|
We all remember this, don’t we? Al Gore makes his infamous remark that he helped to create the internet. Obviously he is referring to legislative efforts on his part that did clear the way for the establishment of the internet. But one can misinterpret him to be making the ridiculous claim that he helped to develop the technology necessary for the establishment of the internet. And just to make sure the misintepretation sticks, Rush Limbaugh misquotes Gore by substituting “invent” for “create.” Before long, “liberal” journalists at the NY Times and Washington Post are making fun of Gore for claiming to have invented the internet.
Fast forward about eight years. Bill Clinton says that the Obama campaign’s characterization of its candidate’s opposition to the war is a fairytale. One could contest that claim on its merits, but our inner Rush wants us to do better. By twisting Clinton’s words, we can suggest that he was claiming that Obama’s campaign was a fairytale and we can even suggest that his remarks were racist.
Move on to Michelle Obama’s innocent discussion of her and her husband’s efforts to raise their children well and how that speaks well of their character. Take her remark that "our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House" out of context and one can claim that easily accuse her of insinuating that because Hillary couldn’t stop Bill from fooling around, Hillary doesn’t belong in the White House.
Oh and here’s a really good one. Hillary proposes that unlike her, Obama has an electability problem in that he has substantially less foreign policy experience than McCain has. We could play it fair and only attack her for providing McCain with talking points to use against Obama if Obama is the Democratic nominee. But no, we can make Clinton’s comparison into something much worse. Let’s ignore Clinton’s repeated explicit claims that Obama would be a far better choice for President than McCain, and let’s ignore the fact that she has made it clear that she thinks that Obama’s positions on foreign and domestic policy issues are far superior to McCain’s. Then we can say that by suggesting that McCain has more foreign policy experience Obama, Clinton implied that McCain would be a better choice for President than Obama. Now let’s shorten it: Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama!
And speaking of Obama, he makes the mistake of saying something true but unflattering about certain inhabitants of economically-depressed, rural towns, namely, that SOME of them understandably cling to religion, guns, etc., to explain their economic troubles. (OK, it wasn’t quite true; it’s not really understandable that they do so.) Obama claims that he didn’t express the point he was trying to make in the right way, but come on. Does he really expect us to give him the benefit of the doubt? No, we’ll take his remark, add to it his embarrassingly high intelligence and embarrassingly low bowling score, and voila: he is “out of touch” with regular folks, a latte-sipping, arugula-munching elitist.
Of course we don’t have to be this clever at DU. Most of the smears you see everyday on DU are even dumber than the one’s I’ve mentioned here. Everything from the standard guilt-by-association smear (e.g., “Someone who has donated money to Obama/Clinton is a crook; therefore Obama/Clinton is a crook”) to the pure speculation smear (e,g,, “Clinton is trying to cause Obama to lose to McCain in 2008 so that she can run in 2012,” or “Obama did well in the caucuses because he organized systematic cheating”). Rush must enjoy reading DU these days.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
