The John McCain Freak Show Rolls On, Obama Responds
The following is a combination of two posts written over the last 48 hours concerning the trumped up “lipstick on a pig” statement made by Obama, which was presented by the McCain campaign as an attack on Sarah Palin despite the fact that Obama was talking about John McCain and the difference between his rhetoric and his policy positions at the time. This has been cross-posted from The Left Anchor…
John McCain’s team is now trying to make some big deal about Obama using the common expression, “lipstick on a pig,” when referring to John McCain’s political and rhetorical shifts over the course of the campaign. Though her name is never mentioned, the McCain camp did a fantastic job of portraying this as a sexist attack on Sarah Palin. Here is the clip in question:
There is simply no way to view that as an attack on Gov. Palin. Moreover, John McCain’s used that same expression himself in regards to Hillary Clinton and her health care plan. And pretty well everyone born in the South during the last hundred years has used that very same expression. The point of the expression isn’t to insult the physical appearance of the target in question, but rather, to highlight that what a person is presenting themselves to be is not always what they are.
It never ceases to amaze me just how stupid John McCain thinks the American public is. Luckily for him, his supporters don’t seem to care how big an ass he makes of himself, or how ridiculous his charges become. It’s as if a significant segment of our population actually prefer to be thought of as morons and rubes.
And so again I say, “Good luck, Sen. McCain, if this is the type of bullshit you wish to run your campaign on.”
And now, Pt. 2 of this pathetically hilarious, yet depressing story…
So, yesterday, the McCain campaign along with the news media decided they’d waste the public’s time with a ridiculous hopped up story about Barack Obama calling Sarah Palin a pig. Forget that he was using a common expression as old as dirt, as well as the fact that he was clearly referring to John McCain’s politics, not the Alaskan Governor; the American media decided that was what we should all be talking about yesterday.
Today, Obama took the first few minutes to take both John McCain and the media to task for their irresponsible and reckless behavior.
What world are McCain’s supporters living in? The man continues to prove how little he thinks of the American voter every single day. His own campaign manager stated quite clearly that this campaign is “not about the issues.” And every day these circus freaks put on another show, they prove themselves right, but the American people deserve better than this.
September 11 2008 06:28 am | American Politics
September 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
your explanation may be true and i do not think anyone would deny the possibility. but i do not think even you will deny it was bad timing considering the splash Mrs. Palin made upon politics so far and to her own use of the word lipstick to make reference to herself and other hockey moms.
but there is one thing that takes away from the credibility of your defense. it isn’t only your opponents who saw it as an reference on Palin, herself, but also members of your own team who did.
and when you compare the usage, McCain made a far more clearer distinction of his use of the phraase than Obama did. you can see from the context that McCain understood the phrase far better than Obama and used it within the meaning and usage of it.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Obama did use the phrase in its common form. And given that he wasn’t talking about Sarah Palin — her name didn’t even come up during the passage in question — but was clearly addressing McCain’s economic policy (we know that’s what he was addressing because that’s literally what he said two seconds before delivering the “lipstick” line).
There’s just no two ways about it. This was a pathetic attempt by the McCain campaign to turn nothing into something. Frankly, I don’t think the media exposure they got with this story will help them much, because anyone who saw this clip could clearly make out what Obama was talking about. There was absolutely no confusion to be had.
Like I said, if this is the campaign wants to run, then more power to him. He’s not going to get very far with it.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
McCain has always run upright campaigns. All of a sudden, they veer to smear, slander, slime and irrational hyperbole. How do you spell Karl Rove?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Fifteen Minutes
Know what? This shit is making me crazy. The mainstream media has just devoted an entire day to whether Our Man was sexist when he utilized an expression that I’ve even heard from my own Father’s mouth. My Father wasn’t talking about women, he was talking about Republicans.
They want you to believe they’ve never heard the expression before?
McCain has used it and so has Clinton.
I don’t care what he meant when he said it. It was either innocent or excellent swordsmanship. If he meant it, he wasn’t being sexist, he was calling her a dipshit.
Fifteen Minutes is all she has. Perhaps more of an empty suit than Dumbya. Been nowhere done nothing, disingenuous hockey mom from Wasilla Alaska. Had to look up the spelling.
This is fucking ridiculous. It won’t last, but please.
When Doubtfire first announced her, I was confused. Dumbfounded. I gathered my thoughts and faculties and arrived at the judgement that it was the most cynical and profoundly ridiculous move in contemporary politics I’d ever seen.
I was right. It is. I admit I’m mouth breathing over the interest, sensation and spectacle surrounding the entire debacle, but I’m here to tell you, it won’t last. She brings nothing. She has nothing. It may look like a brilliant move this week, within two weeks, it will be over save for the shouting.
