Even when they're claiming that using the phrase "lipstick on a pig is sexist." Ridiculous. I think Republicans get a pass on this shit because everyone knows they're being cynical. I shouldn't say they're getting a pass--it seems like media is all over them. Still we should call this what is--whining, complaining and fake-ass outrage.
"I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift-boat politics. Enough is enough."
Andrew's reader with the "What Obama Should Say" pretty much nailed the tone. Enough of this BS, already. McCain overplayed his hand because he is afraid of the growing "Thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere" is the new "Al Gore invented the internet". She was for it before she was against it.
I don't see the press being all over this. I see them treating it the way they treat all controversies. Truth is always in the middle. I have watched two hours of tv news this morning that have asked various members of the Obama campaign to respond to this charge as if it wasn't complete nonsense.
As to Obama's response, the one that Darius links to, I thought it was way too weak. Obama is at a point now when he needs to call McCain out by name and make him defend himself. It is not even close to adequate to say "enough is enough" because that kind of statement:
1. doesn't tie the problem to McCain closely enough
2. doesn't force McCain himself to pay a penalty for his smears
What will happen when McCain smears him again tomorrow with either the same smear or a new one? Will "enough be enough" again?
He needs to force McCain to respond and defend himself. He needs to change this dynamic and soon. A strongly worded statement of principles of fairness and honesty in politics is a sure fire loser.
Mark Halperin ripped into this pretty strongly last night on CNN. He also ripped the media for even giving McCain's faux outrage any airtime. This really is too much. I think McCain has overplayed his hand, and everyone knows this is bullshit. My very conservative co-worker even appeared slightly disgusted this morning when he was unable to defend the McCain camp at all.
I don't see the press being all over this. I see them treating it the way they treat all controversies. Truth is always in the middle.
Even right wing sources like Laura Ingraham have been all over the McCain camp to drop this immediately because they see it is lame, whiney and playing the victim. Scarborough asked former right winger, Linda Douglass to address the issue more publicly, but he was clear in his view that it was an inane complaint.
Any chance at all of tonight's news headlining "John McCain today accused John McCain of being sexist. Also Dick Cheney. Also these other Republicans..."
Former acting Gov Swift claims that they called McCain a smelly fish...I'm hoping for a march of carp, waving signs that say "smelly fish count!"
Actually, the "Kindergarten Sex Ed" commercial is more pathetic than this. McCain is really testing the stupidity of the American people, and the press. Even more so than usual.
republicans are tough.
while they don't know jack about running a government, they are geniuses at running political campaigns.
they are bullies and liars and they will do anything to win.
they play chess, while dems are playing checkers.
watching republicans run a campaign against dems is like watching the world series champs play the bad news bears.
no contest.
Right or wrong, if the Dems ran a similar campaign, it would turn a lot of people off, and they would be called out immediately. People are so used to the Republicans doing this type of thing, and their base doesn't give a shit. It just seems like a tough mold to break out of, but Obama has to start trying a bit harder, I think. I know you've been imploring him to play rougher, and I definitely agree. He doesn't have to be mean-spirited, but definitely needs to be much, much more forceful.
civitas says: "Gee, the slashing tone of these comments is really amazing and truly worrisome."
Yeah, isn't it strange how almost 8 years of watching the country being run into the ground by retarded warmongering incompetent assholes makes people get a little steamed?
Fake outrage? Ya, probably. If it was real and intended I wouldn't be outraged. You have to choose to be offended and if someone wants to try to offend me, fair enough, but only I get to decide if I play along.
Was it an intentional double entendre? Sure. How could it not be? You have a woman making a remark about lipstick heard and recited all around the country, and then the guy running against her says something about lipstick on a pig. It's the timing that gives it meaning, not the fact that McCain or 10000 other people have said it.
Can McCain start taking about black people using the n-word all of the sudden because black people have said it in the past? Would that not be interpreted as some kind of slight toward Obama? It could and it would
Should you be OUTRAGED!!! over it? Of course not. No one should be outraged over this either. But the timing makes it clearly a slap in the face. That Obama and McCain have said it before makes it a discreet slap in the face, but it still has to be interpreted with the recent lipstick joke made by Palin in mind.
How else can someone who presumably makes arguments about inherent racism of society believe otherwise? The nuanced claims about white-black racism, how it is inherent, how you don't have to be a full on skinhead to be influenced by racism, etc...
If it doesn't have an element of malicious sexism, it is at the very least a clear attack on Palin, using her gender as a punchline for the delivery of the attack.
There are a lot of angry people in America, and with good reason -- the country has, in many ways, been going to Hell in a handbasket. The strategic advantage of the Palin pick has been to make McCain/Palin sound more appealing to angry people -- sure they're angry at the phantom Liberal boogeyman, but at least they provide a target for people's anger. And to the extent that the GOP sounds angry, and Obama/Biden say, "Now, everyone just calm down..." people will respond worse to Obama/biden. "Dont' tell me to calm down, goddammit!!"
Well, Obama seems to have found something to be righteously angry about, and it fits pretty well with his consistent rap -- he's angry at divisiveness, lies, and manipulation, and at the people who would wallow in that crap at everyone's expense. If this new tone in Obama's change/reform rap can stick, he'll be able to appeal to a lot of the voter anger that the Palin pick initially tapped into.
"Can McCain start taking about black people using the n-word all of the sudden because black people have said it in the past? Would that not be interpreted as some kind of slight toward Obama? It could and it would."
Viewing the tape, from the way he pauses for the applause/laughter in the middle it is obvious that "You can put lipstick on a pig" is the joke, not "but it's still a pig." The audience clearly got it and were clapping and hooting at the mention of "lipstick." By denying his insult, Obama "throws a stone and hides his hand," but in a clumsy way that will hurt him.
I can't imagine that anyone would think this was a good way for Obama to win over women who are wavering towards Palin. And following it up with a stinky fish metaphor was classless as well.
dems don't even have to stoop to the kind of personal attacks republicans rely on.
they could run tough, hard-edged ads on issues alone, but do not do so.
it appears as though they are afraid to make the kind of emotional appeals that win arguments. it's as though they are ashamed to make those kinds of appeals.
for instance, i cannot understand for one second why obama is not running an ad that incorporates mccain's statement about social security being a disgrace.
it would be extremely simply, truthful and powerful.
it would hit home with tons of voters and especially with seniors.
why hasn't obama pushed that button?
why hasn't he made that emotional appeal?
my guess is that he is afraid of appearing to pander to seniors and therefore he does not want to deal with that criticism.
what he should do is simply what republicans do: ignore the criticism and push forward.
it works.
I can't imagine that anyone would think this was a good way for Obama to win over women who are wavering towards Palin. And following it up with a stinky fish metaphor was classless as well.
I find this comment demeaning to any woman with half a brain.
I can't imagine that anyone would think this was a good way for Obama to win over women who are wavering towards Palin.
Women who are voting for Palin because she's a woman, aren't going to vote for Obama period. I would also bet that many other women who are voting for Palin are like my mother. Abortion is a single issue, and they will under no circumstance vote for a pro-choice candidate. I don't care what McCain/Palin does, or Obama does people like my mother will not vote for Obama.
If I were a republican strategist and the Democratic candidates kept complaining about perceived slights, I would ridicule them for being whiny children not ready to play with the grown-ups.
Clearly there are women who identify with Sarah Palin and are moving towards her-- calling her a pig or comparing her or the ticket she is on to stinky fish is not going to win them over. I don't see why you think it is my comment that is demeaning.
Have to disagree with you, Ta-Nehisi. The media has been completely in the bag for Republicans for at least the past eight years. Republicans can say and do things that Democrats would never be able to say. John McCain can personally slander Obama left and right and yet he is "honorable". When Obama attacks McCain, the media asks, "Can you say that about a POW?" I am so sick of this. Why can't the lead story tonight be "McCain Camp Lies About Obama" or, better yet, "McCain Slanders Obama". But it won't happen. They are too busy drooling over Sarah Palin.
Viewing the tape, from the way he pauses for the applause/laughter in the middle it is obvious that "You can put lipstick on a pig" is the joke, not "but it's still a pig." The audience clearly got it and were clapping and hooting at the mention of "lipstick."
The extent to which people feel perfectly comfortable insulting the moral sensibilities of a bunch of people that they know almost nothing about never ceases to amaze me. It couldn't, in your estimation, simply be that people know this well worn idiom and were laughing in anticipation of the punchline. It has to be that this random group of people all simultaneously seized upon the incredibly obscure possibility that Obama was calling Palin a pig and thought it was hilarious. Frankly, I don't even want to know what you find so offensive about references to fish. You make this incredibly insulting set of assumptions and then you actually have the nerve to discuss someone else's lack of class. Unbelievable really.
If all uses of "lipstick" are now going to send Republicans off into a fit of the vapors, they'd best avoid the cosmetics aisle. Passion pink. Big Fatty Lip Plumper. Nude.
