Continuing in yesterday's vein re: Hillary and race, I was watching Obama interviewed on CNN yesterday when Wolf Blitzer repeated a recent quote from John McCain, saying that it's clear that Obama is the favorite presidential candidate of Hamas. I winced, and thought Obama handled this coolly and classily. "This is offensive," he said with banked heat, and then elaborated. I thought well of him for that, and sat down this morning to write an item dinging McCain for such a low blow, and praising Obama for the way he dealt with it.
It turns out that McCain was not pulling that out of thin air -- a Hamas advisor really did say to the media last month that "we like Mr. Obama," and praising his JFK-ness.
So, was it wrong for McCain to have said that Hamas prefers Obama to him? Not if it's, you know, true. To be sure, Obama responded to this in his CNN interview with a clear, forceful defense of his commitment to Israel, and I'm sure that he was appalled to learn that Hamas wants to be his BFF. Still, I don't see that McCain's remark was unwarranted, given that it's not a crude smear -- as I'd initially thought -- but based on something a Hamas big actually said.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
McCains' intent was clear,and that is what makes it wrong.Transparent.
From the standpoint of the Jewish tradition (I think I've said this here before), saying something negative about another person is actually WORSE if it's true, unless there is a VERY good reason for saying. (If it's true, that makes it just about impossible to retract or apologize for.)
Of course it is wrong...well depending on your moral compass. What does it add to the political debate? It's a continuation of making him sound scary not because of anything he has done wrong but by attributing some responsibility on him for the words or deeds of those he has known or those who have said something about him even if he doesn't know them. It was meant as a smear to increase the mistrust built up by other smears and the voters fear triggers.
Had Obama sought their endorsement or endorsed them then saying that would not be wrong.
Is it wrong if it's true? Obama has gotten so much pressure to go on that theory and bring up true things printed by major news publications and use it to hit back at Clinton, using the same excuse she uses. The republicans will bring it up. His refusal is seen as a weakness.
On his recent weekend show Tim Russert asked reporters following the campaign why Obama didn't use so many available things against Clinton, if he thought it would look bad. The reporters ended up saying as much as wanting a new kind of politics sounds like a slogan he actually means it, believes in it.
Would he do it if it was the only way to win? I suspect that's more within his own party but I don't know. There is a lot to hit McCain with beyond policy and he's had many openings but hasn't done it.
So is Obama wrong? Does politics change what is ethical? I don't know what would be worse...seeing it done to a candidate I support or seeing the candidate I support do it to others.
Of all the ways to lie, the most difficult -- and most effective -- is to tell the truth in such a way as to make it impossible for others to believe it.
Calling a person a wimp who in fact is a wimp succeeds on two fronts: it places a permanent "kick me" tag on the wimp's back, and blinds people to the fact that wimps tend to compensate by coming up with non-violent ways to resolve situations. Both are eminently satisfying to bullies and other non-wimps.
Or, as Isaac Asimov put it: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
William Blake (I think):
"A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.