|
All across the board this weekend, we had Team Obama savaging Clinton for agreeing with McCain regarding Obama taking public financing in the general election, were he the Democratic candidate.
Across the DU, Hillary Clinton has been called a traitor, a sell-out, a Machiavellian plotting an Obama defeat so she can run again in 2012, and so on. For, essentially, agreeing with on an issue with McCain in opposition to Obama.
:dilemma:
Now one problem we have here is that of a logical fallacy. Just because we do not like a person does not make every position that that person holds unlikable by association. Getting the gobs of corporate money out of elections is purported to be a quite liberal/progressive ideal, so why the sudden and vehement opposition now?
The other problem here is with the "traitor" remarks. Now, isn't one of Mr. Obama's main campaign themes is one of change, or letting go of past acrimonies, or reaching across to work with those of opposing views, etc..? Well, why is Clinton savaged for agreeing with John McCain on something? Seems like these attacks are attacking her for siding with "the enemy", which was something that he was supposed to be wanting to get away from?
So, what's the story?
|