Clearly there are women who identify with Sarah Palin and are moving towards her-- calling her a pig or comparing her or the ticket she is on to stinky fish is not going to win them over. I don't see why you think it is my comment that is demeaning.
Sigh.
Because any woman with half a brain will look at the quote in context, in which it is clear that he's neither calling Palin a pig nor a stinky fish. Senator Obama was referring to the policies, not the personalities behind them.
I think the comment was a chess move... good or bad I think the Obama camp knew the comment would garner attention and they where ready with a rebute and they have changed the focus to McCain playing the gender card and now have a reason to unload on McCain and his gender based pick for VP... it was a ploy that seems to be working... I just think that camp is too smart not to know what would happen with a comment like that.
calling her a pig or comparing her or the ticket she is on to stinky fish is not going to win them over
On Planet GOP, that may be what Obama did. On Planet Earth, he compared the McCain/Palin policy platform to "lipstick on a pig" and "stinky fish".
As soon as the GOP returns to Planet Earth, let us know. Hopefully they won't have blown it up or turned it into Waterworld by the time they're ready to join us here.
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics,” Mr. Obama told his supporters here. “That’s just calling the same thing something different.”
With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
In the latest sign of the campaign’s heightened intensity, Mr. McCain’s surrogates responded within minutes and called on Mr. Obama to apologize to Gov. Sarah Palin for the lipstick remark. But to those in the audience, it was clear that Mr. Obama was employing an age-old phrase — lipstick on a pig — and referring to Mr. McCain’s policies. He had not yet mentioned Ms. Palin at that point of his speech.
i get the feeling that obama is running for president in a parallel universe, kinda like jim carrey's truman show.
he's conducting his campaign in that make-believe world, totally oblivious to the reality of what the mccain campaign is doing. and every once in a while, something happens that he cannot ignore and then he perks up, responds and goes back into his parallel universe.
yea, that's it...
the barack show...
Pesto at 2:39 said what I was about to say, better.
Ana, when McCain called Hillary's health care plan lipstick on a pig was he clearly calling Hillary a pig? Or per Palin's ownership of all "lipstick" references was he preemptively calling her a pig before nominating her? Dick Cheney was also preemptively insulting women when he used the term? This is the silliest GOP talking point yet. (As opposed to the teaching sex to kindergarteners lie, which is disgusting. And to think I once admired McCain and was prepared to vote for him this year.)
he's conducting his campaign in that make-believe world, totally oblivious to the reality of what the mccain campaign is doing. and every once in a while, something happens that he cannot ignore and then he perks up, responds and goes back into his parallel universe.
Uh-huh. People said the same things about him in the primary, that he was oblivious to Hillary, that he didn't know how to deal with her, etc.
Commenters still don't get it. Yes it was referring to the republican platform. Yes it was also using Palin and the frequently quoted lipstick joke to do so.
Therefore he's getting the dig in twice.
If McCain called Obama "boy" or "son" you can be certain there would be people reading into racial overtones. And the statement would still be true that Obama is a boy in age compared to McCain.
I'll try harder for those who's allegiance blinds them to reality.
If McCain made a crass joke with the overall point being that the democrats policies were nothing more than racial pandering, people would read into it as having some racial overtones. We've already seen people talk about a McCain ad being racist because it showed a white girl -- that was entirely manufactured.
Here is something that relates. Woman makes a joke about wearing lipstick. Man makes a joke about pigs and lipstick less than a week later.
How can you not see they are connect? I do not believe it makes Obama sexist. I do believe it was a slap in the face or a kick in the shins or maybe throwing a rock and hiding their hand as has been stated.
totally distinguishable.
he was working within a democratic electorate.
and a primary race - with 50 different contests, or however many there were - is totally different than a presidential election, with one big election in 50 different locations.
in a primary, organization can trump just about everything. and obama's genius for organization did win the primary contest for him.
i understand exactly what obama is comforting himself with. he is counting on his organization to win the election for him.
as obama should know, and as dems should also know, other matters often intrude in presidential elections.
i will argue this: if the primary season had been structured like a presidential election, with 50 states voting on one day, say, in may or june, i think that hillary would have won. the obliviousness that obama showed would have killed him in such an election, just as it is killing him now.
Uh-huh. People said the same things about him in the primary, that he was oblivious to Hillary, that he didn't know how to deal with her, etc.
How'd that work out?
Actually not so well Jake. He won the race eventually but at a cost. Senator Clinton was able to control a lot of the narrative and for a long time after it was pretty clear that Obama was going to be the nominee, the story was all about her. It didn't cost him the nomination obviously but it did weaken him. It did allow the story for months to revolve around disunity and PUMAs and whether or not he was a sexist and whether or not low education white people would vote for him. All of this was crap he had to contend with and to some extent, is still dealing when he could have been defining McCain and forcing his issues for months.
Actually not so well Jake. He won the race eventually but at a cost. Senator Clinton was able to control a lot of the narrative and for a long time after it was pretty clear that Obama was going to be the nominee, the story was all about her.
Once Obama's in the WH, I'm sure people will also be saying how he screwed up during the general and still has to deal with McCain in the Senate, as opposed to vanquishing him from the planet for-evah.
Would it have been better if he'd changed the joke to, "you can put lipstick on a dog..."? A dog (also schoolyard slang for an ugly woman) is an animal that Gov. Palin has no problem being associated with. (She'd rather be associated with ugly than with fat, I suppose.)
From a "turn about is fair play" standpoint, I don't think Obama supporters have credibility when complaining about cynicism & phony outrage.
We've now been informed that "tall and skinny" is a code word for black (by Tim Noah at Slate), as is "community organizer" (by NY Governor Patterson), which is also a secret code that black people are tring to better their lives and boy do conservatives hate that (by Alterman)! Combine those with the charges that McCain was trying to stir up miscegination fears by including white women in anti-obama ads; and Obama, on this sunday's "This Week," first claiming that the McCain campaign manager was was behind the Obama-as-muslim rumor, only to have to back down when challenged by Stephanopoulos, and Obama supporters really don't have much room to complain about fake outrage.
The left has made identity politics and the assumption of bad will on their opponents part key aspects of how they do business. Complaining when those things are turned around on you isn't going to garner much sympathy, and is just lame, lame, and more lame.
I think the real issue here is that a Republican candidate can get away with tons of misogyny, racism, etc. (http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/08/misogyny-yee-ha.html) and get away with it because the media knows it won't change the race.
Why? Because the Republican candidate's core constituency doesn't give a damn.
On the other hand, if a Democrat says something racist, sexist, etc., then s/he's at risk of alienating their core voters.
McCain's camp looks absolutely crazy right now. Look at what they're juggling:
- She was for the bridge to nowhere, before she was against it, which is really her Al Gore invented the internet moment.
- Trying to accuse Obama of being offensive over an innocuous comment (which just so happens to highlight McCain's complete acquiescence to Bush-era policy) on the same day they run an ad accusing Obama of wanting to teach sex-ed to Kindergartners.
- Trying to maintain a press blackout on Palin at the same time they are trying to push a media narrative based on numerous falsehoods.
- Trying to get their VP candidate up to speed on the host of issues she will be debating Joe Biden on in three weeks.
- Hoping that people don't catch on to the fact that change is defined as "to give a different position, course, or direction to" and actually has some contextual meaning.
Forget "hiding your hand". This election has become a four corners offense version of "hide the issues" and run out the clock. This has got to be exhausting for them. There's going to be a hard comedown off this manic phase the campaign seems to be in right now.
"From a "turn about is fair play" standpoint, I don't think Obama supporters have credibility when complaining about cynicism & phony outrage."
Get the fuck out of here. We are talking about the actual McCain camp calling for an apology over something they comepletely know is bullshit. You haven't seen Obama telling anyone to apologize over anything. Obama has been called a "boy" and "uppity" by two Republican members of Congress. You didn't see him say a word.
Seriously, though... comparing this to calling Obama "boy"? Really?
This is really through-the-looking-glass. Wake me when John McCain says something like "Obama accuses me of wanting to raise taxes, which is like the pot calling the kettle black," after Obama used the same phrase in recent memory about someone else (and after one of his ex-campaign members writes a book called "The Pot and the Kettle: a history of GOP smears"), and after the Obama campaign holds their breath and turns red until the news media makes in an all-day hysterical issue.
Then we can talk equivalences.
Now, we're only just talking about the stupid, which burns.
Seriously, you have to try pretty hard to be offended at this.
"I think Republicans get a pass on this shit because everyone knows they're being cynical."
oh really? what are you talking about? have you forgotten everything you ever learned. you think "everyone" knows its disgusting, debased, propaganda? well, you don't get a "pass" from me on this. the weird, mutated media has turned over like a beaten submissive dog pissing on itself before the republican scum machine that is running mccain's campaign. the media is becoming complicit in the most anti-democratic presidential election campaign i have ever witnessed. and i started following presidential campaigns since 1963!
the press seems to have decided that lies get equal time with the truth. when you call out lies and distortion that's not bias, it is righteous and courageous. what is this fear all about?
