The [Lack of] ... I's Have It - Clinton v. Bush and the Personal Pronoun

Clinton Speech, Bush Speech ^ | November 12, 2001 | William Jefferson Scumbag Ex-President, President George W. Bush

[GretchenEE]

The recent speeches made by Clinton and Bush have been dissected on FR, but the angle of the personal pronoun use emerged as a distinct issue in revealing what these two men are about.

Source URL for Clinton's November 7 speech is Clinton Speech at Georgetown U, November 7, 2001;
Source URL for Bush Speech is: Bush Address to United Nations, November 10, 2001

How many times does a man have to say "I" to become a big man? Conversely, how many times can he avoid saying "I" and show he is already a bigger man than the narcissistic megalomaniacs in his midst?

The two recent speeches by Ex-president Scumbag Clinton and the honorable President George W. Bush define the issue numerically and rather graphically. What we always knew about Ex-president Scumbag Clinton is now provable by a mere word count.

While (gackingly) reading my way through Clinton's address to himself, in which he allowed the students and faculty at his alma mater, Georgetown U, to listen in, I was smacked in the face by how many times blubba used the word "I" in just the first paragraph. I did a word count and was aghast.

I decided to compare blubba's use of personal pronouns to Bush's. Here are the results.

CLINTON SPEECH, NOVEMBER 7, 2001 AT GEORGETOWN
Total word count: 7,375
(what a gasbag!) (I didn't have to locate and subtract any use of the word "Applause")
Number of times Clinton used the following personal pronouns
I =.., 91
me = 10
my = 15

---------------------------------

BUSH SPEECH TO UNITED NATIONS, NOVEMBER 10, 2001
Total word count: 2,979 minus 35 uses of the word "Applause" =
2,944
Number of times Bush used the following personal pronouns
I =.. 12
me = 3
my = 4

Now, one must take into consideration the disparity in total word count in order to make a fair comparison. Ex-president Scumbag's speech had two and a half times more words than President Bush's, so here are the numbers in Bush's speech times two and a half:

Multiplying Bush's total words by 2.5 = 7,360 (close enough for me):

I = 12 x 2.5 = 30 compared with blubba's 91
me = 3 x 2.5 = 7.5 compared with blubba's 10
my = 4 x 2.5 = 10 compared with blubba's 15

[d14truth]

"Clinton at Georgetown: We wuz askin fer it"

"President Bush in Atlanta: Let's Roll." or

"They are asking for it, and, they are going to get it!!!

[GretchenEE]

Thank you, Howlin. You're a dear. Math stopped being my best subject when I graduated from the third grade and we got into long division (don't even ask how geometry went), and here I did the numbers right but copied them down from the wrong speech.

Republic, I did send a short (and corrected!) version to Rush, with the link to this thread. Hope the Email title catches his eye.

[Cobra64]

Well done... very well done. However, since the Slickster is "officially" out of office, we have the Hildabeast to deal with.

Would you care to compare and contrast Senator Clintoon to Laura Bush? I'll bet the numbers are even more striking.

Regards

[VOYAGER]

One can only imagine (and shudder at the thought of) what his book will be like.

If, and it's highly unlikely, I decide to look inside his book of lies and arrogant mouthings, at the first indication of his usual spinning of the truth I will immediately lay it aside and never open it again.

If I cannot get one as a loaner(library, etc;)I will not be guilty of contributing to his plunder by paying good money to buy one.

The lying, raping, ChiCom Pimp and his lying, arrogant wife are parasites sucking a living off this nation.

[packrat01]

V, tell us what you REALLY think.

IF you ever check the book out from the library, take a yellow highlighter to all the "I", "me", "my", and "mine". Might also to the "our", "ours", "we", and "us".

Maybe the second edition will have that feature from the publisher...

[Wphile]

Great post. Thanks for the ping. I hope Rush goes through it on the air. It is a very telling analysis of the difference between the two men. Of course, side by side photos do too!! How about that CNN headline: THE RIGHT MAN WON!!! Well, duh....

[mtngrl@vrwc]

Thanks for sharing the results of all of your hard work with us. Listening to x42's speech for us - what a dedicated FReeper you are!

