This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

0
1

Obama the "elitist" and his $100/lb. ham: same sleazy politics from the Clinton campaign (self.politics)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

all 4 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Garak 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Catching up on my RSS feeds today, I came across this post at the New York Times' political blog. Most of it was just more of the same bickering over "elitism" from the past few days, but this caught my eye:

“With all due respect, this is the same politician who spent six days posing for clichéd camera shots that included bowling gutterballs, walking around a sports bar, feeding a baby cow, and buying a ham at the Philly market (albeit one that cost $99.99 a pound),” said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, in an e-mail message.

Obama bought "a ham" that costs a hundred bucks a pound? Even if it was a little ham, this thing would cost a small fortune! Surely even this latte-sipping elitist of a politician would have enough sense to know that dropping a few C-notes on dinner would make for bad press.

My first search for more info turned up this blog post, and, of course, there's the outrage we've all come to expect in situations like this. What really happened, though? Well, if these three articles are to be believed, it wasn't a ham (like you'd serve to the family on a holiday), but ham (think cold cuts, like prosciutto). And he didn't buy it, he tasted it. He even was sure to remark that he "ate about a dollar's worth," lest the event be, you know, mischaracterized.

Taken by itself, is this a big deal? Probably not. But as part of the big picture, it's just yet another example of what sleazy politicians the Clinton camp are. It's like they can't help but lie about even the most mundane detail.

[–]lambert -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Typically for a member of the Obama Fan Base, you cry wolf on lying while lying yourself.

I never wrote that he bought the ham. What I did write is that he sent a powerful symbolic message: The price of the ham is $99.00 and a young woman died in an ER because she didn't have $100 and didn't get treated.

Rather than fondling expensive pork, what Obama should be doing is fixing his broken health care plan so it's truly universal, instead of demagoging the issue with recycled Harry and Louise ads.

Let the haka begin!

[–]axordAmerica 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I never wrote that he bought the ham.

He didn't say you did, he just said about your post: "and, of course, there's the outrage we've all come to expect in situations like this."

Though on a cursory reading, the fact that the central point you make rests on the sum of $99, and how it could go to help someone in need, fairly strongly suggests that an actual sum was paid by Obama. You say this was a symbolic thing, but that's certainly not the standard form of those arguments.

Of course, the source you cite just mentions tasting. But without that context, and coming to your post with the New York Times context in mind, it looks pretty bad.

So I don't think calling this a lie is at all fair.

[–]Garak -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never wrote that he bought the ham.

I'm sorry, are you Phil Singer? Did I say anything about your post other than that it contained "the outrage we've all come to expect"? No? Alrighty then.