It was obvious that the insult was deliberate. The audience understood that. It is amazing of the folks here cannot understand the intended insult. Old Fish referenced McCain.
Jane said any women with a half of brain would have seen it was not intended. So that means any woman who sees the pig with lipstick comment, as an insult to Palin is stupid. Keep it up folks. Obama keeps complaining that McCain thinks Americans are stupid if they agree with him.
This is real smart to call anyone who does not agree with Obama stupid. This is a meme. That if you are not totally sold on the Obama campaign, we are stupid.
Obama seems to have forgotten that he is no longer in a Democratic primary. He is now trying to convince the American electorate to vote for him. Continuing to insult Americans that they are stupid is not they way to get us to vote for him. He has insulted mayors, women, small towns, gun lovers and religious people. This is the guy who says he wants to represent us?
The hard-core supporters have spread every slime ball story they could think off hoping it would stick against this woman. Other than insults about Biden’s hair plugs and his tendency toward gaffes, no one has tried to denigrate Biden.
See the comparison. The left occupy no moral high ground and neither do the right. But Americans are watching carefully now and they like Palin and see the venomous attacks and think why?
This does not reflect well on Democrats. But if supporters believe that demolishing the political enemy is more important than winning, keep it up.
Once Obama's in the WH, I'm sure people will also be saying how he screwed up during the general and still has to deal with McCain in the Senate, as opposed to vanquishing him from the planet for-evah.
I am not sure how this is actually meant to respond to what I said but I will try to clarify. How one wins is important, especially in a primary. Its important in terms of money. Its important in terms of time. And perhaps most importantly, its important in terms of how well one is able to communicate their message to the public.
I happen to think that there is ample evidence that Obama was actually helped by the long primary process especially in terms of registration numbers in late voting states. But I think it is an error to think that limping to the finish the way he did not also cost him some important advantages in the general. I mentioned a few of them in my previous comment and there are a few more.
Talking about the general, how one wins is important in terms of mandate, and down ticket races and the progressive agenda and for many other reasons.
Now besides all that is the very obvious point that the primary is not the same as the general. It involves a lot more people who don't follow the issues nearly as closely and so controlling the narrative is even more important.
The Obama campaign certainly deserves a lot of credit for what they have achieved so far but none of that changes the realities that we can all see in front of us. McCain is controlling this conversation. That hurts Obama's chances. There is nothing wrong in saying so. Obama has some major advantages but he can still lose this. No point in pretending otherwise.
Let's be honest though, RAH, you do seem pretty stupid. Or your post is some type of parody. Seriously, that is one of the worst thought-out posts I've seen in quite some time.
"Still we should call this what is--whining, complaining and fake-ass outrage."
It's not whether the base is outraged. As Nixon once said, paraphrased, "heck with them, they don't vote for us anyway".
What one ought to be worried about is if there are swing voters out there who wrinkle their brow at the comment.
Obama had a handful of, shall we say, unfortunate phrasings during the primaries.
Of *COURSE* he didn't mean them to be sexist or anything.
And yet this (can we call it an unfortunate phrasing) is an example that fits a pattern.
Maybe the previous unfortunate phrasings were not, in fact, jabs.
But, man, chicks get all sorts of crazy about the littlest things. It may be worth Obama's time to consider whether this or that colorful and folksy phrase might result in Obama defenders getting all huffy and saying stuff like "of course he didn't mean that!"
How does that illustrate your point? I'm not a Democrat you idiot. I just point out stupidity whenever I can, and your post was really, really dumb. You didn't even seem like you believed it.
"Obama keeps complaining that McCain thinks Americans are stupid if they agree with him."
I mean, really, you don't truly believe this, do you? Obama has been complaining that Americans who agree with McCain are stupid? Care to show where you came up with this conclusion?
Obama has been stating that John McCain must think Americans are stupid with the way he has tried to pander to them. Quite different, I'd say.
Let me count the ways, Todd. You don’t rationally argue my comment you just claim I am stupid. See since you have difficulty in understanding, calling someone stupid because they disagree with you is insulting.
Insulting people is a good way for them to decide that they won’t vote for Obama.
I like forward for you to continue to demonstrate that.
I didn't even disagree with everything you said, you just happened to go about it in an intellectually dishonest way. That was obvious. What else is obvious is the fact that you wouldn't vote for Obama regardless. I'm not voting in the upcoming election, so fuck off, idiot.
Good point Stacy. But it is never a good idea to claim Americans are stupid. I have watched the videos and rally speeches and he implies if Americans do not think McCain is pandering they are stupid. So, yes I do take it that way.
It is good to try to see the view from both sides, but Obama is not outreaching here. His education address was a good example of outreach, which is good positive campaigning. McCain on the stump is showing by past examples his reform mantra but talking about earmarks stopped. Palin has a real message of reform since she did just that. These are a strong message based on deeds and not just talk.
Obama should stop complaining about McCain stealing the change message and just promote his message of what he will do to change the government.
Obama had a handful of, shall we say, unfortunate phrasings during the primaries.
Well no. We shall not say that because "we" do not agree that that is the case.
And yet this (can we call it an unfortunate phrasing) is an example that fits a pattern.
Once again, "we" cannot cdall it an unfortunate phrasing because "we" do not agree that there is anything wrong with his phrasing. It is possible however that it does fit some non-existent and imaginary pattern.
It may be worth Obama's time to consider whether this or that colorful and folksy phrase might result in Obama defenders getting all huffy and saying stuff like "of course he didn't mean that!"
You're right. That might be something to consider. Then again, it might not. I think probably not. The thing to consider might actually be that no matter what one says, a campaign built like McCain's will find a way to twist the plain meaning of words and try to create false controversies. Indeed I think a ban on "this or that folksie phrase" will not change that dynamic at all.
I think we should drill--oh wait, that's not today's talking point? What is it? Oh SEXISM! DRILL SEXISM! oh wait, I got that wrong, what does John McCain want the liberal media talking about today?
"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."
"She's got the kitchen sink flying, and the china flying, and the, you know, the buffet is coming at me"
(and my favorite)
"periodically, when feeling down, launches attacks"
I'm not really inclined to argue whether they did, in fact, hold some secret anti-chick sentiment.
I'm just saying that if a chick out there got all huffy and pre-menstrual over how sexist these statements were, I'd know better than to try to argue otherwise because you just can't reason with women when they get a certain way.
It wasn't obvious to me, at all. But lets accept, for the sake of argument, that this is a reasonable interpretation. I mean, so what if McCain used the phrase, and one of his ex-campaign staffers wrote a book using that phrase in the title? It's different this time.
So then: Is John McCain really the guy to lecture us about propriety? The guy that got a nice laugh out of it when he was asked how we "beat the bitch?" (referring to Hillary?). The guy who joked about Janet Reno being Chelsea's father? The guy who used the exact same phrase when referring to Hillary Clinton directly (which we now must interpret as cruel sexism)?
McCain has not exactly been the paragon of gender propriety. It does come to resemble the sort of straight-ish talk that we are now coming to expect, where he means one thing one day and another thing another day.
The complaint seems like a ridiculous stretch to me already, but when you pile on McCain's history, this just smells rotten. It sounds like he is whining that Obama might get be trying to do things that he likes to do, which is, of course, deeply deeply unfair to him.
(Oh, and the deference thing? I thought they were mavericks! The whole point of being a maverick is that you don't put the established order, or process, or other people, on a pedestal. Demanding deference is about the least mavericky think you could do.)
Woman makes a joke about wearing lipstick. Man makes a joke about pigs and lipstick less than a week later.
And my daughter is wearing lipstick today! She must be a secret operative for...um....one of the campaigns.
This notion that Palin owns all references to lipstick after describing herself as a pitbull is silly. Retroactively all uses of "lipstick on a pig" are now held to be insulting to Palin's femininity as well?
How can you not see they are connect? I do not believe it makes Obama sexist. I do believe it was a slap in the face or a kick in the shins or maybe throwing a rock and hiding their hand as has been stated.
That reassures me, given how well the "everything that happens is a slap in the face/kick in the shins/poke in the eye/noogie in the noggin to Hillary" meme went over. Let McCain pick it up. "Barack Obama ate a chicken sandwich today--a clear attack on John McCain who referred to chicken feed only a week ago." Poor fings.
It was obvious that the insult was deliberate.
The point isn't whether insult could possibly be read into the remark. (As with anything, it could, but it's pretty damn silly to take a common expression and whine about it.) The point is that the Republicans retiring to their fainting couch at the use of an expression found in the mouth of both McCain and Cheney is silly in the extreme, and we are going to call it silly. Silly. And disingenuous. And desperate. And they think the voters are extremely stupid.