I’m hoping sooner.
Our Man played his bishop on the chessboard with Biden. McCain took a pawn out of his pocket, painted with sparkly nail polish and placed it on the board with a reluctant palsy. He realized it was plastic and it’s weight confused his geriatric hand. He briefly forgot what he was doing when he noticed the rest of the pieces were made of marble. He took a drink of his diet soda and struggled to remember.
Despite it all, the great unwashed did a standing O and then executed a near flawless wave. Tens of them.
As I write this, a private jet lands on some tarmac in Alaska accompanied by the theme music from Top Gun. Top Gun? Sheezus. Seriously, it’s live on CNN.
By the way, She’ll be relying on a teleprompter to address her home crowd. So far, they’re not willing to let her work without a full body condom. What does that tell you?
Empty boilerplate rhetoric, POW regurgitation and talk of a tough “maverick” delivered in a breathless rush from a cheerleader running for student body vice president with the crutch of a teleprompter. Fuck me.
A heartbeat from the Presidency. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Seriously America, work with me here. It’s about the top of the ticket until the top of one of the tickets could die at any moment and his chosen successor sucks donkey dick.
Did I say that or think it?
Enough!
Drinks for my friends.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:21 am
cause he has no ability to talk about issues
September 12th, 2008 at 1:40 am
“There was absolutely no confusion to be had.”
no, then how do you explain liberals thinking that he was referring to Palin?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
BB, you spell it s-o-u-l-s-u-c-k-i-n-g-d-e-m-o-n-s-p-a-w-n-o-f-h-e-l-l-’-s-f-o-u-l-e-s-t-m-i-n-i-o-n-s.
Or something like that.
Kind of fitting, now that Obama’s campaign has explicitly linked him to Jesus.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
no, then how do you explain liberals thinking that he was referring to Palin?
That a pretty large generalization. I’m a liberal and so is my entire family and a majority of the people in my neighborhood, plus I visit several liberal blogs that receive comments from liberals across the nation and from other countries. None of these liberals thought the comment referenced Palin.
It was obvious the comment wasn’t about her if one used one’s head and read the beginning of Obama’s statement.
PS. I remember seeing a clip during the primaries where John McCain was giving a townhall type talk to a group of his followers and a woman got up and asked McCain “How’re we gonna beat the bitch.” Everyone laughed, including John McCain, and he never chided the woman about her reference to Hillary Clinton–never admonished her about using that sort of reference about a US Senator running for president.
This whole non-controversy is nothing more than a Rovian smear tactic meant to distract us from examining the fact that John McCain supported George Bush more than 95% of the time–my friends, that is NOT change, and his handlers know it.
John McCain has decided he cannot win by being John McCain so he’s descended into sewer politics alla Karl Rove.
George Bush gave Karl Rove the nickname “Turdblossom.”
A turdblossom is something that grows out of cowshit.
There’s a reason Rove has that nickname. Bush recognized that Rove uses shit to make political controversy grow.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
nice try, shaw, to change the subject but it doesn’t answer the question.
and yes it is a general word. all plurals are when used in this sense and there is nothing large about it. even if it was only two, which it isn’t, would justify the use of it. and just because the liberals you spoke to agree with you doesn’t mean that there aren’t other liberals who did not.
and since my question sought an answer to the statement of my first comment it is clear that my use of it is not as generalized as you’d like to claim.
and your response just gave credibility to the claim that it was meant to say something about Palin rather than McCain’s stance because you are doing the same thing, coming to an invalid conclusion in spite of the fact it was clearly not the case.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
The reason there was confusion as to who Obama was referring to was not due to what Obama said, but rather the way the media report it. When I was reading the first reports of the quote, I thought he was talking about Sarah Palin, because that’s what the stories were claiming. But as soon as I saw the clip in question it was abundantly clear — with absolutely no room for misunderstanding — that he was talking about John McCain.
The media failed to report what was actually said, which is why there was such confusion at first. I mean, seriously, watch the clip and tell me how in the world anyone could walk away from that thinking he was talking about anyone other than McCain.
It was an embarrassing day to be a part of the MSM.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Griper,
You’re wrong. And you know it. Obama did not mean Palin when he made his reference.
Let’s stop talking about this nonsense and talk about about the fact that John McCain supported George Bush 90% of the time. That is the real issue.
