Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Lipstick Traces
Barack Obama, on his week-long tear against the McPalin ticket, plays the analogy card.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."
"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."
"We've had enough of the same old thing."
The McPalin campaign erupts. Jim Antle has this basically right.
Yes, Palin wears lipstick and compares herself to a pitbull wearing lipstick but that's the only connection. To quibble about the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" is to put conservatives in the same category as illiterate PC liberals worried about the word "niggardly."
Driving home last night, I caught a few minutes of a right-wing talk radio show (one that had surely never aired a sexist remark about Hillary Clinton) and heard the spin that, well, Obama must have been making a sexist comment because presidential candidates don't talk like this. Take it, Dick Cheney.
John Kerry is trying every which way to cover up his record of weakness on national defense. But he can't do it. It won't work. As we like to say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, but at the end of the day, it's still a pig.
He dishes corn pone with a master’s touch. “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”; “that dog don’t hunt”; Congressional efforts to give amnesty to illegal immigrants are “like selling a horse twice.”
That was provided as an example of Thompson's "homey" touch, which was probably what Obama, brow-beaten for being unrelatable, was going for. So, Tom Tancredo?
I am disappointed but not surprised that the president has once again chosen to trot out this same old pig, albeit one with a slightly new shade of lipstick.
Finally, that crusader for gender equality, John McCain.
When asked about Mrs. Clinton his speech, he said her proposal was “eerily” similar to the plan she came up with in 1993, when she headed a health care reorganization effort during her husband’s administration. “I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”
We've got 56 days until the election. How many of them can McCain spend hiding behind Palin's skirt?
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey falls for a video press release from the McCain campaign (it's not an "ad" if it's 37 seconds long and doesn't contain an endorsement from the candidate) and claims that Obama gave Clinton the finger once... based on a video in which he scratches his face with his middle finger partially extended.
BDB|9.10.08 @ 9:20AM|#
This is about as stupid as when liberals accused the "celebrity" ads of being racist because they had blonde females in them.
|9.10.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Damn, not even Hillary Clinton played the gender car this implausibly. And she played some pretty implausible gender cards.
|9.10.08 @ 9:23AM|#
We've got 56 days until the election. How many of them can
McCain spend hiding behind Palin's skirt?
57.
BDB|9.10.08 @ 9:23AM|#
I thought they would wait until the Biden-Palin debate before doing something like this. Do they know some kind of polling we don't know that says they needed to do this?
Jay|9.10.08 @ 9:23AM|#
As long as Obama continues to go after Palin, McCain is best
served by laying low. The more he compares himself with Palin, the
more he actually exposes his weaknesses.
He needs to go after McCain, where he has a decided edge in
likability.
|9.10.08 @ 9:28AM|#
"We've got 56 days until the election. How many of them can
McCain spend hiding behind Palin's skirt?"
If it works? All the way to the Whitehouse. If the Obama camp
doesn't like the manufactured outrage, tough shit. The Democrats
have been manufacturing outrage over insignificant comments for
years. Perhaps they should have thought about one their guy saying
something dumb or something that can be misinterpreted some
day.
Why does Obama give such a lame ass stupid speech that gives his
oponents something to talk about and a way to take him off message?
What ever happened to hope and change and all of that? He just
sounds like a typical partisian hack now. I thought he was supposed
to be different?
This is an ankle biter. But really so was "clinging to their guns
and religion", although a more substanative one. The ankle biters
have a way of adding up. I thought Obama was supposed to be this
genius orator. I guess everyone has an off day.
BakedPenguin|9.10.08 @ 9:31AM|#
So where is Bob Barr?
In a room with Wayne Root, trying to convince him to STFU for the
next two months.
|9.10.08 @ 9:32AM|#
All I want is for the McCain campaign to STOP WHINING! What a
bunch of woosies! I don't want a bunch of crybabies in charge of MY
country. Does anyone here believe that other foreign powers will
give Palin "deference" or pull punches?
America is not a country of whiners! ENOUGH!
Anti-Globalism|9.10.08 @ 9:33AM|#
I think most sane people (look off of the internet) would agree that if a candidate describes herself as a "pitbull with lipstick" and then you say "you can put lipstick on a pig," you just called her a pig.
BDB|9.10.08 @ 9:34AM|#
So it would have been kosher had Obama directly compared her to a vicious breed of dog?
From Cintra Wilson at Solon|9.10.08 @ 9:35AM|#
Enjoy:
.
.
.
Sarah Palin is a bit comical, like one of those cutthroat Texas
cheerleader stage moms. What her Down syndrome baby and pregnant
teenage daughter unequivocally prove, however, is that her most
beloved child is the antiabortion platform that ensures her own
political ambitions with the conservative right. The throat she's
so hot to cut is that of all American women.
.
.
.
I did not think that women being downgraded to second-class,
three-holed chattel would be a pressing concern in my lifetime. I
thought it was like polio, or witch burning -- an inhumane error
that had already been corrected.
.
.
.
Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching
into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant
casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in
reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of
National Socialism.
She is dangerous. She is not just pro-life, she's anti-life. She is
the suppression of human feeling and instinct. She is a slave to
the compromises dictated by her own desire for power and control.
Sarah Palin is untethered from her own needs and those of her
family, which is in crisis, with a pregnant daughter, a son on the
way to Iraq and a special-needs infant.
|9.10.08 @ 9:37AM|#
claims that Obama gave Clinton the finger once.
Just once? I don't know. On the one hand I think I'd be seriously
impressed if he flat out flipped him off. But that would just be
the first step down a long muddy road. Guess it's best if our
presidential candidates behave, err presidential.
|9.10.08 @ 9:39AM|#
How the news media cover elections:
Step one: "Candidate A, Candidate B said something that might me
interpreted as mean. How does that make you feel?"
Step two: Reverse the question.
Step three: Repeat.
Oy.
|9.10.08 @ 9:42AM|#
Calling a woman a pig is a pretty common insult and one that has
pretty specific connotations about women. According to
dictionary.com "pig" is a "Slang. a slatternly, sluttish woman." So
directly calling Palin a pig would be a real problem and pretty
misogynistic.
But of course, Obama wasn't doing that. He was referring to
McCain's and Palin's claim to be agent of change and their
platform. What he meant was you can put lipstick on a pig (their
platform), but it still will be a pig (4 more years of Bush or
whatever). So he wasn't calling her a pig per say.
That is fair enough. But, what if McCain or Palin, when referring
to Obama'a platform said something to the effect of "you can shave
a monkey but it is still a monkey"? People would be going apeshit.
The reason of course is that some terms, calling black people apes,
calling women pigs, calling cops pigs for that matter, are so
incendiary that you really can't use them in the proximity of their
historically intended target. In other words, when you talking
about or to a woman, you really can't use a lot of pig analogies in
the same way that using monkey analogies around black people tends
to be a problem. I don't think Obama thought it through that way.
But hey, I don't think Trent Lott really meant to advocate Jim Crow
when he was toasting Strom Thurmond. It just came out that way.
anon|9.10.08 @ 9:43AM|#
To paraphrase our leftoid friends on this board "Context
matters."
Now all of the sudden they claim there is no difference between a
country saying, used generically, and a candidate who directly
references another. Shame.
|9.10.08 @ 9:43AM|#
I did not think that women being downgraded to second-class,
three-holed chattel would be a pressing concern in my
lifetime
This shit really, really, REALLY needs to be given a rest.
|9.10.08 @ 9:46AM|#
1. Cintra Wilson is in the middle of such a hategasm, it has
impaired her ability to think rationally. Seriously, calm the fuck
down. She going to have a hyperbole-aneurysm.
2. Obama did not call Palin a pig. That's just silly.
3. The left forged the weapon of identity politics and just left it
lying around. Stop whining when the right picks it up and uses it
against you. If the left hadn't spent 30 years screaming "RASCIST"
and "SEXIST" and "LOOKIST" and "SIZIST" at everyone they disagreed
with in the slightest, the right wouldn't be able to do it right
back at you.
Elemenope|9.10.08 @ 9:49AM|#
So it would have been kosher had Obama directly compared her
to a vicious breed of dog?
Dogs aren't kosher either.
;)
|9.10.08 @ 9:50AM|#
I'm deeply offended by being compared, or even metioned in
relation to, a politician.
Please note my outrage and I demand an apoligy and mandatory
diversity training for everyone in America.
|9.10.08 @ 9:50AM|#
OMG I cannot believe there is anyone out there with an ounce of
common sense taking anythign that idiot McBush says seriously. Wake
up sheeple, snap out of it.
Jiff
http://www.anonymize.us.tc
|9.10.08 @ 9:50AM|#
Sugerfree,
In a sane world, the left would go "this is stupid, we need to stop
doing this kind of shit to people". I am not holding my breath. The
answer is going to be how this is nothing but all of the other
stupid bullshit and obessessions over off handed comments they have
had were really significant and mattered.