Ironically I'm pretty sure Palin would not be swooning with a hand to her forehead and whimpering about how mean the boys were. But since she doesn't emerge to actually say anything not read off a teleprompter, we'll just have to speculate.
If we call her a "pitbull in lipstick" is that considered mean and degrading to women? Where exactly is the line across which all these Tennessee fainting goats must collapse?
The point is that the Republicans retiring to their fainting couch at the use of an expression found in the mouth of both McCain and Cheney is silly in the extreme, and we are going to call it silly.
In the future, I will wait before writing a poorly composed version of a sentiment that can be expressed so much more clearly, and with greater entertainment value. I shall now retire to my very own fainting couch for a good swoon.
Look, since the Palin pick, McCain's campaign has been Johnny on the spot to cry "sexism!" or "demeaning to women!!!" at anything and everything that came out of the Obama campaign. This has been very obvious from the get-go. It's clear that what they were looking for was something that would gain traction with the media, and now that they sense they have it, they're going 100mph.
It's so incredibly transparent, and yet, people fall for it left and right. If the country elects McCain/Palin, we'll deserve them both and then some.
Well, Jake, its yet to be seen if people are falling for this one. Given the track record, we could probably assume so, but I think McCain might have overreached here. I hope I'm right...
The difference Brad, is that this is the sprint of a Presidential election. Not an insult done years back. This type of colloquiums can be death to a campaign, this fresh in front of the voters. The immediate audience of the crowd is not the real audience and may not be partisan and see things from a different prism.
A candidate has to think about the larger audience. The local audience can be very appreciative of comments that are perceived a different way by others watching on Youtube or cable TV.
The problem for all candidates is being in the bubble; they need hardheaded advisors to burst the bubble so different perspectives can be seen. Obama does not seem to have those advisors, because he makes these errors. It is like he thinks he is so clever to slip in the insults and then say no I am innocent. That is passive aggressive.
For example: The famous statement he made to SF donors that got written up by a sympathetic Huffington Post with audio. He got sandbagged because she did not see the insult in the comment about clinging to religion and guns. It did not seem wrong to her, because she is not a small town person who loves their guns and religion. Candidates need to see thing from the other viewpoint and needs supporters who see that also, so not to make a mistake. Democrats seem to make that more often than Republicans.
A Republican example was the Maaaca comment in Virginia, which was not a televised event but was caught on a cell phone. That destroyed the candidate’s election prospects. That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made.
Watch the colorful sayings and never claim Americans are stupid are rules for a candidate to live by. There is little time to recover from mistakes. Early voting is October 15th.
We are talking about the actual McCain camp calling for an apology over something they comepletely know is bullshit. You haven't seen Obama telling anyone to apologize over anything.
If you're saying the Obama camp hasn't tried to use issues of race to it's advantage, what about the whole "dollar bill" comment, or more recently the Obama's claim that the McCain Camp is behind the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor (see this post from the Volokh Conspiracy: http://volokh.com/posts/1220849368.shtml).
Also, this TNR piece pretty convincintly outlines his campaign's use of race against Hillary.
A sample quote: "The very next morning, Obama's national co-chair, Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., a congressional supporter from Chicago, played the race card more directly by appearing on MSNBC to claim in a well-prepared statement that Clinton's emotional moment on the campaign trail was actually a measure of her deeply ingrained racism and callousness about the suffering poor. "But those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said, "they have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest ... we saw tears in response to her appearance, so that her appearance brought her to tears, but not Hurricane Katrina, not other issues."
So of course Obama has played the race card. It's a damn powerful card to play, and he wants to win. Politics is a rough sport. But it's exceedingly lame to complain about fake outrage over sexism when his supporters, and even his campaign, have done their share of stirring up outrage over imagined racial slights.
This is not to say there haven't been any racist comments made about Obama. The guy who called him uppity, for instance, ought to be ostracized & the Republican Party ought to pull all funding from his campaign, congressional seat be damned.
The difference Brad, is that this is the sprint of a Presidential election.
Two of the three examples that I gave were during the primary season. THIS primary season. Reno aside, these are not some tossed-off comments from "years back." They happened when there was some impending voting to be done, and they happened quite recently. I'm not seeing a real difference (well, except that laughing at calling Hillary a bitch actually does seem somewhat offensive to me), nor am I seeing any less comedy in McCain waving and gesturing madly about this. The fainting couch is the perfect imagery here.
That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made.
"Macaca" was anything but a colloquialism. It was a naked attempt to portray someone who looked different as un-American, despite the fact that he, as I did, grew up right outside of DC. And, it came from someone (Allen) who has a genuinely troubled past when it comes to race: Nooses in the office, open accusations (and plenty of them) from former associates, etc etc.
(FWIW: I've never subscribed to the idea that the word "macaca" was, itself, a specific slur. It was the different-ness that was being mocked, as if Allen had turned to an Asian and called him something like "Chien-Ming-Foo." The word itself was meaningless, while the meaning of the sentiment was very clear, and very, very ugly.)
Let me ask you this...if McCain would have referred to a policy position of Obama's that he felt was being obscured and said something like, "let's just call a spade a spade," this exact scenario would be playing out with the shoe on the other foot. "calling a spade a spade" is an old turn of phrase which has zero to do with racial prejudice, but three decades of observing the PC left says there would be strokes in every news room if that indeed happened.
With a heavy background in radio, what I noticed most was not what he said, but the pregnant pause right after and the reaction of the audience he was speaking to. If it wasn't a slam and they didn't perceive it as such, there wouldn't have been any of the whooping you hear in that sound byte.
I was going to vote for Obama until recently as the lesser of two bad choices. Frankly, I see Palin's addition to the RNC's ticket as very unsettling to him and he doesn't seem to be handling it very well. We'll see if he rallies, but now, the clock is a-tickin'.
As far as false outrage is concerned, it's not false outrage. It's the type of outrage you get when you're co-worker tells you over and over again not to listen to music at your desk because it bothers him, then brings the boss in to punish you for it...then HE gets away with it over and over again. THAT'S the outrage you will see from the right every time someone from the side of the spectrum that brought us all PC (thanks, political progressives).
Frankly, PC has put more of a stranglehold on leadership and problem-solving in this country than any foreign power could hope to muster on their own.
RAH writes: "Continuing to insult Americans that they are stupid is not they way to get us to vote for him."
Writing sentences as poorly constructed as that one is makes you look fairly stupid, RAH, so be careful.
And stop pretending that you're unbiased here. You're a right-winger and your so-called advice for Obama is just silly.
The campaign that is betting on the stupidity of the American voter is the McCain camp with all of this "hockey mom who said no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere" crap. Stupid voters are numerous and appealing to them can win elections. Just look at 2004.
A Republican example was the Maaaca comment in Virginia, which was not a televised event but was caught on a cell phone. That destroyed the candidate’s election prospects. That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made.
except that however obscure, 'macaca' is actually a racial slur, whereas this is just absurd
T-web writes: "If you're saying the Obama camp hasn't tried to use issues of race to it's advantage, what about the whole "dollar bill" comment"
What about it? The McCain campaign had already put Obama's face (distorted, of course) on a dollar bill before he made that comment. Obama's comment was correct.
"This is not to say there haven't been any racist comments made about Obama. The guy who called him uppity, for instance, ought to be ostracized & the Republican Party ought to pull all funding from his campaign, congressional seat be damned."
That's the last thing the GOP would do. The only racist I can recall them ever denouncing is David Duke. They lionized vicious old bastards like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms as great men and almost reelected Macaca Allen in Virginia. The party has been riding the racist train for 40 years and it's not about to get off just yet.
Allen was an ass, and his opponent was sharp likable man. I never knew what the term "Macaca" meant but it was meant derisively. But it destroyed his chances since it was in the heat of the race. Many people pay no attention to politics until after Labor Day. That is why this can hurt worse than a laugh at calling Hillary a bitch eight months ago. It was not a statement made at a rally when McCain laughed, but it was for Obama. There are fewer distractions since we are down to two nominees and mistakes are amplified.
There are fewer distractions since we are down to two nominees and mistakes are amplified.
As a matter of analysis, saying that a mistake in September is worse than one in April is correct.
But that doesn't diminish the laughable hypocrisy of McCain, himself, rending garments and gnashing teeth about doing something (possibly, if you look at it in just the right light) that he repeatedly does.
That's what never ceases to amaze me. It's as if McCain's history of attacks and behavior doesn't exist. He attacks on experience, and manages to pick a Veep who is even less experienced. Now, he's attacking on gender sensitivity, when just a few months ago, he was literally employing the same turn of phrase, against a woman, that he now finds offensive. (And I hate to use the phrase "literally!").
Look, either they're tough, maverick reformers, or they are wilting violets who need an apology for any imaginable slight. Demanding an apology here (directly from the campaign!) might be a winning electoral strategy, but to me it comes off as a weak, whiny ploy, and it undermines the image they are trying to craft.
