Wednesday, March 19, 2008

It is always refreshing to see a politician take a position that is entirely self-serving.

My personal favorite parts:

1. Sen. Hillary Clinton on Wednesday said it was "un-American" to not count the votes in Florida and Michigan...

Oh boy, invoking patriotism to support your position? Sooweey, I'm on your side now! As long as felons are barred from participating in general elections, I don't think it's "un-American" for a private group to not count the votes of certain people based on the by-laws of their organization.

2. "Sen. Obama speaks passionately on the trail about empowering American people. Today I am urging him to match those words with actions to make sure people of Michigan and Florida have a voice and a vote in this election,"

Twisting your opponent's words, altering the context, and then using them to support your own position? Great strategy. Again, the rules were the rules and it's not as if Michigan and Florida citizens have been stripped of their right to vote. They could have voted in the Republican primary, and let us not forget there is a little thing called the "general election" coming up in November, pretty sure they'll be permitted to have a voice in that contest.

3. The Clinton camp also pointed out that Obama agreed to comply with DNC rules, which prohibit cross-over voting

Oh the irony! First, the counter is silly because whether Obama's camp encouraged Michigan Dems to vote "uncommitted" is moot. The fact remains that no doubt some Michigan Dems did vote in the Republican primary under the assumption that their own party's primary would not count. Second, and more amusing to me, I think it's great that Clinton is citing the DNC rules against Obama when a violation of the DNC rules is what started this entire debacle in the first place.

That is all.


Keenan said...

Of course Hillary's statements are self serving. Though no more self serving than Obama joing his Chicago church 20 years ago to establish legitimacy within the urban Chicago African American community. Indeed, no more self serving as him, now, distancing himself from that church.

zdh. said...

Fine, to that extent, most statements of a politician are self-serving.

But there is a distinction to be made between distancing oneself from the opinion of a pastor that makes statements you disagree with, and putting forth arguably intellectually dishonest material like Ms. Clinton did in the cited article.

Keenan said...

Obama's statement he had no idea his pastor made such inflammatory remarks wasn't just distancing himself, he was flat out lying. Both statements are two sides of the same coin, everyone puts out their own spin. There's no use trying to defend it. Admit it and move on.

BMW said...

I'm with zdh on this one. I know all politicians make self-serving statements, but the statements you're talking about Obama making are just spin control. He's trying to back peddle away from a third party who's damaging his candidacy. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is putting out false information as an offensive maneuver. In my opinion, the fact that Obama has to distance himself from the pastor is a result of the ridiculous political game (why should it affect his candidacy when those were someone else's words?) , so he responded in kind. Mrs. Clinton turned to the ridiculous political game for her own personal gain. Obama used the political game as damage control for a "problem" that was only started by the political game itself.

None of that makes sense, but I'm sticking to it.