As it is screw them. They would be doing the same thing and if it
sticks, all is fair in love and war.
|9.10.08 @ 9:50AM|#
"you can shave a monkey but it is still a monkey" is not a
common, frequently-used truism, with a widely-understood meaning
distinct form comparing the subject to the animal in quesiton. As
all of the quotes in the post demonstrate, "lipstick on a pig" is a
frequent cliche.
I remember seeing it on an ad about investment managers once.
"C'mon, people, let's put some lipstick on this pig," in reference
to recommending a lousy stock to their clients.
newsandverse|9.10.08 @ 9:53AM|#
PARTY ANIMALS
NEWSWIRE:
"...the difference between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?
Lipstick."
-- Sarah Palin
"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
-- Barack Obama
If you can let the sleeping Pit Bull lie,
And avoid the donkey and its hooving,
Then here's a rule for pigs you should apply:
They're only lying when their lipstick's moving.
www.newsandverse.com
Light verse, ripped from the headlines
|9.10.08 @ 9:54AM|#
SugarFree,
joe commented yesterday on identity politics. Something about the
right not using it till now because it's hard to play identity
politics with nothing but white men in camp. That's a paraphrase of
course. I found it to be the funniest truth I have seen in a long
time.
|9.10.08 @ 9:54AM|#
In a sane world, the left would go "this is stupid, we need
to stop doing this kind of shit to people". I am not holding my
breath.
Why would they stop doing it? Hell, I don't even think it would be
rational for them to stop. It's effective. It plays well against
the collective guilt taught in public schools.
I just think they should stop whining about it. Butch up, so to
speak.
|9.10.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Listen Sweety, Obama ment it as a jab at Sarah. The crowd laughed. They knew what he ment. For him to play dumb just makes him look like a jerk. Obama, you said it. It was clear to everyone that you were taking a shot at her, for Pete's sake have integrity to at least stand by you attacks. What a creep.
|9.10.08 @ 9:56AM|#
"you can shave a monkey but it is still a monkey" is not a
common, frequently-used truism, with a widely-understood meaning
distinct form comparing the subject to the animal in quesiton. As
all of the quotes in the post demonstrate, "lipstick on a pig" is a
frequent cliche."
Of course there are cliches about Monkeys or pots calling kettles
black and some such nonsense. You have to be careful how you use
them. It was very poorly worded on Obama's part.
|9.10.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Again, who compared herself to a vicious dog to begin
with?
She should have compared herself to an Aleutian or a Husky. Much
more topical and much nicer looking dogs (if you're into that, you
disgusting furry).
BDB|9.10.08 @ 9:58AM|#
The country is in the shitter and the election is being fought over meaningless horse shit. This will not move the polls at all.
|9.10.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Obama should know better than to call Palin a pig. What Palin referred to herself as was a female dog. What's the word for that again?
Abdul|9.10.08 @ 10:00AM|#
No way Obama meant to call Palin a pig.
But it is funny to see the guy who was running the most wisely
cautious campaign get rattled by this.
I still can't decide whether McCain was reckless, stupid,
brilliant, crazy, or lucky in picking Palin. But it paid off in
spades.
|9.10.08 @ 10:00AM|#
brotherben,
The white right has been using identity politics semi-effectively
for a while, just not in race. The "Christians are an oppressed
minority" script is identity politics through and through.
Identity politics insults are not about proving the target
is what you claim them to be, but rather small handfuls of
mud that you build up on a person or group until you can finally
scream "Oh, Christ! IT'S A MUD MONSTER!" and the obedient media
take notice.
|9.10.08 @ 10:01AM|#
How about this Joe. What if McCain said in a speech "don't go over to the dark side and vote for Democrats"? People would be having a fit. But what is really insulting about it? Nothing really beyond using the the word "dark" as in "darkie" too close in conext to a black man.
BDB|9.10.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Isn't it a little early to say Palin paid off? It's been a week since she was officially nominated, less than two weeks since she was chosen for God's sake.
Abdul|9.10.08 @ 10:02AM|#
But it paid off in spades.
RACIST!
Yes! six posts from the subtle set-up to the spike!
|9.10.08 @ 10:03AM|#
BDB | September 10, 2008, 10:01am | #
Isn't it a little early to say Palin paid off? It's been a week
since she was officially nominated, less than two weeks since she
was chosen for God's sake.
I don't think so, Mc would be dead in the water already with any of
the other old white folks.
|9.10.08 @ 10:05AM|#
"What's the word for that again?
Hillary?"
Yes! And you're apparently supporting, as you say, "Hillary".
|9.10.08 @ 10:05AM|#
It's impossible to prove, yes, but Obama most likely wanted to
call up the connection in people's minds. He was just vague enough
that he could hide behind the context. At best, it was a poorly
chosen phrase since he's running against a woman.
Yes, McCain will have to stop "hiding behind Palin's skirt." And
Obama will have to quit hiding behind George Bush. George Bush
isn't running for president.
|9.10.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Isn't it a little early to say Palin paid off? It's been a
week since she was officially nominated, less than two weeks since
she was chosen for God's sake.
Get serious. Just the Dem reaction to her alone indicates a
masterstroke. It amazes me that anyone would deny this. Will it
make McCain win? I don't know. But it sure rattled his
opposition.
kinnath|9.10.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Obama was being 'clever' when he made the comment. Everyone in
the audience knew he was making a 'sly' reference to Palin's
comments about pitbulls and lipstick when he repeated a very common
cliche that he has used in the past.
Obama should grow some balls and take credit for the insult that he
clearly made on purpose.
|9.10.08 @ 10:08AM|#
"Get serious. Just the Dem reaction to her alone indicates a
masterstroke. It amazes me that anyone would deny this. Will it
make McCain win? I don't know. But it sure rattled his
opposition."
Exactly. Did anyone act like this when Bob Dole chose Jack Kemp?
Had McCain chosen Pawtawley or some other boring white guy, he
would be Bob Dole 2008.
|9.10.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Hypothetical:
If McCain had picked Palin with the same lead-time as Obama picked
Biden (i.e Omaba chose 2nd) would Biden be his VP choice? And if
not, who would?
|9.10.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Epi,
Whatever. Have fun at the beach in your Extra-small Speedo Jr. with
the rest of New Jersey.
|9.10.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Is this the post-partisan New Kind of Politics that Obama was
going to bring to the national scene?
Sorry, but if you put yourself on a pedestal, you can expect to get
slapped around some for calling your opponents a pig and a stinking
old fish, respectively.
Does it really show us who will be a better President? No.
Is it entertaining as hell? You betcha.
Didn't someone say that the Obama-Biden gaffe machine was a ticking
time bomb? Obama just lost another news cycle, whatever platitudes
about education he was trying to get air time for lost in the
(typically shallow) media frenzy. This is a self-inflicted wound,
in large part because the Obama campaign has made attacking Sarah
Palin the centerpiece of their campaign message.
Can you imagine the uproar if McCain was to say, while polishing
his maverick credentials, that he had always been willing to call a
spade a spade? For God's sake, the Obama campaign is saying that
for a white person to say "community organizer" is racist; watching
them get hoist on their own petard is nothing more than poetic
justice.
|9.10.08 @ 10:11AM|#
We've got 56 days until the election. How many of them can
McCain spend hiding behind Palin's skirt?
David Weigel clearly means that he wants to look up her skirt ...to
see how big her balls are.
|9.10.08 @ 10:11AM|#
If you watch the video, the crowd seems to eat up the line. They thought it was an insult to Palin. Why else cheer the line? Really, calling the other guy's platform a "pig" is pretty lame. Calling Palin a pig, now that is some partisian red meat.
|9.10.08 @ 10:11AM|#
"If McCain had picked Palin with the same lead-time as Obama
picked Biden (i.e Omaba chose 2nd) would Biden be his VP choice?
And if not, who would?"
Let's just say a panty hamster would be a requirement.
|9.10.08 @ 10:11AM|#
joe commented yesterday on identity politics. Something
about the right not using it till now because it's hard to play
identity politics with nothing but white men in camp. That's a
paraphrase of course. I found it to be the funniest truth I have
seen in a long time.
That was me. I can't believe I was mistaken for joe. I need to take
a shower now. Unclean, unclean.
John,
As I said yesterday. If the Obama campaign got pissed off about
someone saying, "The pot calling the kettle black," it would be
equally idiotic. One would hope that having a black man running for
president and a woman running for VP that got to their lofty
positions with hard work rather than traditional grievance
politics, would lead to a decline of this bullshit. Instead, both
sides have found it convenient to do it more. Though I have to say,
between Carly use of sexism for every criticism of Hillary and the
McCain campaign getting the vapors (ZOMG, he called me a smelly
fish!). The right is much better. I'm impressed at what quick
learners they are.
|9.10.08 @ 10:11AM|#
I agree with Episiarch, cut the elementary trivia and give us
the real issues!!!
When do the debates begin????????? When is Sarah going to start
speaking for herself and not praising John McCain?
|9.10.08 @ 10:12AM|#
NutraSweet, Obama fucked up royally by picking first and picking Biden. An unexciting pick that then made it Advantage McCain and he aced it FTW. He could sit there and go "who can I pick that will totally shake this shit up?" And he picked right.
|9.10.08 @ 10:13AM|#
"If McCain had picked Palin with the same lead-time as Obama
picked Biden (i.e Omaba chose 2nd) would Biden be his VP choice?