As a Republican voting for Obama this election, let me give you a little insight into this. First off, I am sexist. There, I said it. You got me. Point noted, I will not argue with you. I'm probably a little racist, too, if we got right down to it. If pushed, I wouldn't claim otherwise. That said, every Democrat (or Progressive or Green or Independent) that I know is sexist too. And probably a little racist. But they have so much social capital tied up in trying to appear otherwise, to toe the unimaginably stringent party line in every regard, that they can and will never admit it. Never cop to it for a minute. It would be social - and political - death. That's why it's so delicious to see it out there on full display with everyone watching. Because you know it exists, it's just so completely sublimated under all the PC garbage absorbed in the social contract you enter into as a left-leaning American.
For what it's worth, as others above mentioned, Obama was not calling Palin a pig, he was calling her the lipstick on the pig that is the McCain Campaign/economic plan. He's right. She is just that: window dressing. But he could have chosen a less sexually charged metaphor (deck chairs on the Titanic?) to get that point across. He is not an incautious speaker. He chose that specific metaphor to tie into Palin's earlier lipstick reference but also to throw back a little bit of macho putdown after his evisceration in her convention speech. Was it sexist? Yeah, a bit. Do I care? If Obama is going to stand there and say he's not sexist at all and that this is phony outrage blah, blah, blah, yeah, I do care. Because he's lying. If you hold yourself up as somehow better than your opponent because you're more sensitive to the historical tropes of oppression of the weak or less fortunate, then you slip comfortably right into those same tropes, hey dude, you're going to get some serious smackdown, and deservedly so. Whether right or wrong, if you claim a mantle of enlightenment vis-a-vis race and/or gender relations, as Obama and most Deomcrats do, you are then held to a higher standard in those arenas. If you don't like it, tough shit, them's the breaks.
That is why this can hurt worse than a laugh at calling Hillary a bitch eight months ago.
Except that referring to McCain's attempts to spin himself as a change agent "as putting lipstick on a pig" is in no way analogous to laughing at the reference to Clinton or any other woman as a bitch. Your imaginative reinterpretation of Obama's remarks notwithstanding, this particular bit of nonsense will not have the effect that you suggest. Already today I have see Republican strategists trying to back away from this fanciful interpretation, I suspect, because they know it makes them look ridiculous and severely damages their credibility.
So my unsolicited advice to you would be to hold on to this flatly ridiculous argument as long as you are able. My advice to any Republican spokespeople who may be reading is to associate McCain as closely as possible to this argument. Keep repeating it and keep assuming that they can actually sell this interpretation to the American public. Keep believing that they do not look at all absurd. They overshot with this and that is becoming obvious but I certainly hope that you don't take my word for it.
I'll put it this way... if HRC's campaign couldn't get any traction with legitimate complaints of sexism, how is the McCain campaign going to get anywhere with questionable ones?
There is one way for the Obama camp to end this bullshit. Obama, Biden and all their surrogates need to repeat a simple playground epithet for which there is no reply but to shut up, or blow up:
For what it's worth, as others above mentioned, Obama was not calling Palin a pig, he was calling her the lipstick on the pig that is the McCain Campaign/economic plan.
What is your evidence that he was talking about Sarah Palin... at all.
But he could have chosen a less sexually charged metaphor (deck chairs on the Titanic?) to get that point across.
Setting aside that those metaphors do not mean the same thing, and I assume that you don't mean sexually charged but rather gender-based, it is not reasonably interpreted as having anything to do with gender at all. In fact, thinking about it now, there is something especially odd about even bringing gender into this that I didn't think about before. It is the Republicans who are trying desperately to make a fuss out of this who are associating both women in general and Palin in particular with pigs. The idiom can be applied to any policy or attempt to spin the truth. Its Republicans who leapt to the notion that it had anything to do with Governor Palin at all.
Practically every article written about Palin since her speech has mentioned the "pitbull with lipstick" line. Obama was referencing that and the crowd knew it. Go watch the actual tape of his remarks. He says, "You can put lipstick on a pig..." and then pauses to let the crowd laugh and cheer before finishing the saying. I can't decide if the people pretending Obama didn't know what he was saying are giving him too much credit, or too little.
I can't decide if the people pretending Obama didn't know what he was saying are giving him too much credit, or too little.
That is a tough decision. I feel for you. But maybe you should also wonder whether your your interpretation of the crowd's reaction is correct. Like perhaps the possibility that being sentient human beings who have been immersed in the English language their whole lives, they knew the idiom and laughed because they knew what he was saying before he finished saying it. That was certainly my sense of it but then I don't have the ability to read the minds of individual people in a crowd in a video. Now I know that just makes your whole decision calculus just that much more complex but I am confident you can handle it.
For further evidence of RAH's reliability, consider this:
"A Republican example was the Maaaca comment in Virginia, which was not a televised event but was caught on a cell phone. That destroyed the candidate’s election prospects. That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made."
He got just about all of it wrong. The event was filmed with an actual CAMERA - Allen knew he was being recorded and he stupidly decided to mock the non-white cameraman. As far as having his election prospects "destroyed," he lost in an extremely close election because Republicans don't really mind noose-collecting idiots who use racial slurs publicly. And anyone with any real sense who watched the tape knew immediately that "Macaca" was some sort of racial slur, even if we'd never seen it before. (I had, and I wasn't the only one.)
So why would anyone trust RAH's analysis here? And what are Republicans kicking about, really? They vote for pigs on a regular basis.
Until Barack Obama dumps Michelle for a cuter, richer woman and jokes that Megan McCain is so ugly because Phyllis Schafly is her father, John McCain has no business lecturing anyone on the evils of sexism.
...has mentioned the "pitbull with lipstick" line.
Oh, man. Someone called her a dog wearing lipstick? Ouch! I want the person that made that sexist, demeaning comment to apologize to the McCain camp immediately!
I think the McCain campaign has overplayed their hand on this one. Plenty of Republicans who have said the same thing themselves are thinking, 'Really?'. They'll see all the outrage, and McCain Campaign playing the victim, and they are going to be saying to themselves, 'You lost me.'
Obama is supposedly a master of words and he knew the crowds’ reaction. He meant the implication. He just was not wise to think he can get away with this in general election.
Please see the youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM&feature= just after the Philadelphia debate two days earlier about Hilary Clinton. It was sly gesture of the middle finger as he talked about Hilary and the crowd cheered. They knew what he was saying in the gesture and approved. He does this type of stuff among his supporters and is still acting like the American electorate is the same as his supporters when half is not even Democrats. He only received about 50% of the Democratic Party support when he won.
The perception of his personal insults is damaging his campaign. He had to spend time today to address this issue and is losing the message among the press.
Foolish to indulge in this type of petty insults when he is facing a challenge.
But if all of you don’t agree, that is fine because like the smear on Daily Kos helped Palin get her message to a 37 million audience of Americans and made her the most talked about person in politics today.
However McCain has gone as far as they can and should refrain from further complaining and ads on this issue, she can handle this herself.
Obama should unapologetically use the lipstick-on-a-pig line in every speech between now and the election. The more times it is repeated and the more attention it gets, the more people will internalize the association between McCain's "change" jive and lipstick on a pig. This is how branding works. And if Obama drops it during one of the debates, McCain will get the vapors.
Shorter Brad L: We're Tough, Maverick Wilting Violets!
Someone should make a T-shirt...
It does occur to me that the McCain group probably has several things going on here beyond the obvious:
1. Dominate a news cycle
2. Try and nab some still-angry Hillary people
3. Someone associated with McCain will say something stupid (see the head of the college Republicans this week), so the more news they make about "hey, we're offended too" the more hope they have of everyone tuning out by then.
4. The age issue. Where McCain is very vulnerable--he forgot how many houses he owns, and while it's being cast in the "too rich to remember" mold "too old to remember" lurks close behind. McCain has made too many Suni/Shia/whatever slips--they want the chance to go ape on any agism that might suggest itself, in the hopes that more won't follow. (I doubt Obama will go there explicitly because of the fact that seniors vote in high numbers. But the 527s are acomin'....and whom amongst us trusts MoveOn not to get stupid?)