And the pathetic fact that Palin didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was, and thinks that because Russia is near Alaska, it gives her expertise in foreign affairs.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
he chuckles at shaw’s words. how can I be wrong when I never stated my position on the matter in the first place. that is an assumption on your part. and the issue of discussion for this thread is the issue of this post. when i find a post that makes claims on McCain’s voting record and i see something in it deserving my input i will. the same is true of Palin’s expertise. so, your “obvious” attempt to change the issue is now twofold.
big blue,
now that might explain your reasoning if you can tell me that you checked it out prior to Obama’s disclaimer. and i’d accept your word on it.
but that doesn’t explain the other liberals who did as i asked about. and that you cannot do no more then i can.
i will acknowledge the fact you admitted to it, also, at first. and for that you have my respect. that reveals sincerity to me rather than accuse you of flip flopping, as is the trend in politics now days.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It’s sad to watch this so-called ‘maverick’ being manipulated by the same ruinous group who have been bringing this country down for eight years. He’s so hungry to win that he has given up his stance on various issues and now takes the low road. I guess when most of your policies are nearly identical to those of George Bush, you need to attach and distract.
Fortunately, the Karl Rove/Fox News style smear tactics are beginning to backfire:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia12-2008sep12,0,3404561.story
September 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
sp: attack and distract.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Michael,
You’ve got it bad, don’t you. BO is starting his inevitable slide in the polls, and it hurts, and you’re lashing out. Take a deep breath.
This is an election. We have one every four years. Sometimes we elect a Democrat, and sometimes a Republican. The republic goes on.
Obama used fundraising prowess and organizational moxie to win the nomination. The problem is, he’s not just talking to the netroots and the left wing of the Democrats anymore.
He’s got to appeal to the electorate as a whole, including the independents. And the problem Obama has (and his campaign has known it for a long time) is that the more voters see of him, the less they like him.
He can still win the election. McCain could commit some huge gaffe, or Palin could. Obama could turn out black voters in unprecedented numbers (but the problem there is that there probably aren’t enough, in the states he needs).
Meanwhile, there’s Sarah Palin. Despite the best efforts of the left and the media, voters like her–and they think she has more experience than Obama does.
Worse, she’s locked up the conservative base for McCain. I talked to a lot of convention delegates, and they are very suddenly enthusiastic. It’s going to change things down the ballot; the Democrat’s hoped-for big majorities in congress are now looking like small ones–or worse.
But if Barack loses, Michael, take heart. He can run again in four years, or eight. It will give him time to build a record on which he can run. He can season his message to appeal to a broader electorate.
But you don’t have to hate. It’s just politics. In Ireland, in 1922, they were shooting at each other. By 1927, they were sitting across from each other in the Dail. You dust yourself off, and go on.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Griper,
I’m not a hundred percent sure what you’re asking here. Are you asking whether I searched out the full clip of Obama’s “lipstick” line before he clarified his remarks the next day?
Frankly, I’m not sure which came first. I will say, though, that my understanding of his meaning comes not from his response, but from viewing the original sound-byte in question.
September 14th, 2008 at 3:55 am
big blue,
the reason i asked the question as i did is because your definition of the “phrase” doesn’t cut it. and Obama referenced the phrase out of context of its meaning. the phrase has a very specific meaning and was meant to describe something in a specific manner.
it’s called “back woods philosophy” and you need to live among people like that in order to understand it.
and based on his use of it and hearing the words before it is clear he was referring to McCain himself because he was talking specifically about McCain, not McCain’s ideas. now, if he had been demeaning one of McCain’s ideas and using that phrase to make his point then you could say he was referencing McCain’s idea and not McCain.
that is why msm media said that obama was demeaning McCain and Palin.
now, i don’t expect you to change your mind on this issue. but, there is why you thought so at first also. you saw it yourself.
i am finished. no more questions. lol
September 14th, 2008 at 5:57 am
For the record, I was born and bred in South Carolina which is where I still reside. I know what lipstick on a pig means. You’re really grasping at straws to draw Sarah Palin into this discussion. Her name isn’t even mentioned.
Lipstick on a pig means portraying one’s self or one’s idea as something other than it is, and it can be applied to all manner of situations.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:01 am
I also find it interesting that you didn’t actually bother to define what you believe “lipstick on a pig” means.
For further evidence that lipstick on a pig was used in a proper context, here is the expression’s meaning as taken from an idiomatic dictionary:
If people put lipstick on a pig, they make superficial or cosmetic changes, hoping that it will make the product more attractive.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I must admit, I have enjoyed the back and forth between Blue and Griper.
Now I’m no backwoods country boy; I’m just small-town southwest. But I reckon I know that Barack Obama is smart enough not to directly call Sarah Palin a pig. Even when he’s in “authentic folksy” mode like he was in that part of the speech.
I’m also smart enough to know that it was a dumb gaffe to use that phrase anywhere right now. For the time being, the term “lipstick” is gonna be associated with Palin.
And I’m also smart enough to know that if McCain had made a similar gaffe, you’d be reading about it on DU, Kos, TalkLeft and right here on APGFI. Obama stuck his chin out on this one, and he got tagged. That’s the way politics works.
