The Washington Post reports
Obama Overstates Kennedys' Role in Helping His Father. It's not just Hillary that exaggerates but at least this example doesn't seem as bad to me. And I don't see Obama saying "no this really did happen, who are you going to believe me or a comedian?"
1 comment:
Actually, they seem like equivalent lies to me, in that both are designed to make them look better in the eyes of the public. Neither affect policy.
Hillary wanted to appear brave and calm under fire, literally and figuratively. So she concocted a story that might have happened. Except that it didn't.
Barack wanted to make a Kennedy connection, a smart Democratic move. His story didn't happen to HIM, but to his father, so it is possible he just misunderstood the family history or something. That is a bit more forgivable. I doubt that was the case, but whatever.
I think they were just both trying to make themselves look better. Hillary is worried she will be seen as weak, being a woman and all. Barack is worried people see him as a foreigner, a black terrorist Muslim. So they changed facts to make themselves seem brave and tough (hillary) and connected to a great white Democratic American family (barack).
Neither are big deals to me. People lie. Politicians lie a lot. I wish they didn't, but they do.
Post a Comment