In the "uppity" thread, I mentioned Obama needs to act like Jackie Robinson-esque. Retaliate, but not immediately in the heat of the moment. (I had suggested that Obama make age or adultery references to Mccain policies, and then question the manhood of the McCain campaign when they started complaining). Well, he takes a swipe at McCain-Palin, the McCain campaign claims outrage, the MSM starts laughing at the McCain campaign. Don't be surprised if the new meme is that the McCain campaign, besides being stone cold liars, are a bunch of pansies who can't take a punch. ("politics is a rough sport. if the McCain Palin campaign can't face criticism for their policies, they need to find another line of work.")
brent, dude, come on. BHO is not an idiot. He knew exactly what he was saying when he trotted out this metaphor. Watch the video. He's savoring the line. He's savoring the crowd reaction. And, btw, I'm not sure if you know this, but lipstick is a cosmetic product that women apply to their lips to enhance their sexual attractiveness. I'll grant you that maybe the statement is more gender-based than sexually charged, but dude, he was referring to Palin. And again, as I said, he's right. I agree with the statement. McCain is putting lipstick (Sarah Palin) on the pig that is his boring old white guy campaign (I don't think deck chairs is that far off, but OK, I'll give it to you). As everyone's said, it's a Hail Mary pass, a huge gamble, etc. It's an act of absolute desperation, his only shot. Obama, if he were smart, would not have taken the bait. His response (and all the Democrats') should have been: "Sarah Palin? Huh, who's that? Isn't she the mayor of Juneau? Oh, Governor of Alaska, hmm. Well, I don't know anything about her, but I'm sure John McCain has his reasons for the choice." And then shut the fuck up. But, of course, the idiots can't help themselves, and they're setting us up for another four years of old white guy time. Thanks, Democrats!!
And please, can't we declare a moratorium on "Rovian". Karl Rove is neither a genius nor a master campaigner nor an omniscient satanic force. He's a Best Buy regional manager or a General Mills market researcher. He's Dilbert, at best. He looks formidable because he's playing against two-year-olds.
@RAH: I've seen the video and he scratched his friggin' nose. With two fingers. You're getting into the silly season now, and the fact that Obama gets cheers from crowds all the time--including memorably when he had to pause a speech to blow his nose--may be proof that we are an easily entertained people, but not that there is always a grand conspiracy in hand to insult someone or other via secret code phrases and gestures. We just tend to cheer and laugh a lot.
And I'm with the poster above who says use this line more. Tie the lipstick on a pitbull ticket to their lipstick on a pig Bush 3 policies. They invited the comparison when they used the lipstick formulation. (Alas, had they but gone with mascara all would be different....) And let them continue clutching their pearls and disavowing every single Republican (including, I would lay money, Palin, if only she had a larger YouTube genre) who has ever used the phrase with its commonly accepted meaning and didn't realize they were insulting poor Sarah. (Who may at some point emerge to shoot this 'help help I'm being oppressed' bs like an unlucky moose, but so long as she's under wraps from an insufficiently deferential press she's stuck with the image of her Schmidt wants to paint.)
brent, dude, come on. BHO is not an idiot. He knew exactly what he was saying when he trotted out this metaphor.
You are right on a couple of things. BHO is not an idiot and he did know what he was saying. It seems, on the other hand, that it is you do not have any idea what he was saying.
Watch the video. He's savoring the line. He's savoring the crowd reaction.
Which tells you what? I know that a number of posters on here seem to believe that they are mind readers but how does the crowd reacting to a pretty common joke imply that it has anything to do with Sarah Palin at all. I wonder for instance if you have exactly the same interpretation of this remark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c&feature=iv. In that video, McCain uses the exact same line, the crowd laughs and in fact he never even states the punch line. Now it is pretty clear that he is not talking about either Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton in that piece and yet people thought it was funny. People actually think that phrase is funny even when it is clearly a discussion of policy disagreements. Strange huh?
And, btw, I'm not sure if you know this, but lipstick is a cosmetic product that women apply to their lips to enhance their sexual attractiveness.
BTW, I am not sure if you are aware of this but the idiom, "lipstick on a pig," is used to describe policies and spin and all sorts of things that have no gender association at all. It has been used in that gender neutral way for at least several decades. So saying it is "gender charged" is a flatly inaccurate claim.
but dude, he was referring to Palin
I have asked you for evidence of this assertion. You have merely asserted it again while not providing that evidence. This is not persuasive.
Just a rhetorical thing here: while I agree that the charges of sexism are silly, do we have enough ground to say so given that quite a few people bounced on the community organizer = racist dogwhistle angle?
I just don't think it's plausible that most people who heard the line didn't immediately think of Palin. From what's being reported by various news organizations, most democrats thought immediately that it was funny in that context, but probably an ill advised line. I've seen it reported that way in the Telegraph and on Slate.
You don't have to mean it to allow the connotation to be implied and Obama had to know how it would sound. He is capable of nuance.
It was a good line too. I'd have more respect for Obama if he admitted that the interpretation was possible and just apologized for any offense.
From what's being reported by various news organizations, most democrats thought immediately that it was funny in that context, but probably an ill advised line. I've seen it reported that way in the Telegraph and on Slate.
I haven't heard of a single dem making the claim that that is what they immediately thought. Cite please.
stc1 writes: "Obama was not calling Palin a pig, he was calling her the lipstick on the pig that is the McCain Campaign/economic plan. He's right. She is just that: window dressing. But he could have chosen a less sexually charged metaphor (deck chairs on the Titanic?) to get that point across. He is not an incautious speaker. He chose that specific metaphor to tie into Palin's earlier lipstick reference but also to throw back a little bit of macho putdown after his evisceration in her convention speech. Was it sexist? Yeah, a bit. Do I care? If Obama is going to stand there and say he's not sexist at all and that this is phony outrage blah, blah, blah, yeah, I do care. Because he's lying."
So who was he talking about when he used THE EXACT SAME PHRASE before Palin was picked?
Thankfully, this silly story is turning the news cycle. The stories on Palin are starting to trend negative, zomg questions are being asked, the press is starting to take the abuse personally, leading up to the Charlie interview which will be a huge fucking farse ala the Clinton/Obama debate!
I cannot believe (well, I would like not to believe) that all this discussion is taking place about a goddam comment about lipstick and a pig, when there are still Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy is in the shitter, jobs are being lost by the score on a daily basis, banks are falling apart, the government budget is nearly half a trillion dollars in the red FOR ONE YEAR, people are losing their homes at a rate not seen in 75 years, the US is torturing people, and the idiots in Washington are screwing folks in the oil companies that are screwing us.
The most comments I have ever seen on this site are about a fucking silly comment by Obama.
No wonder Bush got elected twice. Jesus Christ on a freaking popsicle stick.
The comment was an obvious double entendre. Obama has been pulling this bullshit during the entire election. Does anyone remember the JayZ-gesture, flicking the dirt (Hillary) off his collar, the use of "99 Problems But a Bitch Ain't One." No? You don't remember the way he baited Hillary all during the primaries? Periodically? The Kitchen sink? The china?
The funny thing is that you don't remember that either because it never actually happened. Although I suppose it is theoretically possible to remember something you that you only imagined happening.
Periodically?
Yes, I do remember him using the term periodically. I have probably used the word myself a few hundred times, sometimes in front of actual women, but my hatred of women still seems to go unnoticed somehow. Strange that.
The Kitchen sink?
I do remember Clinton's campaign often referring the kitchen sink as a way of describing their strategy. I supposed it is possible that Obama used it as well. But of course, I am sure he could have only meant it in a way that revealed his deep, deep misogyny. Indeed why would anyone even use that term (except for Clinton and her people of course) unless they were somehow talking about women.
Obama's gonna lose. You are all fucking clueless.
Both are always possible but there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between those two statements.
I wanted to post this article here because it seems the GOP is employing a two-pronged plan to win this election. First they will smear Obama to obscure the facts and barring that they'll challenge every vote cast for him to once again have an appointed president. Mr. Coates you have a very diverse audience its important that audience sees the lengths the GOP will go to win. I don't have a problem with fighting to win I wish Obama would fight harder, but I think the bullying, underhanded tactics of the GOP should give everyone pause.
Two further thoughts on this and how the McCain camp may come to regret their theatrics:
First, we already have the "Palin isn't ready for prime time so they don't let her out without a teleprompter" meme. This story, with the entire GOP including Jane Swift having a collective fainting fit on poor dear Governor Palin's behalf while Palin remains cloaked from that notorious lack of deference--not a good combination.
Second, the one time I agreed with Palin was her criticism of Hillary for complaining of sexism--that of course it's there but you don't win by complaining about it. (For example, no one remembers Thatcher or Meir complaining, and it's not because the eras they won in were misogyny-free.) This whole pearl-clutching thing seems very unPalin. Now, I believe Palin is disciplined and willing to do what it takes to win--but is Steve Schmidt's idea of what the role the delicate female candidate should play going to fly with Palin for the next 8 weeks? They adapted from their earlier "look a woman" theme to "pitbull with lipstick and she shoots moose"; this seems like going backward.
Obama's first mistake was believing Americans by and large were smart enough to see past this nonsense.... People were looking for any reason not to vote for him other than the obvious one..
The second mistake was not to unleash the 527's left and right... This dude goes to war with the Al Qaeda of American politics and leaves the Navy Seals and Army Rangers at home... This is one reason people are iffy on him, if he can't handle these high school insults from fake political thugs, how the hell is he gonna handle real thugs?
I've been noting the irony that Meghan McCain can give interviews and Sarah Palin cannot and now, per Wonkette:
Because when some reporter asked her about Pigdildostickgate and whether she thought Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig (btw, why do reporters have to ask people this question when it’s an established fact that Barack Obama didn’t?), she said she didn’t and — here’s the good part — “I’ve heard my dad say that, the term ‘lipstick on a pig.’”