And if not, who would?"
Ah, I think that would be a no. I wonder how popular Biden is right
now around the Obama campaign. I am guessing not very.
|9.10.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Have fun at the beach in your Extra-small Speedo Jr. with
the rest of New Jersey
Hey, why so serious? Banana-hammock allegations? And Jersey? Just
because I was born in Paterson doesn't mean anything.
|9.10.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Mo, I apologize for the error and any offense it may have caused to you or joe.
|9.10.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Just the Dem reaction to her alone indicates a
masterstroke.
Did anyone act like this when Bob Dole chose Jack
Kemp?
Jack Kemp didn't seriously offend Democrats.
Palin has caused at least as much movement of Democrats, like those
undecided Hillary voters, towards Obama as Palin caused Republicans
to move towards McCain.
When Republicans go on the attack, nobody sees that as a sign of
fear, but that they see blood in the water.
Does anybody actually think that partisan polarization in 2008
benefits the Republicans?
|9.10.08 @ 10:15AM|#
"One would hope that having a black man running for president
and a woman running for VP that got to their lofty positions with
hard work rather than traditional grievance politics, would lead to
a decline of this bullshit."
That is right and why the whole idea that electing this or that
minority or woman would end grievence politics is bullshit. Our
political culture isn't mature enough for that. Running a minority
or woman just exacerbates it because every criticism becomes more
evidence of racism or sexism.
|9.10.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Since I'm unwelcome on both the red and blue teams maybe my
perspective is a bit more balanced.
Lipstick on a pig was not a sexist comment or a personal attack.
The phrase is so damned common it's hackneyed, neither clever nor
mean.
To both sides I remind, What goes around, comes around.*
* Another hackneyed phrase.
|9.10.08 @ 10:18AM|#
If the attacks on Palin's record show the Democrats are scared, do the attacks on this comment show the Republicans are scared?
|9.10.08 @ 10:18AM|#
It just slipped out. But he sure as shit said it, and he damn
well meant it about Palin.
He can't help it, though. They must not have given him a
pre-written, analyzed and approved speech that day. He was left on
his own.
|9.10.08 @ 10:19AM|#
"Jack Kemp didn't seriously offend Democrats." Isn't that what candidates are supposed to do? Joe, McCain was dead in the water before he chose Palin. Obama had cracked 50 after his convention speech. Now the polls are either dead even or show McCain up. Obama hasn't been the same candidate since. Watch the video of this speech, he looks week and flustered. Before chosing Palin, McCain had like a 20% chance of winning or maybe less. Now it is 50/50. Palin is the biggest thing to hit politics since I don't know when. She only offends you because she is kicking your ass.
|9.10.08 @ 10:20AM|#
"Palin is the biggest thing to hit politics since I don't know
when."
You have just called her fat and we demand an apology.
|9.10.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Of course Kemp didn't offend Democrats Joe. He was a loser who had no chance of winning.
|9.10.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Joe, McCain was dead in the water before he chose
Palin.
That's funny, you were saying exactly the opposite at the time. You
spent August crowing about how McCain was overtaking Obama.
FWIW, I think you're right this time. McCain was not only losing,
but the internals of the polls indicated that, if things stayed the
same, he was going to fall further and further behind. McCain threw
a Hail Mary, because he needed to. Hail Marys sure are exciting
when the ball is in the air.
|9.10.08 @ 10:23AM|#
"You hate taxicabs now?"
No that is racist. Everyone knows that black people drove the
carriages for white people.
BDB|9.10.08 @ 10:24AM|#
Does anyone think Palin is going to overplay her hand and drive every guy that's ever been unfairly accused of making a "sexist" remark into the Democratic camp?
|9.10.08 @ 10:24AM|#
If Palin is a Hail Mary, Biden is a run up the middle.
Hey, they only picked up two yards on that play.
|9.10.08 @ 10:25AM|#
"McCain threw a Hail Mary, because he needed to. Hail Marys sure
are exciting when the ball is in the air."
It is not a hail mary joe. That is a bad sports analogy. The better
one is that he was behind and changed running backs at half. We are
about half way through the third quarter and she is running up and
down the field on you. Yeah, there is another quarter to play, but
bringing in the new guy seems to have been a good idea.
Chloe|9.10.08 @ 10:25AM|#
"Obama should grow some balls..."
Nah, doesn't go with the metro-sexual gig. People might starting
thinking he owns a gun or thinks people should take responsibility
for themselves or something.
|9.10.08 @ 10:27AM|#
It's hilarious how some people think that vehemently denying how good a pick Palin was for McCain will actually make her a less good pick.
shecky|9.10.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Whoda thunk Obama would hurt poor Palin's feelings using such a trite metaphor. I guess there's no polishing this turd.
|9.10.08 @ 10:29AM|#
"I guess there's no polishing this turd."
Hey turds are brown. Stop being racist.
|9.10.08 @ 10:31AM|#
The better one is that he was behind and changed running
backs at half. In that analogy, McCain was the old running
back? Doesn't work, because McCain was the quarterback. They
switched out their quarterback for a running back? They're basing
their campaign strategy on the Vice-President, and pushing the
presidential nominee into the background?
We are about half way through the third quarter and she is
running up and down the field on you.
I think it's interesting that Republicans like John attribute the
entirety of McCain's gains over the past week to Palin, despite the
fact that the Republicans just held their convention. At this point
after Joe Biden's pick, Obama was up eight points, but nobody
claimed that was because of Joe Biden.
|9.10.08 @ 10:31AM|#
It's hilarious how some people think that vehemently denying
how good a pick Palin was for McCain will actually make her a less
good pick.
You haven't looked at any polling on her, have you?
|9.10.08 @ 10:32AM|#
"No that is racist. Everyone knows that black people drove
the carriages for white people."
Oh, so now you're calling Obama "black"? These are
outrageous and insulting allegations!
Fluffy|9.10.08 @ 10:33AM|#
If the Obama camp doesn't like the manufactured outrage,
tough shit. The Democrats have been manufacturing outrage over
insignificant comments for years.
John, I will be on your side in this argument, but only if you
agree that this sort of "We're just doing what the left always
does" argument only works if John McCain has no honor and is
scum.
I'll accept it then. But not until you admit that.
John McCain is running his campaign based on the claim that his
personal honor means that we can trust him to not be just another
lying Republican sack of shit. Personally, I think that McCain has
no honor at all, and I have been quite vociferous in naming my
reasons why. But most of you stubborn GOP types continue to resist
and want to stick up for the guy.
So you can be right this time, but only by admitting that McCain is
scum. Because if he wasn't scum, he wouldn't lie about what he
thinks Obama is saying. If he did in fact have this honor he keeps
claiming to have, he would be absolutely forthright at all times,
and faux outrage wouldn't be part of his arsenal. Because you
simply can't simultaneously be an honorable man and a dissembling,
mewling, faux outrage spewing fuckwad.
So take your pick.
|9.10.08 @ 10:35AM|#
"At this point after Joe Biden's pick, Obama was up eight
points, but nobody claimed that was because of Joe Biden."
No they don't Joe. That is because Biden is a loser and Palin is a
star. It is not surprising you don't like her. She is a Republican.
But to deny that she saved McCain and is a really big deal and at
least so far has been one hell of an asset to McCain and huge
threat to Obama, is to just deny reality.
gorgonzola\'s foil|9.10.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Hold on, libertarians: if this is a case of calling Palin a pig, what really is wrong with calling out the governor of the porkiest pork-state in the mother-earmarking union for porky pork per-capita spending?
non-\"partisian\" grammar poli|9.10.08 @ 10:35AM|#
John, can you spend a few hours working on comma usage and check
back with us tomorrow?
I won't ask you to proofread for spelling errors, but maybe you
could type your comments in Word and then paste them into the
comment box? Just a thought.
|9.10.08 @ 10:37AM|#
"Another hackneyed phrase."
You hate taxicabs now?
Taken one lately?
The drivers don't speak the Queen's English.
The vehicle smells of crack, cigars and tawdry backseat sex.
They either don't know the city and take stupid routes, or
assume you don't know the city and take the longest longest route
possible to jack up the fare.
Then they expect a tip and claim they don't have the change hoping
you'll just say fuck it.
Yeah, I have issues with the taxicab industry.
|9.10.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Does anybody actually think that partisan polarization in
2008 benefits the Republicans?
I do, for two reasons:
It helps with the Repubs no. 1 problem - motivating the base. The
Dems, with their consuming hatred of All Things Bush (and you can
take that as both a reference to the current lame duck and the VP
nominee, if you wish), are already about as partisanly polarized
and motivated as they can get. From here on out, more polarization
= more Repub votes.
