The Pot Calls The Linen Tablecloth Black

In a shift of strategy hours before the third Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton’s campaign went for Bernie Sanders’ jugular, accusing his team of stealing valuable campaign data, misrepresenting what happened and inflicting “damage here that cannot be undone.”... And Clinton’s team was angry that Sanders tried to fundraise off the incident by acting like he was a victim of the Democratic National Committee. “Stop politicizing and work to ensure that what took place is remedied,” Mook said, even dropping that Sanders campaign may have broken the law.
Heaven knows how much it scandalizes Clinton to ponder a breach of the law.

UPDATE: DNC violated its own laws in punishing Sanders campaign.


E Hines said...

Couple things.

1) We'll see what this is worth, and what Sanders is made of, when we see how zealously and loudly he continues his Federal lawsuit, and by what he does in tonight's debate--whether he'll call out Clinton for this, or bend over and kiss her feet like he did over her email crimes.

2) I've never understood the pseudo-logic of "the pot calling the kettle/whatevs black" as though that's a serious charge. Is the intent to deny that the whatevs really is black on the basis of who is describing it? It can't be a comment on the credibility of the describer; that would be, at best, a red herring, since the subject usually is the degree of blackness of the whatev.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

I think it's just a colloquial way of describing the tu quoque fallacy. The pot and the kettle are both cast iron, and are therefore quite equally black. They're black in the same way and for the same reasons.

Normally I'd use the more formal language, but it this case I'm struck by the use of the model against someone who is actually way cleaner than Clinton or her campaign. Clinton and the DNC are completely corrupt, but they have the audacity to go after Sanders' campaign on the charge of being dirty.

Ymar Sakar said...

The Audacity of Hope, you see.

MikeD said...

By playing the outrage card, Clinton hopes to cement her "innocence" in the eyes of wavering supporters. After all, could a truly scandal-ridden candidate so shamelessly call for such actions? So this proves that all the accusations against her are just Rethuglican lies.

Of course, it ignores the likelier explanation that she simply has no shame.