Wednesday, October 1, 2008


McCain bristles at the suggestion that he's been dishonest and repeats the assertion that Obama supported comprehensive sexual education for kindergartners.

From the NYT:
In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.

“I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”

It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.

So, given the opportunity to take back a really disgusting lie, McCain just reasserts it and attacks someone for having the audacity to support a policy designed to help keep kids away from sexual predators.

1 comment:

Jonathan Ichikawa said...

Here's a facet of this absurdity that I didn't notice until just now. Obama's older daughter would have been in kindergarten at the time that he was allegedly supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners.

Does McCain really mean to be claiming that this was Obama's view about what should be taught to his own daughter, at that very time?

I mean, obviously he does. But does this have *any* credibility with anybody?