Why am I skeptical of the sudden Democratic denunciations of Hugo Chavez and his inflammatory (but disagreeably amusing) comments before the United Nations yesterday?
(An aside: I know this is politically incorrect to say among conservatives, but I actually laughed out loud at the "I still smell sulfur up here" bit. Is Chavez dangerous and evil? Of course. But he's got a way with words, I've gotta give him that.)
The thing is, Chavez didn't say much that Howard Dean doesn't say on any given day. So why the umbrage? Is it possible that some folks are starting to realize that having your general sentiments voiced at the podium of the U.N. by a communist dictator doesn't do much for the polling numbers? It's better to say the right thing than the wrong thing, but nobody's going to convince me that Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel didn't agree with Chavez's comments until they stuck a finger in the wind and gauged the strong public reaction against the speech.
Related Tags: Hugo Chavez, United Nations, George W. Bush, Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean