There was a very good (and funny) article in the London Review of Books some time ago about hypocrisy vs. lying in politicians, and that people accepted lying but not hypocrisy (in this case the target was Blair). Since then, I have often found real situations fitting that humour paradigm pretty well...
Very entertaining read and couldn't agree more. However, you forget, learned sir, that regression fallacy and equivocation are America's pastimes.
I think hypocrisy is preferable to actually lying (at least, self-interested lying).
That's because the point of hypocrisy is to at least pay lip service to high ideals, even when you can't uphold them, which is another way of preserving the ideals.
In other words unlike the kind of lies we dislike, the kind which destroy the social fabric, hypocrisy actually maintains the social fabric by perpetuating a common understanding of what behavior we ought to strive for.
Hypocrisy veils the real issue, that of unusual and heavy-handed surveillance of a prominent Dem Governor (who strangely did not get tipped off) for an offense that is commonplace among politicians and generally winked at by the FBI, unless children are involved. The message to voters is:
Liberal = Libertine.
Moral questions about candidates are only raised to manipulate the plebs. Since the Republicans effectively control the press, the Department of Justice, and the courts, scandals that temporarily hurt Republicans are likely to destroy Democrats.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
