Hillary Says She Was Inartful
by Bob Schwartz
Asked about her comments on the Clinton family wealth, Hillary Clinton now says, “Well, I shouldn’t have said the five or so words that I said, but my inartful use of those few words doesn’t change who I am, what I’ve stood for my entire life, what I stand for today.”
There were actually more than five words, on two recent occasions. First she said that she and Bill Clinton were not only dead broke when they left the White House, they were in debt. Then she said that they paid their taxes like regular people, not like others who were “truly well off.”
Aside from whether these words reflect their financial affairs, or whether they reflect her being out of touch or just a bit rusty as a candidate, this is the thing: regular people don’t use the word “inartful,” at least or especially not if they are running for President and trying to look like regular people.
Publicly, Bill Clinton would not say “inartful.” George W. Bush wouldn’t say it. Barack Obama wouldn’t say it. And besides those last three Presidents, John McCain wouldn’t say it. And neither would Mitt Romney, who when he faced having made a similar and very damaging comment about income, simply said that he “misspoke.”
There’s nothing wrong with being wealthy, smart, well-spoken, or intellectual. Plenty of Presidents and successful leaders have been some or all of these. But the challenging key is to be both comfortable with who you are and yet able to be appropriately yourself in whatever context you are in.
Lots of us may use “inartful” as part of our writing or conversation; it’s actually a very useful word. But lots of us—almost all of us—are not running for President, or considering it.
Finally, for those who are into word things, there is another point. “Artful” sounds pretty good, particularly if you mean getting your language just right to express your thoughts. But it is a close cousin of the word “artifice,” which has a very different meaning and feel. So if what Hillary was trying to say was that her previous comments were imperfect artifice—that she didn’t get the story about the Clinton wealth quite right—then maybe she is on to something. And maybe “inartful” was le mot juste.
Bob Schwartz 
Actually Obama did say it about a stupid remark Wesley Clark made.
Not only is inartful a legal term (Mrs. Clinton and the president were both lawyers), but it also has the added meaning of tactless. This meaning was likely her intent, as was Mr. Obama’s when he used it to defend Gen. Clark.
Given the yeehaw parade that was the GW presidency and GOP candidacy for 8 years, I for one applaud her for having a vocabulary and being unafraid to use it.
And I cannot imagine, given the idiocy and crimes of our leaders today, why we would choose to discredit someone for having brains and empathy.
Seriously, this matters?
As usual, a thoughtful comment from you. Thanks. It has prompted me to consider a related post in the near future, but in the meantime, a brief reply.
First, talking about Hillary in any political company of any kind is a minefield. It was that way during the Bill Clinton campaign and presidency, it was that way during the 2008 campaign, and it is that way now. But fools rush in, so here goes.
Hillary is not a great communicator. Political aspirants and elected officials don’t have to be great communicators, from the lowest office up to President. And being a great communicator does not guarantee good or great performance on the job. But it doesn’t hurt, and can really help. The three Presidents I mentioned (Clinton, W., and Obama) are all great communicators in their own way. (Yeah, W. gets dissed by me and others for lots of shortcomings, from stupid wars to verbal gaffes to seeming simple-mindedness. But devil his due, he did manage to get across exactly who he was.)
Looking at the post, I think that is at the heart of what I said. Contrary to what some seem to think, while she may have a straightforward path to the nomination and to office, it is still an uphill path that will be strewn with all sorts of stuff, genuine concerns and garbage. She can’t avoid being compared to Bill, who is the greatest political magician of our times, and most of that comes from his verbal skills and his outsized personality. Hillary is going to have to talk her way over, around, and through more than twenty years of a very public political life. Is that fair? It’s the way it is. Will she be up to the task, should she want to take it on? Who knows? Does it matter? It sure does.
Gotcha. Thanks for the response.
So does it matter because it really does matter? Or does it matter because the public hangs on every word of the media clown show?
Things matter for purposes, and nowhere more than in politics. I complain constantly about the distorted priorities of news channels, from the perspective of wanting an informed and engaged citizenry. And if that was exactly what the news channels exclusively wanted, they might not still be reporting non-news about Malaysia Flight 370 or the other junk they waste time on. But their primary objective is ratings, and whether or not that’s for the best, that’s the way it is. So we should work for better perspectives and better priorities and better alternatives. But the way it is is the waty it is until it gets better. Idealism, pragmatism, cynicism, all mixed up in reality soup.
Yes, ‘Tis a sad state of affairs.