I think you can fairly attribute two meanings to the statement-the clearly stated one that McCain adding the word "change" to his stump speech doesn't change the reality of his policies, and also that adding the new exciting VP pick doesn't change them either-both are there to obscure McCain's record. Neither seems particularly offensive to me.
This response is classic McCain-someone steps on your toes, you call in an ICBM strike. Google McCain's letter to Obama from 2006 excoriating him for some minor spat over ethics reform. Dude's got a serious temper.
FWIW: I've never subscribed to the idea that the word "macaca" was, itself, a specific slur. It was the different-ness that was being mocked, as if Allen had turned to an Asian and called him something like "Chien-Ming-Foo." The word itself was meaningless, while the meaning of the sentiment was very clear, and very, very ugly.
But, er, it is a specific slur. Specifically, it's a slur which was commonly used by French colonialists, and Allen's mother was, er, a pied-noir. The idea that Allen accidentally stumbled on an obscure French colonialist racial slur, when his mother is a French colonialist, seems to run up against Occam's Razor.
I know the fate of the free world hangs on lipstick, but just in case anyone was curious-in a single week the taxpayers have had to bail out the two firms which are the bedrock of our mortgage market and lehman posted one of the largest losses for any company in history-they will certainly be at the fed window soon looking for a loan, (a loan from the taxpayers mind you). This news was preceeded by wild swings in the market which surely suggests a level of insider trading. THe market has been incredibly volatile because the market itself cannot determine true values in this environment, so prices are all over the place.
But anyway, back to more important things,
So who else is a mindreader and knows exactly what an audience was thinking by watching a videotape?
The idea that Allen accidentally stumbled on an obscure French colonialist racial slur, when his mother is a French colonialist, seems to run up against Occam's Razor.
I think he was reaching, and it popped out of his memory, but not really with a full-blown meaning. That is, I suspect he found the word but not the meaning, and it sounded ridiculous in just the way he was looking for.
This, of course, is all mind-reading, something I don't like to engage in, and I fully acknowledge it as a guess. The reason for my suspicion is that Allen, despite being evil, is also pretty savvy (this gaffe to the contrary), and if he fully recognized that macaca was a specific and recognizable slur, he probably wouldn't have used it. But maybe he would have, if he assumed nobody else would have gotten it. I just don't think so.
It is all also besides the point. The truly offensive thing was not the slur itself, but what was an obvious attempt to humiliate a college kid for looking different (and therefor unAmerican) for his pleasure and the pleasure of his audience.
In point of fact, that may be the only comment in recent memory that has pinned the needle into the red (if you will), for me personally. It was more than insensitive; it was unnecessarily cruel; and the target wasn't his opponent, it was a college kid.
[And, as noted, it was barely enough to help Jim Webb eke out a win here in my home state, for all the hubbub it caused.]
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Obama needs to run the video footage (as seen on Slate) of McCain calling Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan "lipstick on a pig."
Besides, based on the way that Sarah Palin is avoiding the press, it's clear that she's no pig: she's a chicken.
Obama's way ahead of you.
"I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift-boat politics. Enough is enough."
If you put lipstick on a Repiglican, it's still a warmongering cheapskate and a creationist wackaloon.
Andrew's reader with the "What Obama Should Say" pretty much nailed the tone. Enough of this BS, already. McCain overplayed his hand because he is afraid of the growing "Thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere" is the new "Al Gore invented the internet". She was for it before she was against it.
I love the "phony" adjective. McCain's a phony. Let's make certain everyone knows it.
I don't see the press being all over this. I see them treating it the way they treat all controversies. Truth is always in the middle. I have watched two hours of tv news this morning that have asked various members of the Obama campaign to respond to this charge as if it wasn't complete nonsense.
As to Obama's response, the one that Darius links to, I thought it was way too weak. Obama is at a point now when he needs to call McCain out by name and make him defend himself. It is not even close to adequate to say "enough is enough" because that kind of statement:
1. doesn't tie the problem to McCain closely enough
2. doesn't force McCain himself to pay a penalty for his smears
What will happen when McCain smears him again tomorrow with either the same smear or a new one? Will "enough be enough" again?
He needs to force McCain to respond and defend himself. He needs to change this dynamic and soon. A strongly worded statement of principles of fairness and honesty in politics is a sure fire loser.
Mark Halperin ripped into this pretty strongly last night on CNN. He also ripped the media for even giving McCain's faux outrage any airtime. This really is too much. I think McCain has overplayed his hand, and everyone knows this is bullshit. My very conservative co-worker even appeared slightly disgusted this morning when he was unable to defend the McCain camp at all.
I don't see the press being all over this. I see them treating it the way they treat all controversies. Truth is always in the middle.
Even right wing sources like Laura Ingraham have been all over the McCain camp to drop this immediately because they see it is lame, whiney and playing the victim. Scarborough asked former right winger, Linda Douglass to address the issue more publicly, but he was clear in his view that it was an inane complaint.
Any chance at all of tonight's news headlining "John McCain today accused John McCain of being sexist. Also Dick Cheney. Also these other Republicans..."
Former acting Gov Swift claims that they called McCain a smelly fish...I'm hoping for a march of carp, waving signs that say "smelly fish count!"
Actually, the "Kindergarten Sex Ed" commercial is more pathetic than this. McCain is really testing the stupidity of the American people, and the press. Even more so than usual.
Actually, the "Kindergarten Sex Ed" commercial is more pathetic than this.
That ad is absolutely indefensible. It's a disgrace.
You know who came up with that idea before McCain?
1) Alan Keyes
2) Michelle Malkin
3) Tucker Carlson
So, essentially, McCain has handed over the reigns of his campaign to the right-wing-nutosphere.
for the information of uninformed posters, "right winger" linda douglass is now working for the obama campaign. she was hired to be a spokes person.
republicans are tough.
while they don't know jack about running a government, they are geniuses at running political campaigns.
they are bullies and liars and they will do anything to win.
they play chess, while dems are playing checkers.
watching republicans run a campaign against dems is like watching the world series champs play the bad news bears.
no contest.
Gee, the slashing tone of these comments is really amazing and truly worrisome. Any self-restraint left in American life? Evidently not.
frankie d,
Right or wrong, if the Dems ran a similar campaign, it would turn a lot of people off, and they would be called out immediately. People are so used to the Republicans doing this type of thing, and their base doesn't give a shit. It just seems like a tough mold to break out of, but Obama has to start trying a bit harder, I think. I know you've been imploring him to play rougher, and I definitely agree. He doesn't have to be mean-spirited, but definitely needs to be much, much more forceful.
civitas says: "Gee, the slashing tone of these comments is really amazing and truly worrisome."
Yeah, isn't it strange how almost 8 years of watching the country being run into the ground by retarded warmongering incompetent assholes makes people get a little steamed?
I mean, gee!
Fake outrage? Ya, probably. If it was real and intended I wouldn't be outraged. You have to choose to be offended and if someone wants to try to offend me, fair enough, but only I get to decide if I play along.
Was it an intentional double entendre? Sure. How could it not be? You have a woman making a remark about lipstick heard and recited all around the country, and then the guy running against her says something about lipstick on a pig. It's the timing that gives it meaning, not the fact that McCain or 10000 other people have said it.
Can McCain start taking about black people using the n-word all of the sudden because black people have said it in the past? Would that not be interpreted as some kind of slight toward Obama? It could and it would
Should you be OUTRAGED!!! over it? Of course not. No one should be outraged over this either. But the timing makes it clearly a slap in the face. That Obama and McCain have said it before makes it a discreet slap in the face, but it still has to be interpreted with the recent lipstick joke made by Palin in mind.
How else can someone who presumably makes arguments about inherent racism of society believe otherwise? The nuanced claims about white-black racism, how it is inherent, how you don't have to be a full on skinhead to be influenced by racism, etc...
If it doesn't have an element of malicious sexism, it is at the very least a clear attack on Palin, using her gender as a punchline for the delivery of the attack.
Come on, ML&J, we know you're better at spotting trolls than that...
There are a lot of angry people in America, and with good reason -- the country has, in many ways, been going to Hell in a handbasket. The strategic advantage of the Palin pick has been to make McCain/Palin sound more appealing to angry people -- sure they're angry at the phantom Liberal boogeyman, but at least they provide a target for people's anger. And to the extent that the GOP sounds angry, and Obama/Biden say, "Now, everyone just calm down..." people will respond worse to Obama/biden. "Dont' tell me to calm down, goddammit!!"
Well, Obama seems to have found something to be righteously angry about, and it fits pretty well with his consistent rap -- he's angry at divisiveness, lies, and manipulation, and at the people who would wallow in that crap at everyone's expense. If this new tone in Obama's change/reform rap can stick, he'll be able to appeal to a lot of the voter anger that the Palin pick initially tapped into.