Right now, voters aren't too happy with either the Repub President
or the Dem Congress. I think partisan polarization may also help
those few people who think a divided government is a good thing to
vote for McCain, as a check on Pelosi and Reid.
|9.10.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Oh Fluffy quit whinning. Politics is a tough sport. If Obama is so damn smart he should have known better than to make such a lame comment. Further, how do you know he didn't mean it? Have you read his mind? It is pretty plausable he was calling her a pig. I would prefer to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on that, but nothing says anyone else has to.
|9.10.08 @ 10:41AM|#
I learned a very valuable lesson in a cab a few years ago in NYC. Never tell a cabby you have to get somewhere "as soon as possible." My life flashed before my eyes so many times on the BQE I finally got bored of watching it.
|9.10.08 @ 10:43AM|#
You haven't looked at any polling on her, have
you?
Ahh, the polls. Always the last refuge of joe, even though the exit
polls failed him so miserably four years ago.
The election is a virtual tie, joe. Care to cite polls that say
differently?
|9.10.08 @ 10:43AM|#
That is because Biden is a loser and Palin is a star.
Man, this celebrity worship is getting to be cult-like.
But let's break this down:
Palin is as star, and she caused the Republicans to gain in the
polls, not the convention.
How do we know this?
Because Palin is a star. Circular logic.
But to deny that she saved McCain and is a really big deal and
at least so far has been one hell of an asset to McCain and huge
threat to Obama, is to just deny reality. I haven't denied
that. What I wrote was "Hail Marys are exciting, when the ball is
in the air." The ball is still in the air. And it's exciting as
hell. And you've finally agreed that the offensive scheme McCain
was using to date wasn't going to get the ball in the end zone.
Will a Hail Mary get the ball in the end zone? We don't know.
That's what I've said.
Personally, I don't think it will. Palin is pushing away more women
than she's gaining (so far, at least), while attracting more men.
We can count on her rallying the Republican base and increasing
their turnout, but that won't win the election in 2008. Can she win
McCain independents? Remains to be seen.
|9.10.08 @ 10:43AM|#
My life flashed before my eyes so many times on the BQE I
finally got bored of watching it
You were able to go faster than 5 MPH on the BQE? Was it 2 AM?
|9.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#
"It is pretty plausable he was calling her a
pig."
Can I take this moment to say that Palin is a pig? She may have
invigorated McCain's campaign, but its a sad state when a religious
whack job saves your campaign.
"If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican
Party tenet, they could do us in." - Barry Goldwater. We will now
officially and openly commence testing of this statement.
|9.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#
joe, do you ever get dizzy and puke from spinning so
hard?'
Episiarch, does it ever occur to you to try to argue the facts,
instead of judging statements on their partisan implications?
Jim|9.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#
"John McCain says he's about change, too, and so I guess his
whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush.' Except for economic
policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign
policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That's not change. That's just
calling something the same thing, something different. But you know
you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know, you
can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still
going to stink after eight years."
The only constituency who could possibly be offended by this
statement are fish. The accusation that Obama called Palin a pig
is-are you sitting down?-a lie. It's a lie. They think you'll
believe it because they think you're fools. Fools who can't read a
newspaper or decipher the meaning of a commonplace colloquialism.
That's their opinion of you. (But Obama's the elitist.)
Wake up. You don't have to act like idiots just because McCain
tells you to.
h-dawg|9.10.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Obama called Palin a pig. He knows it (even if he didn't intend
it). His audience certainly knew it. I don't understand how dense
Weigel and some of the commenters here must be to not get it.
Even people who haven't seen Palin speak have heard about her
"lipstick" remark. Palin owned "lipstick" this month, if not for
this campaign. It was her brand. Not Hillary's, nor any other
person's in this campaign. Obama knew it, or should have known it.
He was trying to see what he could get away with. He still is.
|9.10.08 @ 10:46AM|#
RC Dean,
No question, Palin is going to help Republican turnout by firing up
the Republicans. The thing is, she's firing up Democrats, too. In
2008, such a war of attrition benefits the Democrats.
As for divided government...I'm not sure how big a chunk of the
electorate thinks in those terms. Maybe.
|9.10.08 @ 10:48AM|#
joe, I'm going to clue you in to something. You're a classless
partisan bimbo who is just enough of a clever monkey to shill
relentlessly for your god and master. I can't be the only person
around here who is sick to death of you pissing down the collective
libertarian back and claiming it's not raining in regards to
Obama.
I'd say "fuck off" if your pathetic fellations of Obama weren't so
entertaining. Make sure you use tongue, joe, and always remember to
rub under the balls.
Abdul|9.10.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Palin is pushing away more women than she's gaining (so far,
at least), while attracting more men.
According to the polling analysis on TNR,s the Plank, Palin's doing
pretty well w/ mothers, but has little impact on single
women.
You really can't deny that Palin put John McCain back in the game.
She's getting more press. McCain rallies are starting to attract
enough people to fill a Denny's. Every Hit & run thread on
palin goes over 100 comments. Sure, half of those are Epi quoting
Aqua Teen, but it still shows a level of excitement that the GOP
was lacking beforehand.
Fluffy|9.10.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Further, how do you know he didn't mean it? Have you read
his mind?
I knew you would say something like that, so before posting I
carefully reviewed your previous posts to make sure that you
personally had described this incident as manufactured
outrage.
That means that for the purposes of this discussion, we can no
longer pretend that we're dealing with anything but manufactured
outrage.
Unless you want to be even more dishonest than McCain. Because
trying to back off that statement now would mean that your strategy
in this argument is to deflect all criticism of McCain's claim by
saying, "Of course it's manufactured outrage, but the left does
that even more!" but then when called to account for that, to twist
around and try to pretend something completely different. Faux
outrage wrapped in a suit of armor made of faux sophistication. The
Doublemint gum of scum.
I'll stop "whining" when you admit that Senator McCain has no
honor. If politics is such a tough guy's game and you're such a
hardboiled character, it shouldn't matter to you to admit that.
Admit it, and laugh about how he's pulling one over on all the
bluehairs and dumbass independents out there. Why can't you do
that? Something tells me it's because you're somehow invested in
the lie, but I'm not entirely sure why.
matt2|9.10.08 @ 10:50AM|#
But what if McCain = Tom Brady, and while the ball is in the air
he suffers a season-ending injury?
Sorry if this hits too close to home, joe.
Technomist|9.10.08 @ 10:51AM|#
What kind of person thinks about putting lipsticks on
pigs?
Why would anyone want to do that? Or even think about doing it?
Abdul|9.10.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Why would anyone want to do that? Or even think about doing
it?
Too match the pig's eyeshadow, you idiot.
fyodor|9.10.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Palin is as star, and she caused the Republicans to gain in
the polls, not the convention.
How do we know this?
Because Palin is a star.
No, because white women having been switching to Team Red in
droves. What, they're big on conventions?
I don't like it, but common sense says it's true. The biggest
weakness that was seen in the Palin pick was that it took away what
up to that point was McCain's biggest asset, experience. But
instead, they co-opted Obama's shtick, "change." The oldest trick
in politics.
As for the "pig", I don't claim to know what Obama was thinking,
but electorate's reaction is ultimately more important, and John
makes a good point that the reaction of the audience at the speech
is key.
|9.10.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Ahh, the polls. Always the last refuge of joe
Darn me and my faith in scientific inquiry over feelings!
...even though the exit polls failed him so miserably four
years ago Actually, I derided the exit polling right in these
comment threads four years ago. Exit polling, unlike other polls,
introduce a huge selection bias problem, since they weren't
corrected to anything.
The election is a virtual tie, joe. Care to cite polls that say
differently? No, the election is either a tie, or McCain is
slightly in the lead, at this moment. At this same point after the
Democratic convention, Obama was up by 6-8 points. BTW, three days
ago, McCain had a clear lead.
But I was referring to polling specifically on Palin, and VP
choices. In questions about "does the VP pick make you more or less
likely to vote for X" questions, Palin scores one point higher than
Joe Biden, and this is in the days immediately following the
Republican convention.
Look, I didn't get all excited about the polls shooting up for
Obama after his convention, because that would be silly.
|9.10.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I prefer this analogy:
"You can put a condom on a penis, but it is still a dick and we're
getting fucked."
Fluffy|9.10.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I can't be the only person around here who is sick to death
of you pissing down the collective libertarian back and claiming
it's not raining in regards to Obama.
Epi, care to explain to me exactly HOW IN THE FUCKING HIGH HOLY
HELL joe is "pissing down the collective libertarian back" when he
pisses on McCain and/or Palin?
Come on, explain it all to me.
There are threads where I suppose you could take joe to task for
his partisanship, but in the context of a dispute between the Obama
camp and the McCain camp, what does it matter? What does that have
to do with libertarians? At all?
Joe could personally shove a handful of Obama's shit into McCain's
mouth and it wouldn't mean anything vis-a-vis
libertarians.
|9.10.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Episiarch, does it ever occur to you to try to argue the
facts, instead of judging statements on their partisan
implications?
joe, I'm going to clue you in to something. You're a classless
partisan bimbo who is just enough of a clever monkey to shill
relentlessly for your god and master. I can't be the only person
around here who is sick to death of you pissing down the collective
libertarian back and claiming it's not raining in regards to
Obama.