So how about we move on to something new, and more interesting. For example, did you know Sarah Palin’s baby Trig is actually not Todd’s? The father is actually wickeddemonmauraderfromhell Karl Rove. They met at a secret conference where the topic was how shooting wolves from airplanes and roasting them over book fires advances the Dark Lord’s agenda.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
big blue,
“If people put lipstick on a pig, they make superficial or cosmetic changes, hoping that it will make the product more attractive.”
that is close enough of a defintion to rebutt your your argument.
1 this is an election year. both, McCain and Obama are trying to sell to sell themselves as the candidate deserving of the position of POUS. (the products). and in the business world how you package a product can determine its sales. and it is true of every election that the candidate usually selects a vp in order to garner greater attractiveness to the ticket.
2 up until the convention, Obama was seen as the more attractive candidate of the two in the eyes of the polls. he had been leading throughout.
3 Obama chose Biden as his running mate in order to shore up his weaknesses, as perceived by the people, thus making himself even more attractive to the people in order to widen the gap in the polls. but he got no bounce in the polls.
4 McCain chose Palin as his running mate in order to shore up his weaknesses, as perceived by the people. he not only got a bounce but he got a very “big” bounce by adding her to the ticket. (the lipstick)
5 that speech was all about the fact that McCain was still the same candidate as he was before he got that bounce. and that his platform was no different just because he added Palin to the ticket. the speech was a poor attempt to get the focus of the people back onto McCain and his policies. thus we have the same pig (McCain) but he just added lipstick(Palin) to make himself and the Republican ticket more attractive to the voter.
that speech was not about selling himself as the more attractive product but about making McCain appear as a less attractive product than he appears. in that speech he was creating a description of McCain, himself. he did not need to mention Palin’s name. Palin is a part of that description now as member of the ticket just as Biden is a part of the description of Obama, since, when the people are voting for one they are also voting for the other.
now, i have just presented the argument using all the terms within the defintion you gave. i even added to it by presenting it in a manner that allows Obama to have used the phrase in its correct manner too.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Yes, you did, but you totally mis-represented what Obama said.
His point was that John McCain has adopted Obama’s mantle of change as his own, but that McCain can’t simply claim he’s for change when his tax policy, environment policy, and foreign policy is identical to Bush’s. The lipstick in this instance is the change meme McCain’s adopting (”change” was mentioned far more than “experience” at this year’s convention). McCain says change, but his policies aren’t even vaguely close to change. This has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. She is not the lipstick in this instance. And it’s completely insane to try and wedge her into that speech. Obama makes very clear what the pig is: the last eight years. And he makes very clear what the lipstick is: McCain’s claim to be a reformer and a leader for change despite his support for Bush and pledges to continue on with Bush’s policies.
Again, there is simply no way to read this as an attack against Sarah Palin. It’s an attack against John McCain and his pathetic attempts to try and distance himself from the same administration he’s been supporting for much of the last eight years.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Gordon,
I disagree with your assertion that the “lipstick” quote would have been picked up by the Obama campaign if it was used by the McCain team. I’m not even sure what argument they could make given that they lack a woman on the ticket. Plus, it’s just a laughable allegation to make — Obama’s expression was simply not a gaffe anymore than if he had labeled something as “small potatoes” or “the best thing since sliced bread.” This non-sense is going to hurt McCain in the longterm, and it’s going to piss off a lot of women. In fact, it already has.
But I do agree that this is the last I’m going to write about it.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am
ahhh,bigblue,
“His point was that John McCain has adopted Obama’s mantle of change as his own”
aren’t you the one that declared it was obvious it was about issues because as you said,
” You’re really grasping at straws to draw Sarah Palin into this discussion. Her name isn’t even mentioned.”
your point was never mentioned in his speech either. in fact his whole speech was about how McCain was the same and that he was attacking Obama rather than talking of the issues and that included the whole speech. there isn’t a single word in his speech that would indicate that what you are saying was why he used the phrase.
so if you expect me to believe he used the phrase because McCain stole Obama’s mantle of change as his own, based solely upon your word and nothing else which is exactly what you’re asking. forget it. i need evidence of that in his speech.
“Yes, you did, but you totally mis-represented what Obama said”
i misrepresented nothing. i stated facts. and facts trump beliefs every time. and that is the most you can say in regards to the defense of Obama, this is especially exposed by your last defense. there is nothing in his speech that would lead one to think that it was because McCain adopted his mantle of change.
besides, change is what every presidential candidate declares he is for with the exception of anyone seeking reelection.
Bush ran on the promise of change against Gore.
Clinton ran on the promise of change when he ran.
Reagan did also.
its a common theme every candidate. so, that argument is without merit.
you’re slowly painting yourself into a corner, my friend.