To x42, the world revolves around his life. If he ever grows up, I wonder if he will feel foolish when he looks back on his actions as president. Bet not!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

WOO HOO, Gretchen, good job! This is the perfect "bottom line" post to send to the press. Once they read your insightful analysis, they will never again be able to listen to a Clinton speech without silently counting the "I" words themselves, grimacing and gnashing their teeth at the truth. (^:

[tillacum]

As he has looked at the world and events for 50 some odd years while contemplating his navel, what can we expect? He's little more than nothing, he's only I,me,my mouth. He and his lard broad wife wouldn't even make good compost. (I'm starting more new compost at this time):))), gotta clean out the barn, and I've got leaves all over the place.

[WomanofStandard]

Good reseach job. Thanks for the ping and for sharing it with us!

[NYC GOP Chick]

Blubba can't help it that he had rotten parents who marred his soul, and W can't help it that he had good, loving, caring parents. But clinton sure didn't do much to fix his own house before he came into DC and fixed our house but good.

And the bastard almost got my home destroyed two months ago, thanks to his incompetence and not caring to do something about terrorism.

I, for one, am looking forward to the day we can FReep him in person here in NYC, because I will be leading the "IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!" chants.

[Penny1]

Thank you for the ping, this is a great analysis. I also appreciated connectthedots' remark that even when GWB does say "I", it's most often in terms of "I want to thank...." etc....

Our President is so obviously completely others-oriented, it's very noticeable, and what a wonderful change from the self-absorption of the previous 8 years.

The comparison, too, about what Bush says to us and about us is diametrically opposed to what Clinton says about us. Hugh Hewitt did a line-by-line sound-bite comparison, alternating phrases or sentences from Clinton's speech with Bush's speech from Atlanta last Thursday. It was astounding, really, to hear just how obvious the difference is between the two of them.

And as Hugh Hewitt said, that's why such a great majority of the American people are saying that they are glad that Bush is in office handling this crisis as opposed to Clinton.

-penny

[JulieRNR21]

BRAVO! Thanks for your valuable analysis which confirms what most observers Clinton have come to realize that he is an egomaniac self-absorbed immature oaf who thinks everything that happens is all about him!

President George W. Bush is a Stateman and a humble man who puts Americans (he calls them his 'fellow citizens') first! Thanks be to God!

[kitkat]

Old McClinton had a speech
Me, I, Me, I, Oh!
And in his speech he had a
PIG
Me, I, Me, I, Oh!
And on his pig, he had some pants
Me, I, Me, I, Oh!
And in her pants she had some hips
Me, I, Me, I, OOOOOHH!
Old McClinton had a speech
Me, I, Me, I, Oh!

[nancetc]

Darling...sending you an honorary degree in Statistical Analysis from the University of Observation.

[GallopingGhost]

Just out of curiosity I counted the words in your post and applied the same arithmatic. Your post had roughly (emphasis on roughly) 324 words. Dates counting as one word, no numbers counted as words, etc. You use the word "I" four times (not counting the references to Clintoons use of the word), "My" once and "Me" once. Since 324 is just less than 1/23 of Clintoons number, I multiplied by 22.75. It appears that if your post had been around 7,300 words, you would have used "I" 91 times. Not that this means anything.

[GretchenEE]

Yes, it does mean something, and to tell you the truth, there was a great consciousness while writing the post that that would be a likely target of critique.

Notice how the indirect approach was used in the above sentence so as not to call attention to any specific writer, a gallingly silly practice because the reason the post was written was to call attention to a certain person's personal observations of the use of the personal pronoun by Clinton and Bush. Please note that this was done at the specific request of another FReeper. It is not something that would have been done as a separate post on the writer's own without being asked. Since the post called for the personal observations of the writer, one might be more forgiving about the issue ... especially considering the reason for each "speech": Clinton addressing his alma mater on the terrorist attacks and turning it into a Hallelujah chorus to himself; Bush speaking to the United Nations on terrorism and the American response; and a certain FReeper's personal observations, analysis, and conclusions about both.

[GWfan]

Thanks for the ping. I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis. It brought a little humor to another sad day.

God bless America!

[GretchenEE]

I'm thinking that the best graphic for the cover of both of their AUTObio's is a close-up of an elbow headed right for the camera lens, as in, "Get out of MY way!!!" Of course, both would need their left elbows photograhed, making it difficult to tell which autobio was which, so Hillary!'s might have the added distinction of her right hand coming toward the camera lens to cover it, since people are not allowed to look her in the face when passing her queenliness.

[RightRules]

I hope you're forwarding that idea to the publisher, lol