I'd say "fuck off" if your pathetic fellations of Obama weren't so
entertaining. Make sure you use tongue, joe, and always remember to
rub under the balls.
So that's a "No" then. But we all knew that.
|9.10.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Sure, half of those are Epi quoting Aqua Teen
"Come Meat-man, lets go break the law to fulfill your primitive
needs."
|9.10.08 @ 10:56AM|#
"Obama called Palin a pig. He knows it (even if he didn't
intend it). His audience certainly knew it. I don't understand how
dense Weigel and some of the commenters here must be to not get
it."
I think the real message is that we're tired of all this phony
outrage when the real issue is that Palin is a far right religious
nut who proved herself an incompetent executive in Wasilla and a
shifty, political opportunist in Juneau.
|9.10.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Oh, and for your information, my mancrushes are on John Kerry
and Theo Epstein, thank you very much.
He only signed Julio Lugo to fake y'alls out.
|9.10.08 @ 10:57AM|#
"I'll stop "whining" when you admit that Senator McCain has no
honor."
Jesus Fluffy, good thing you are not histrionic or anything. Obama
said something stupid and it is a partisan advantage and McCain is
going to use it. That is what politicians do. He has to make sure
he doesn't overplay his hand.
Some people are offended by it. I don't agree with them, but I also
don't think they are being unreasonable either. As I explained
above, there are certain terms you don't use in close context to
other terms. Pig and woman would be a good example.
Perhaps by being offended, they are offending your dainty
sensibilities. But, you claiming that McCain has "no honor" over
this is completely stupid and over the top.
|9.10.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Abdul,
You really can't deny that Palin put John McCain back in the
game. No, and I'm not. Once again, his offense wasn't getting
the job done, so he stopped running the ball and threw a Hail Mary.
It's still in the air. Maybe the reciever will come down with
it.
|9.10.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Epi, care to explain to me exactly HOW IN THE FUCKING HIGH
HOLY HELL joe is "pissing down the collective libertarian back"
when he pisses on McCain and/or Palin?
He can piss on McCain all he wants. It's the Obama cheerleading
that is so utterly relentless.
Your unmitigated hatred for McCain might blind you to that. I'm not
knocking you for it, but you should factor it in.
Kolohe|9.10.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Does anyone think Palin is going to overplay her hand and
drive every guy that's ever been unfairly accused of making a
"sexist" remark into the Democratic camp?
I think Chuck Todd said yesterday that their latest poll showed a
significant movmement of women (under 50) from Obama to McCain due
to the Palin pick, but also a significant but smaller movement of
men under 50 to Obama
|9.10.08 @ 11:02AM|#
fyodor,
No, because white women having been switching to Team Red in
droves.
Not really. Not according to the polls I've seen. She actually
seems to be doing better with men than women.
Are you seriously saying that John McCain is the only candidate in
the last 50 years who didn't get a convention bounce? Cripes,
Walter Mondale got a convention bounce that brought him to a tie in
the race. You have to assume that poll movement immediately after a
convention is a convention bounce.
BakedPenguin|9.10.08 @ 11:04AM|#
"Come Meat-man, lets go break the law to fulfill your
primitive needs."
Our vertical leap is beyond all measure.
BDB|9.10.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Joe-
John Kerry got zero convention bounce. He's the only one I can
think of, but it didn't happen to him.
|9.10.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust, and friendship.
|9.10.08 @ 11:10AM|#
It's the Obama cheerleading that is so utterly
relentless.
I defy anyone to find anything in thread in which I talked up
Obama.
|9.10.08 @ 11:11AM|#
"I defy anyone to find anything in thread in which I talked up
Obama."
Who is sock puppeting Joe? That is dirty pool.
|9.10.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Not according to the polls I've seen.
Links? If you're so dedicated to "science", about some
"evidence"?
|9.10.08 @ 11:12AM|#
In what one perceives as a binary election system, talking down one party is talking up the other.
|9.10.08 @ 11:12AM|#
To riff on joe's analogy. If the hail mary is caught, and mccain-palin win the election, will he bow down before the christian supremacists that swung her way and load the SCOTUS in such a way that Roe v Wade is overturned? How would that affect politics in the future?
|9.10.08 @ 11:16AM|#
and load the SCOTUS in such a way that Roe v Wade is
overturned
Overturning RvW would be the biggest gift to feminism and the left
since the theory of collective guilt. Feminists go to sleep at
night with huge clit-boners at the thought of RvW being
overturned.
I'm not saying the GOP's not stupid enough to do it, but it would
be suicide for nearly a generation and the rational ones know
it.
|9.10.08 @ 11:17AM|#
TAO,
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1069a1ThePalinPick.pdf
Look at page 2/7.
Personally, I think opinions about Palin are still all up in the
air.
lunchstealer|9.10.08 @ 11:18AM|#
claims that Obama gave Clinton the finger once... based on a
video in which he scratches his face with his middle finger
partially extended.
I think we can all agree that any presidential candidate who has
NOT given Clinton the face-scratch-salute is unfit for office.
|9.10.08 @ 11:19AM|#
John | September 10, 2008, 11:10am | #
Joe you are starting to sound like Bahgdad Bob or whoever that guy
was.
John | September 10, 2008, 11:11am | #
"I defy anyone to find anything in thread in which I talked up
Obama."
Who is sock puppeting Joe? That is dirty pool.
Episiarch | September 10, 2008, 11:12am | #
You're becoming a parody, joe. Please continue.
I'm not sure which is more impressive; the surgical logic with
which my reasoning was eviscerated, or the damning quotes they were
able to pull from me demonstrating their points.
|9.10.08 @ 11:21AM|#
You being seemingly oblivious to your own hacktasticness is not my problem, joe.
|9.10.08 @ 11:23AM|#
You being seemingly oblivious to your own hacktasticness is
not my problem, joe.
What I love about this faux-objectivity is that it simply doesn't
matter what's true.
If saying the world is round would favor the Democrats, Episiarch
would accuse me of partisanship for saying the world is
round.
Did you even notice that one of your fellow non-partisan
libertarians said you don't have have leg to stand on here?
Just For Comparison|9.10.08 @ 11:24AM|#
"You know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom
and a pit bull? Lipstick." -- Sarah Palin
"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." -- Barack
Obama
Given that we've all been assured Obama is an oratorical genius,
how can we view this as accidental? Methinks he got a bit too
cute.
Jared From Subway|9.10.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I have aides! Everyone should get aides! And put lipstick on them!
John McCain|9.10.08 @ 11:27AM|#
At least I don't plaster on the manufacture outrage like a trollop, cunts.
|9.10.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I love the McCain campaign...somebody used the word 'pig'...they must mean Sarah Palin...my choice would be fucking cunt, but that is not pc.
BDB|9.10.08 @ 11:28AM|#
So Sarah Palin comparing herself to a vicious female dog (aka, a bitch) is kosher?
Obama|9.10.08 @ 11:28AM|#
You can put lipstick on Jesse Jackson, but I still won't let him near my cock.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright|9.10.08 @ 11:31AM|#
You can put lipstick on a white woman, but she's still part of a conspiracy to give black people AIDS!
|9.10.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Given that we've all been assured Obama is an oratorical
genius, how can we view this as accidental?
Because he was talking about John McCain in the quote?
Which raises the question - he also used the analogy of an OLD
fish. Why are we seeing a much greater stretch, to try to find a
connection to Palin's gender when she wasn't even mentioned, rather
than to McCain, who was mentioned, and whose sensitive demographic
attribute was much more directly referenced?
My theory: becasue this is purely manufactured outrage from a
campaign that's adopted a strategy of playing the gender card.
William Ayers|9.10.08 @ 11:33AM|#
You can put lipstick on a bomb and kill people with it, but it still won't prevent me from launching Barack Obama's Senate bid from my home!
|9.10.08 @ 11:33AM|#
I bring up Roe simply because down here, in the BIG baptist
church, Palin is on a "mission from God." (apologies to jake and
ellwood)
They have a basket they can put all their eggs into. Palin is seen
as the ultimate pro-life christian; not only talking the talk, but
raising that poor, unfortunate child and accepting, and even
welcoming, the results of teaching abstinence only to her
daughter.
If they can pull off the death of Roe v Wade, the moral majority
will once again rise up, and demand other theocratic corrections to
their once great nation. A nation they all believe was founded by
God and has strayed far from the Truth. They will see it as a sure
sign from God that the U.S. was destined by God hisself to be a
christian theocracy.
or maybe i'm just delusional
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change.
It's still gonna stink."
So who's the fish in the analogy?
Did Obama deftly call McCain a stinky old fish...or is this an even
more sexist comment?
alan|9.10.08 @ 11:34AM|#
I would have dismissed this as simply a matter of Obama using a common phrase whose cultural relevance shifted due to Palin's comment. However, given the other half of the statement, it may have been purposeful given McCain does look like an old fish.
