for. It's not about *her*, it's about *us*. I chose the "We" candidate over th "Me" candidate.
I guess being in attendence when Hillary spouts off her remarks does not count??
Funny how that works with you Clinton lovers. You tend to remember the good days, but there were plenty bad moments.
The only "bad" moments that I remember are the ones that the Publicans created in order to make Bill Clinton look bad or to keep him from being as effective a President as he could have been.
Why do you Publican asswipes hate America so much that you would keep a President from giving the Presidency his full time attention, just so your second-rate team could pick up votes?
RedWhiteandBrooklyn- I remember bad moments like NAFTA and Rwanda. Him backing down and us ending up with the lame "Don't ask, Don't tell policy to name just a few.
And since you have only half of a conversation you know how you think. No one knows anything about Obama's private moments, so you assume you do. Which, I guess, proves that the less you know about someone, the easier it is to like them.
I haven't yet heard Obama apologize for anything, he just justifies himself, so it is more difficult to have an opinion about him. Lacking proof of anything, and a half- baked remembrance makes it easy to make decisions, doesn't it?
What do you want a apology for?
I could ask you the same thing regarding Clinton, check out the youtube with her face, voice and her lies.
Posted April 17, 2008 | 05:14 PM (EST)