Friday :: Oct 12, 2007

The Audacity of Hypocrisy and Distortion


by Jeff Dinelli

From my U.S. Senator Barack Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope:"

"What every senator understands that while it's easy to make a vote on a complicated piece of legislation look evil and depraved in a thirty-second television commercial, it's very hard to explain the wisdom of that same vote in less than twenty minutes. What every senator also knows is that during the course of a single term, he or she will have cast several thousand votes. That's a whole lot of potential explaining to do come election time" (page 132).

Nice words. Unfortunately, that's all they seem to be to him: words.

Obama has declared he is entering a new phase of his campaign, one The Hill's Klaus Marre has dubbed "Abandoning [the] Politics of Hope," one which the candidate will simply tell you is Time To Start Attacking Hillary, and one which I'll just call Total Hypocrisy, since we in Illinois once defined him by his fine writing, his inspiring speeches, and his boundless future.

Alegre at Daily Kos posts the counter-punching latest Clinton campaign memo today, and for those of you who missed Rocky Obama's interview with Wolf Blitzer last night here's a transcript. Essentially he's continuing to distort the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. Obama knows Hillary didn't cast a vote for war, surely he still confides in our senior Senator Dick Durbin, who voted with Hillary. Better yet, if this vote was the most important one in five years, as Obama seems to be implying with all this racket, maybe he should have shown up.

BLITZER: Let's talk about [Iran] specifically right now. The other day the senate voted 76-22 in favor of what's called the Lieberman/Kyl amendment that said, "It is the sense of the Senate that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization." Senator Clinton voted in favor of that resolution. You were absent. You didn't show up for that vote, but you say you would have voted against it. First of all, why didn't you come to the Senate and make your vote?

OBAMA: Well, I was in New Hampshire at the time. This is one of the problems with running for president. You can't always anticipate which votes are which, but I put out a statement at the time stating that this was a bad idea and that I would have voted against it and here's why.

We know in the past that the president has used some of the flimsiest excuses to try to move his agenda, regardless of what Congress says. We know that there was embodied in this legislation or this resolution sent to the senate, language that would say our Iraqi troop structures should in part be determined by our desire to deal with Iran. Now, if you know that in the past the president has taken a blank check and cashed it, we don't want to repeat that mistake.

BLITZER: Wouldn't that vote, Senator, this is what your critics are hammering away at you. Wouldn't that vote be more important than campaigning in New Hampshire, given the significance of what you're describing right now?

OBAMA: We don't always know what votes are scheduled and when. If you're in New Hampshire, then it's hard to get back, but this wasn't a close vote. What it should have been, though, is a vote that sends a message to the American people that we're not going to keep on giving George Bush a blank check. That's, unfortunately, what we did.

He's lying to the American people about what the vote means, and engaging in some Republican-style fear-mongering. I guess this is how Obama reacts when he feels some heat, when the polls aren't going his way, to put it mildly.

We've come a long way, Senator, from your book, "The Audacity of Hope:"

"For that is how most of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, enter the Senate, their mistakes trumpeted, their words distorted, and their motives questioned" (page 134).

Indeed.

Jeff Dinelli :: 5:45 PM :: Comments (16) :: Digg It!