This is pretty neat. According to Howard Wolfson, pointing out that Bill Clinton is lying is a "
right-wing talking point" and thus all good liberals have a duty to grant Clinton a blanket license to fib. So when Clinton said he opposed the Iraq War, that must have been true, because I'm a liberal. And when Clinton said Barack Obama didn't oppose the Iraq War, that must have been true too, because I'm a liberal.
Look, obviously Bill's in an odd position because we've never had an ex-president's wife run for president before. But if he wants to be treated as an elder statesman figure for fellow progressives, he needs to act like one. If he wants to be Hillary Clinton's attack dog in a primary campaign, then he's going to be treated as one. Certainly he's not above criticism.
Posted January 21st, 2008
<...>
Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, seems a little confused about this.
<...>
No. Republicans will say, in general, that Bill Clinton is dishonest. It’s just reflexive for conservatives, like breathing. But in this case, Obama pointed specifically to something Bill Clinton said that, in reality, wasn’t true. Noting that publicly has
nothing to do with “right-wing talking points.” The idea doesn’t even make any sense.
As Wolfson’s argument goes, anytime anyone points out anything that the former president said that isn’t true, they’re necessarily using “right-wing talking points.” But that’s silly — by this logic, Bill Clinton could make up outrageous charges against Obama, and Obama couldn’t respond at all without sounding like a Republican hack. It sounds like an effort to silence critics, regardless of merit.
link
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