Bernadette Dorhn|9.10.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they put lipstick on them, they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild! Vote Obama!"
The Extispicator|9.10.08 @ 11:36AM|#
I think he was being even more sexist by saying she stinks of rotten fish. That's what we said about girls in 8th grade.
|9.10.08 @ 11:37AM|#
My theory: becasue this is purely manufactured outrage from
a campaign that's adopted a strategy of playing the gender
card.
Theory 2: because the McCain campaign has adopted a strategy of
minimizing the attention paid to McCain, and wants to turn every
subject back to Palin.
Federal Dog|9.10.08 @ 11:39AM|#
I agree that this is yet another asinine dispute, and the McCain
camp should laugh it off and address issues of substance. But the
context of Obama's remark is specific, the reference double, and
reasonable interpreation allows for inference that he was referring
to Palin's well-known reference to pit bulls and hockey moms, and
to McCain's age.
Isolating any comment from its context and pretending it means what
it has meant in other, unrelated instances, is just weak grasp of
language use.
|9.10.08 @ 11:39AM|#
"John McCain says he's about change, too, and
so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush.' Except for
economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy,
foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That's not change.
That's just calling something the same thing, something different.
But you know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
You know, you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called
change, it's still going to stink after eight years."
I think it's terribly sexist to compare a man to a fish.
Deep Thought|9.10.08 @ 11:39AM|#
You can put lipstick on an old fish, but it still doesn't taste like pussy.
|9.10.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Yes, taking the "pig" comment out of its context is terrible use
of language.
Which is why it's so important to read the whole quote.
h-dawg|9.10.08 @ 11:40AM|#
I think the real message is that we're tired of all this
phony outrage when the real issue is...
Obama can call Palin a pig if wants. You may agree with him. I
think the issue here is if it's OK for him to do so without
expecting a reaction.
If we're ready to have candidates just come out and started calling
each other "pig" "chimp" "cracker" whatever, then let's agree that
this is fine. If not, then let's agree that the outrage of someone
skating over the line--whether they meant to or not--isn't
manufactured, and deserves to be called.
|9.10.08 @ 11:41AM|#
"John McCain says b>he's about change, too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush.' Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing, something different. But you know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know, you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years."
|9.10.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Man, not only is he calling her a pig and a fish, but he keeps
refering to Mrs. Palin as "he."
That's just not very nice.
|9.10.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Obama's comment was obviously deliberate(or stupid or Freudian), but don't cry sexism.
|9.10.08 @ 11:47AM|#
brotherben -
I agree with SugarFree on this one: Roe v. Wade is a huge benefit
to Republicans. Without it, states would be left to decide the
extent to which abortion should be legal, and no politician in his
or her right mind would want to go against roughly 65% of the
population who support at least limited legal access to abortion.
With Roe v. Wade, Republicans have something they can gather public
support on without having to actually do anything.
True|9.10.08 @ 11:47AM|#
You can put lipstick on Paris Hilton, but it's just going to end up on some guy's cock.
|9.10.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I think Obama is right on the mark. I mean what else can the GOP
do but put lipstick on a pig? I think McCain's VP is a desperate
attempt to repackage the Republican "Brand" in a new maverick
mythology, which by all stretches of the imagination is entirely
chimerical. I think it will be difficult for Republicans to make
any substantial arguments against affirmative action after this
pick. Affirmative action not for individual uplift but as desperate
political maneuvering is a cynical betrayal of principals to gain
power.
One question - and please answer honestly:
Were Palin a man, would McCain have picked her? Point made.
...and now John McCain only wants to talk about Palin.
Why? Skepticism isn't sexism.....
Do you love how the McCain campaign is exploiting women by his VP
pick?
It seems to be working and it is a sign of how gullible people
are.
Before Palin, McCain was no go for women. So the McCain campaign
picks a woman with just about the same opinions and record as
McCain, and women start falling in line? MISSION
ACCOMPLISHED!
What does that say about American women?
|9.10.08 @ 11:52AM|#
No one ever went broke--or was unelected--by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
|9.10.08 @ 11:55AM|#
If Queeg really wanted to mind-fuck the Demos, he should have picked J C Watts as his running mate.
|9.10.08 @ 11:56AM|#
"If not, then let's agree that the outrage of someone
skating over the line--whether they meant to or not--isn't
manufactured, and deserves to be called."
Which "line" are you talking about? The sexism line, or the
not-stooping-to-name-calling line? But excuse me if I find it a
little difficult to believe that the GOP, the party that has
decried political correctness as long as the concept has been
around, is now standing up for it. The truth is that the GOP
doesn't believe in PC, but they are using it as an angle of attack
because the Democrats supposedly started PC. Guess what? I'm
neither, and its clear to see that the GOP is full of absolute shit
on this. Full of it. Brown. Glistening. Just sitting there.
I'm tired of the GOP being full of shit. When can we expect honor
back in the party?
Barack Obama|9.10.08 @ 11:56AM|#
ApostasyUSA, sweetie, you are being too hysterical. When I say we need to change the tone of politics, that is the sort of partisan rancor I am talking about. I demand more from you, ApostasyUSA. Get past your comfort zones, and light a fire.
|9.10.08 @ 12:07PM|#
"John McCain says he's about
change, too, and so I guess his whole angle is,
'Watch out George Bush.' Except for economic policy, health care
policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl
Rove-style politics. That's not change. That's just calling
something the same thing, something different. But you know you can
put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know, you can wrap
an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to
stink after eight years."
Refering to Governor Palin as "John McCain" is way, way over the
line. Shame on you, Senator Obama!
Indeed|9.10.08 @ 12:18PM|#
No one ever went broke--or was unelected--by underestimating
the intelligence of the American public.
"We are the change we've been waiting for!"
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I guess we need to recycle the quote of the day from
yesterday...
And make it the quote of the next two months....
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to
worry about answers," - Thomas Pynchon.
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 12:24PM|#
joe,
That is a nice attempt...but this is how I analyze the
analogy...
McCain is the pig, Palin is the lipstick.
Democrat Party|9.10.08 @ 12:25PM|#
McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/elizabethberry/Cgsq
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 12:28PM|#
More accurately,
The Republican Ticket is the Pig, McCain is it's face, and Palin is
the lipstick put on the pig's face to make it look prettier.
h-dawg|9.10.08 @ 12:29PM|#
When can we expect honor back in the party?
Ha ha. You're a funny guy, Lamar.
Now, as to your serious question, the "line" I was referring to was
name-calling. There is nothing terribly PC about being offended at
someone calling your wife or daughter (or female running mate) a
pig. Accuse McCain of phony chivalry (or phony anything else you
may wish; I don't really care), but why forgive Obama trying to get
away with a comment like this. Because he didn't mean it? Everybody
who heard it either laughed or gasped. It was a slur. So, are slurs
OK or are they not?
|9.10.08 @ 12:29PM|#
John Kerry is trying every which way to cover up his record
of weakness on national defense. But he can't do it. It won't work.
As we like to say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want
on that pig, but at the end of the day, it's still a
pig.
Cheney called Kerry a girl?!?!
That is awesome.
|9.10.08 @ 12:38PM|#
not to pick nits or stuff, but in Wyoming, wouldn't the lipstick go on a sheep?
Elemenope|9.10.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Palin is the Grob's Attack of politics.
It only works once per opponent, and sometimes even that is not
enough.
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Let's pretend that Obama was referencing Palin with the lipstick
comment.
The insult/sexism claim is not that Palin is being called a
pig...it is that she is just a pretty face. It is okay for McCain
to say that Obama is just a pretty face (an empty suit, whatever),
but the game changes when a man calls a woman "nothing but a pretty
face." He would be better going with an "all flash but no
substance" tact, imho.
|9.10.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed
Hillary Clinton.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
John Wayne Bobbitt|9.10.08 @ 1:03PM|#
You can put lipstick on MY cock, as long as I get to choose the transfer mechanism.
|9.10.08 @ 1:12PM|#
I just wish they would quit playing cute and get it over
with.
DNC: "McCain is a rictus-faced baby killer, and has old, wrinkled
balls. Palin is a mealy-mouthed cunt whose brain size approximates
her clitoris.
RNC: Obama is an uppity house nigger who thinks he can run the
plantation better than massa. Biden is a bald-headed faggot.
There, now can we get back to...you know...policy?
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 1:12PM|#
I got an interesting email from a friend yesterday.
One of her friends lives in Wasilla and is active in the town's
politics. She knows Palin well.
She asked that the letter not be posted on websites, so I will
honor that wish, but I will excerpt a bit (sans the identifying
information that worried her)...
CLAIM VS FACT
> * 'Hockey mom': true for a few years
> * 'PTA mom': true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
> * 'NRA supporter': absolutely true
> * social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconstitutional).
> * pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
> * 'Pro-life': mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
> * 'Experienced': Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
> * political maverick: not at all
> * gutsy: absolutely!
> * open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
> * has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
> * 'a Greenie': no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
> * fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
> * pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
> * pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
> * pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla's history.
> * pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
h-dawg|9.10.08 @ 1:18PM|#
"Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and
disconnected parking lots."
In other words, oversaw the natural growth of a small town into a
regular burb.
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 1:24PM|#
h-dawg,
I think both you and the letter writer give her too much credit
here.
Of course, it seems she promoted pro-business policies (a good
thing), but (didn't quite) fund them using regressive taxes that
fell mostly on the town's poor and middle class.
|9.10.08 @ 1:25PM|#
The constant talk from the left that Palin should have aborted
her baby pisses me off like nothing else in this campaign. My
brother had Down's Syndrome, and this is a sore spot for me. For an
ideology that celebrates the non-normal, why does liberalism insist
that non-normal fetuses be terminated?
Down's Syndrome is not a disease. People don't "suffer" from it. It
doesn't require hospitalization or extraordinary care. Many are
productive members of society. They may not get admitted to Havard
or Yale, but most can make it through high school and hold
productive jobs.
Liberals who say that Palin should have aborted Trig are the
ultimate bigots.
GG|9.10.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Obama's supporters busted their guts at the tired, old pig and
fish metaphors before he even finished his delivery, just like they
did when he scratched his cheek and flipped off HRC. It was red
meat for the crowd, and they certainly took it as a
double-entendre. Was Barack the only one there who was too stupid
to recognize the sexist and ageist innuendo? Really?
Not that I care one whit about all the meaningless campaign poo the
monkeys fling, mind you, but COME ON! /G.O.B. Don't be deliberately
obtuse.
I suppose it serves its purpose, because as long as the focus on
this petty shit, no one is thinking about the Fannie and Freddie
boondoggle, which makes Enron look like child's play.
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Brandybuck,
Liberals who say that Palin should have aborted Trig are the
ultimate bigots.
WTF?
I have never heard anyone say that Palin should have aborted her
youngest child.
Have you? Really?
why does liberalism insist that non-normal fetuses be
terminated?
There is a difference between being pro-choice and insisting on
abortion. This is not even a strawman, it is disingenuous.
Down's Syndrome is not a disease. People don't "suffer" from
it. It doesn't require hospitalization or extraordinary care. Many
are productive members of society. They may not get admitted to
Havard or Yale, but most can make it through high school and hold
productive jobs.
It is important to be accurate when discussing this issue. Your
statement is accurate if you qualify it with "it doesn't
necessarily require..." but there are many health and educational
effects associated with Trisomy 21 that increase the chances that
the individual will require "extraordinary care" of some
type.
A good place to start for those who don't know much about Trisomy
21.
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Down_Syndrome.cfm
|9.10.08 @ 1:36PM|#
"John McCain says he's about
change, too, and so I guess his whole angle is,
'Watch out George Bush.' Except for economic policy, health care
policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl
Rove-style politics. That's not change. That's just calling
something the same thing, something different. But you know you can
put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know, you can wrap
an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to
stink after eight years."
NM, the "pig" and "fish" are Republican policies of the last eight
years, by my reading. The "lipstick" and "paper" are the McCain
campaign's efforts to sell the continuation of these policies as
change.
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 1:41PM|#
joe,
I am fine with that reading...however the "efforts to sell" include
the lipstick that is Palin.
It works on both levels at once, as any good analogy will. Obama
was using it prior to Palin, it just gained additional meanings
when she was added to the context. Obama, I am pretty sure, was
intentionally including Palin as one of the efforts McCain was
using to make the pig look prettier. Her lipstick comment at the
RNC amplified the power of the analogy. I am pretty sure Obama knew
that it would.
It isn't, btw, sexist to refer to Palin as a way to pretty up the
ticket, but it is possible for people to take offense based on the
history men have of dismissing women with comments on their
looks.
|9.10.08 @ 1:48PM|#
its a sad state when a religious whack job saves your
campaign.
I keep seeing people call Palin a fundie or a religious whack job
or whatever, but I don't see it.
She's against putting creationism on the curriculum.
She's for teaching about condoms in sex ed classes.
She never asked for a single book to be banned.
She never pushed for any new restrictions on abortion, that I know
of.
Where's the fundie whack job in all that?
Palin is going to help Republican turnout by firing up the
Republicans. The thing is, she's firing up Democrats, too. In 2008,
such a war of attrition benefits the Democrats.
Maybe, but I think it will be a net benefit to the Repubs, given
their relative dispirited base before her nomination. No one will
ever know for sure.
And I wouldn't be so sure the Dems are winning the popularity
contest these days, the way they were six months ago. Progress in
Iraq and the gas crunch have hurt the Dem brand. Congressional
polling is starting to swing back towards the Repubs.
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 1:59PM|#
RC Dean,
She's against putting creationism on the curriculum.
Not true. She has publicly supported the idea that "both sides"
should be presented in science classes. You can pick nits and point
out that she didn't try to inject this idea into the official state
mandates if you want, but she has come out in support of the idea
of putting religious explanations on par with science in a science
class.
She's for teaching about condoms in sex ed classes.
Depends on what audience she is talking to, but I believe it would
be more accurate to say that she would not actively oppose this
idea.
She never asked for a single book to be banned.
The accounts I have read indicate that what she did was test the
waters to see if she could get away with banning books in her
community library. When she got slapped back on the idea by the
community, she dropped it. It is similar to her initial support
from the bridge to no-where that she dropped once public opinion
turned against her. She is a savvy enough politician to avoid
taking a stance until she knows where the public stands.
She never pushed for any new restrictions on abortion, that I
know of.
This is true (see excerpt in my post above).
|9.10.08 @ 2:00PM|#
"It was a slur. So, are slurs OK or are they
not?"
If the insult is not a sexist insult, then it is inappropriate to
feign outrage over a sexist insult.
When John Kerry said that stupid people "get stuck in Iraq" the
GOPers ran with it. We all knew that he was referring to Bush
getting the country stuck in Iraq, but to a person who didn't know
anything about the story, the idea that uneducated people are
nothing more than army meatheads was a plausible explanation based
solely on the language.
But this claim that Obama called Palin a pig is not a reasonable
interpretation, not even for GOPers who disingenuously spread
interpretations they know are not true.
Jim Antle has a point. The people who make these attacks are GOPer,
latte-sipping, wine sniffer pricks that nobody likes. Or more
likely, they are Look At My
Striped Shirt assholes.
|9.10.08 @ 2:03PM|#
however the "efforts to sell" include the lipstick that is
Palin.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
RC,
Maybe, but I think it will be a net benefit to the Repubs,
given their relative dispirited base before her
nomination.
Good point. I saw some polling on this, and it showed considerably
more Republicans saying they were excited about the ticket than
last time this question was asked. However - and this surprised me
- the Democrats were still considerably more excited about their
ticket than the Republicans were about theirs - and this is based
on polling done in the "convention bump" period. One figure that
sticks in my head is 28% of McCain supporters say he's "the lesser
of two evils," while only 12% of Obama supporters say that. I don't
doubt that the Republican excitement about Palin is real, but I
interpret this result to mean that the excitement for Palin isn't
rubbing off on McCain. Maybe that's why I haven't seen him say
anything on the teevee since the convention.
|9.10.08 @ 2:26PM|#
We've got 56 days until the election.
Early voting starts September 30th in Ohio: 20 days.
|9.10.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"I keep seeing people call Palin a fundie or a religious
whack job or whatever, but I don't see it.
She's against putting creationism on the curriculum.
She's for teaching about condoms in sex ed classes.
She never asked for a single book to be banned.
She never pushed for any new restrictions on abortion, that I know
of.
Where's the fundie whack job in all that?
(1) She supports teaching intelligent design, (though is not dumb
enough to try to pass a law sure to be held unconstitutional). She
thinks that "both sides" should be taught in the classroom. Given
the current status (i.e., only science is taught), that means that
she thinks the "other side" (i.e., religion) should be taught in
the classroom. Further, claiming that there is a debate between
science and religion is typical whack job rhetoric. The only time
there is a conflict between the two is when you believe in the
Bible as the literal truth, all 5,000 some odd years of the Earth's
history with Jesus riding a dinosaur. I'm exaggerating, but how far
whacked out does one have to be to be considered a whacko in your
book? Do they have to believe that George Washington was Jesus
Christ?
(2) Palin believes in teaching about condoms in class alongside her
abstinence only policy. Huh? Given where the condoms go, her
opposition to "explicit" sex education pretty much renders her
noncommittal support for condoms illusory.
(3) the book banning incident has more to do with loyalty to the
king oaths than banning books.
(4) Q: Your stand on abortion?
Palin: I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created
with a future and potential. The legislature should do all
it can to protect human life. Source: Q&A with
Newsmax.com's Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008.
You have to realize that my standards for religious whack jobs are
different than yours. For example, I think that anybody who
believes the Earth is 5,000 years old is crazy. When they say that
such a bizarre concept could be taught in schools, I call them a
whack job.
|9.10.08 @ 2:33PM|#
News today about climbing deficit. Good thing we're more interested real issues like pigs and lipstick and such! Obviously eight years of Dubya have really dumbed-down republicans.
|9.10.08 @ 2:49PM|#
News today about climbing deficit. Good thing we're more
interested real issues like pigs and lipstick and such! Obviously
eight years of Dubya have really dumbed-down
republicans."
If you are a Republican, the climbing deficit makes you pray for
lipstick pig debates everyday. You applaud the selection of Palin
as just the distraction needed.
TWM|9.10.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Amen.
P.S. I'm noticing more and more how McCain-Palin bear more than a
passing resemblance to Doctors Evil and Melfi,
respectively.
I'm just saying.
Fluffy|9.10.08 @ 3:08PM|#
But, you claiming that McCain has "no honor" over this is
completely stupid and over the top.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa - Wait one fucking second.
You're saying that I should just expect McCain to dissemble [that
is, to lie] and feign outrage at his own deliberate
misinterpretation [again, in other words, a lie] of what Obama
said, because McCain is a politician and that's what politicians
do.
News flash: one requirement of having honor is that you tell the
truth. Period. End of sentence. Full stop.
McCain has demonstrated that he has no honor in lots of other ways,
too, but that's besides the point.
A man with honor would adhere absolutely to the truth, even when
making shit up was to his advantage. And that's that. If you make
shit up in order to try to obtain some advantage for yourself, you
can not be said to be a man of honor. And that's that.
Basically you're saying that you have a definition of honor or a
standard of honor that doesn't include telling the truth, and I
guess I shouldn't be surprised about that, since you're a
Republican and all.
When you say that McCain has "honor", you apparently mean "McCain
was a POW, and if McCain led troops into an ambush in the Middle
East he would refuse to lead them out lest someone think less of
John McCain as a result" and that really isn't the definition of
honor, John.
|9.10.08 @ 3:10PM|#
John, this is a late comment. But I've never heard someone refer
to a woman as a pig. I've heard male chauvinist pig. I've heard
"he's a pig" or someone untidy called a "pig". Maybe it's just a
Michigan thing, but we insult women with other animals here.
As to the argument that the audience wouldn't have laughed/clapped
if they didn't think he was referring to Palin. Really? My
observation of these events is talk,talk,talk, cheer, talk, talk,
cheer, talk, talk, route joke, cheer, laugh...It hardly matters
what is said.
Michele in Michigan
Abdul|9.10.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Michele,
Check out a Dice Clay albumn from your local 80's culture museum.
there's plenty of references to women as pigs.
|9.10.08 @ 3:31PM|#
This is why I'd be embarrassed to be associated with either party- fighting over whether "putting lipstick on a pig" was an intentional hit on Palin by Obama. Don't we have more important things to worry about rather than that- oh, like the real issues perhaps???
|9.10.08 @ 4:02PM|#
It wasn't an attack, it was tone-deafness. I don't think Obama
intended it as a Palin reference, but the crowd sure heard it as
one-- not surprising, since "lipstick" was one of the first words
the public heard out of Palin's mouth.
If McCain had said, "The difference between Sen. Obama and is is
the difference between black and white," would you consider the
inevitable charges of racism to be "whining"?
RALPH|9.10.08 @ 4:19PM|#
SENATOR OBAMA'S PERSONAL
ATTACK ON GOVERNOR PALIN, IS DISTURBING EVIDENCE OF EXCESSIVE
INFLUENCE BY GURU MAGGOTS!!!!!
IT OBVIOUSLY IS AN APPROXIMATE TRANSLATION OF "CUIR SÍODA AR MHUC,
AGUS IS MUC I GCÓNAÍ Í"!!!!!!!!
SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE LEARNING HATE FROM IRA/SINN FEIN!!!!!!
ONCE THIS GOES VIRAL, VICTORY FOR THE MCCAIN/PALIN TICKET IS
ASSURED!!!!!
Reality Check|9.10.08 @ 4:33PM|#
This is a significant flub by Barack. It is just silly to try to deny it. As you watch the video, the crowd erupts when Barack lays out the pig-lipstick analogy. Regardless of what Barack intended, everyone in that room made the reference to Palin, and that's why they roared into a standing ovation. And that is the impression the casual viewer will get in countless replays of that moment. He should have thrown the pig-lipstick analogy out of the stump speech the moment Palin's lipstick ad-lib made her a celebrity.
Steve|9.10.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Why should he have to apologize if McCain doesn't even have to acknowledge his equally blatant usage of the phrase in regards to a woman?
Steve|9.10.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Ralph:
Do you have many friends? What're you guys gonna do win the culture
war? Just curious...
Steve|9.10.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Sorry, that should read: "What're you guys gonna do when you win the culture war?"
|9.10.08 @ 4:44PM|#
How can anyone deny that Sarah is truly a prime porker? Just look at those budget earmarks she landed. Sorry if the whiners think this is saying something naughty about her ears. Another almost sexist remark from the political world: if she can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.
Fluffy|9.10.08 @ 4:51PM|#
BTW, since I went after John a bit, I would be remiss if I
didn't go after joe a little too.
I really have to point out that this incident, and this thread, are
fate's revenge on joe for his assertions during the New Yorker
cover debate.
If the perception of the audience gets to control the meaning of a
statement, then the GOP wankers around here can FORCE Obama's
statement to have a sexist meaning and a meaning that insults
Palin, just by being the kind of dicks they're being. If what joe
argued on that occasion is true, it doesn't really matter what the
facts about Obama's statement are, because the meaning of his
statement isn't in his control, but in the control of people who
are going to force their brains to imagine stupid shit. Sorry,
joe.
Your Reality Check Just Bounce|9.10.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Regardless of what Barack intended, everyone in that room made the reference to Palin, and that's why they roared into a standing ovation
Or they applauded because they thought that McCain is completely
full of shit when McCain talks about change.
One more time for the slow learners:
"John McCain says he's about change, too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush.' Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing, something different. But you know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know, you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years."
Carla |9.10.08 @ 6:35PM|#
You conservative McCain and Palin fans are full of it. Why is it okay for Mccain and Palin to hurl insults about/at Senator Obama? You don't care about that - it's okay - but then you don't want anyone to say negative things about them, especially Sarah Palin. The "governor of Alaska" has been saying mean spirited things since accepting the nod -- and that's been okay w/you all. But when/as the tables are turned - when a comment is directed to her - you want to fall back on calling it sexist. That's a ploy so no one will call her on the inconsistencies in her message. If it's okay for her to (not deal with the issues of the people) hurl mud at Senator Obama- than don't complain when it comes back to her/you.
Neu Mejican|9.10.08 @ 7:03PM|#
Your Reality Check Just Bounced | September 10, 2008, 6:21pm
| #
Again,
The proper nouns and pronouns are irrelevant to that charge that is
being made. Palin plays the role of lipstick in the analogy...she
is the lipstick on the pig. If you think it is sexist to call her
"lipstick", then you can claim Obama was being sexist.
Or they applauded because they thought that McCain is
completely full of shit when McCain talks about change.
Reality is that both implications were probably made by most in the
crowd. Calling Palin nothing but lipstick on the Bush/McCain policy
pig is a turn of phrase worth a reaction from Obama supporters.
Steve|9.10.08 @ 8:20PM|#
NEU MEJICAN, I'M TYPING LIKE A REPUBLICAN. CAN YOU TELL ME WHY IT'S OKAY FOR MCCAIN TO SAY THE SAME EXACT PHRASE IN REFERENCE TO HILLARY CLINTON?
Nick|9.11.08 @ 4:34AM|#
Getting past this foolishness, can we focus for a second on
Obama's point? i.e. that the Republicans are putting "lipstick on a
pig" by trying to co-opt his policy of "change"?
Obama is for preserving Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as
they lurch towards financial insolvency. The change Bush tried to
make failed. McCain, to his credit, still supports reforming these
and moving them back towards solvency.
Obama is for preserving the public school system basically as-is
(or at least as the teachers unions want them to be.) Increasing
school choice has widely failed due to the teachers unions. McCain
is for increasing school choice.
Change is a very convenient way for Obama to cover up the fact that
he's conservative when it comes to preserving the good old programs
of the good old Leftist orthodoxy. And the only change he supports
seems to be adding more.
As a libertarian I have, over the past few months, become more
concerned with the permanent damage that could result from an Obama
presidency with a Democratic congress than from a McCain presidency
with a Democratic congress. Wars can be ended, but entitlements and
spending, when enacted, tend not to go away.
Nick|9.11.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Correction: Bush actually succeeded on Medicare Part B. But Obama supports that where McCain doesn't.
|9.11.08 @ 12:20PM|#
The left forged the weapon of identity politics and just
left it lying around. Stop whining when the right picks it up and
uses it against you. If the left hadn't spent 30 years screaming
"RASCIST" and "SEXIST" and "LOOKIST" and "SIZIST" at everyone they
disagreed with in the slightest, the right wouldn't be able to do
it right back at you.
And if the Right hadn't spent the last 30 years complaining about
this, maybe their copying wouldn't be so pathetic.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245