"Can McCain start taking about black people using the n-word all of the sudden because black people have said it in the past? Would that not be interpreted as some kind of slight toward Obama? It could and it would."
Seriously? That's your comparison? Try harder.
I can only imagine how thrilled the Republicans must be to finally have a phrase that they can plausibly scream is really a 'dogwhistle'.
Viewing the tape, from the way he pauses for the applause/laughter in the middle it is obvious that "You can put lipstick on a pig" is the joke, not "but it's still a pig." The audience clearly got it and were clapping and hooting at the mention of "lipstick." By denying his insult, Obama "throws a stone and hides his hand," but in a clumsy way that will hurt him.
I can't imagine that anyone would think this was a good way for Obama to win over women who are wavering towards Palin. And following it up with a stinky fish metaphor was classless as well.
Sarah Palin is, of course, the lipstick. It's amazing how many people pretend to miss the analogy.
dems don't even have to stoop to the kind of personal attacks republicans rely on.
they could run tough, hard-edged ads on issues alone, but do not do so.
it appears as though they are afraid to make the kind of emotional appeals that win arguments. it's as though they are ashamed to make those kinds of appeals.
for instance, i cannot understand for one second why obama is not running an ad that incorporates mccain's statement about social security being a disgrace.
it would be extremely simply, truthful and powerful.
it would hit home with tons of voters and especially with seniors.
why hasn't obama pushed that button?
why hasn't he made that emotional appeal?
my guess is that he is afraid of appearing to pander to seniors and therefore he does not want to deal with that criticism.
what he should do is simply what republicans do: ignore the criticism and push forward.
it works.
I can't imagine that anyone would think this was a good way for Obama to win over women who are wavering towards Palin. And following it up with a stinky fish metaphor was classless as well.
I find this comment demeaning to any woman with half a brain.
I can't imagine that anyone would think this was a good way for Obama to win over women who are wavering towards Palin.
Women who are voting for Palin because she's a woman, aren't going to vote for Obama period. I would also bet that many other women who are voting for Palin are like my mother. Abortion is a single issue, and they will under no circumstance vote for a pro-choice candidate. I don't care what McCain/Palin does, or Obama does people like my mother will not vote for Obama.
If I were a republican strategist and the Democratic candidates kept complaining about perceived slights, I would ridicule them for being whiny children not ready to play with the grown-ups.
Why for?
Clearly there are women who identify with Sarah Palin and are moving towards her-- calling her a pig or comparing her or the ticket she is on to stinky fish is not going to win them over. I don't see why you think it is my comment that is demeaning.
Have to disagree with you, Ta-Nehisi. The media has been completely in the bag for Republicans for at least the past eight years. Republicans can say and do things that Democrats would never be able to say. John McCain can personally slander Obama left and right and yet he is "honorable". When Obama attacks McCain, the media asks, "Can you say that about a POW?" I am so sick of this. Why can't the lead story tonight be "McCain Camp Lies About Obama" or, better yet, "McCain Slanders Obama". But it won't happen. They are too busy drooling over Sarah Palin.
Viewing the tape, from the way he pauses for the applause/laughter in the middle it is obvious that "You can put lipstick on a pig" is the joke, not "but it's still a pig." The audience clearly got it and were clapping and hooting at the mention of "lipstick."
The extent to which people feel perfectly comfortable insulting the moral sensibilities of a bunch of people that they know almost nothing about never ceases to amaze me. It couldn't, in your estimation, simply be that people know this well worn idiom and were laughing in anticipation of the punchline. It has to be that this random group of people all simultaneously seized upon the incredibly obscure possibility that Obama was calling Palin a pig and thought it was hilarious. Frankly, I don't even want to know what you find so offensive about references to fish. You make this incredibly insulting set of assumptions and then you actually have the nerve to discuss someone else's lack of class. Unbelievable really.
If all uses of "lipstick" are now going to send Republicans off into a fit of the vapors, they'd best avoid the cosmetics aisle. Passion pink. Big Fatty Lip Plumper. Nude.
Try harder.
Clearly there are women who identify with Sarah Palin and are moving towards her-- calling her a pig or comparing her or the ticket she is on to stinky fish is not going to win them over. I don't see why you think it is my comment that is demeaning.
Sigh.
Because any woman with half a brain will look at the quote in context, in which it is clear that he's neither calling Palin a pig nor a stinky fish. Senator Obama was referring to the policies, not the personalities behind them.
I think the comment was a chess move... good or bad I think the Obama camp knew the comment would garner attention and they where ready with a rebute and they have changed the focus to McCain playing the gender card and now have a reason to unload on McCain and his gender based pick for VP... it was a ploy that seems to be working... I just think that camp is too smart not to know what would happen with a comment like that.
calling her a pig or comparing her or the ticket she is on to stinky fish is not going to win them over
On Planet GOP, that may be what Obama did. On Planet Earth, he compared the McCain/Palin policy platform to "lipstick on a pig" and "stinky fish".
As soon as the GOP returns to Planet Earth, let us know. Hopefully they won't have blown it up or turned it into Waterworld by the time they're ready to join us here.
it was a ploy that seems to be working
What is your evidence of this? All I have seen all day is Obama people being forced to respond to this as if it were a serious issue.
Palin may not be a pig, but in Alaska she's been a Pork Queen. She and her supporters should stop oinking about this.
From today's New York Times,
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics,” Mr. Obama told his supporters here. “That’s just calling the same thing something different.”
With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
In the latest sign of the campaign’s heightened intensity, Mr. McCain’s surrogates responded within minutes and called on Mr. Obama to apologize to Gov. Sarah Palin for the lipstick remark. But to those in the audience, it was clear that Mr. Obama was employing an age-old phrase — lipstick on a pig — and referring to Mr. McCain’s policies. He had not yet mentioned Ms. Palin at that point of his speech.
i get the feeling that obama is running for president in a parallel universe, kinda like jim carrey's truman show.
he's conducting his campaign in that make-believe world, totally oblivious to the reality of what the mccain campaign is doing. and every once in a while, something happens that he cannot ignore and then he perks up, responds and goes back into his parallel universe.
yea, that's it...
the barack show...
Pesto at 2:39 said what I was about to say, better.
Ana, when McCain called Hillary's health care plan lipstick on a pig was he clearly calling Hillary a pig? Or per Palin's ownership of all "lipstick" references was he preemptively calling her a pig before nominating her? Dick Cheney was also preemptively insulting women when he used the term? This is the silliest GOP talking point yet. (As opposed to the teaching sex to kindergarteners lie, which is disgusting. And to think I once admired McCain and was prepared to vote for him this year.)
he's conducting his campaign in that make-believe world, totally oblivious to the reality of what the mccain campaign is doing. and every once in a while, something happens that he cannot ignore and then he perks up, responds and goes back into his parallel universe.
Uh-huh. People said the same things about him in the primary, that he was oblivious to Hillary, that he didn't know how to deal with her, etc.
How'd that work out?
Commenters still don't get it. Yes it was referring to the republican platform. Yes it was also using Palin and the frequently quoted lipstick joke to do so.
Therefore he's getting the dig in twice.
If McCain called Obama "boy" or "son" you can be certain there would be people reading into racial overtones. And the statement would still be true that Obama is a boy in age compared to McCain.
I'll try harder for those who's allegiance blinds them to reality.
If McCain made a crass joke with the overall point being that the democrats policies were nothing more than racial pandering, people would read into it as having some racial overtones. We've already seen people talk about a McCain ad being racist because it showed a white girl -- that was entirely manufactured.
Here is something that relates. Woman makes a joke about wearing lipstick. Man makes a joke about pigs and lipstick less than a week later.
How can you not see they are connect? I do not believe it makes Obama sexist. I do believe it was a slap in the face or a kick in the shins or maybe throwing a rock and hiding their hand as has been stated.
Woman makes a joke about wearing lipstick. Man makes a joke about pigs and lipstick less than a week later.
How can you not see they are connect?
Please, stop it with the stupid. Thanks.
totally distinguishable.
he was working within a democratic electorate.
and a primary race - with 50 different contests, or however many there were - is totally different than a presidential election, with one big election in 50 different locations.
in a primary, organization can trump just about everything. and obama's genius for organization did win the primary contest for him.
i understand exactly what obama is comforting himself with. he is counting on his organization to win the election for him.
as obama should know, and as dems should also know, other matters often intrude in presidential elections.
i will argue this: if the primary season had been structured like a presidential election, with 50 states voting on one day, say, in may or june, i think that hillary would have won. the obliviousness that obama showed would have killed him in such an election, just as it is killing him now.
Uh-huh. People said the same things about him in the primary, that he was oblivious to Hillary, that he didn't know how to deal with her, etc.
How'd that work out?
Actually not so well Jake. He won the race eventually but at a cost. Senator Clinton was able to control a lot of the narrative and for a long time after it was pretty clear that Obama was going to be the nominee, the story was all about her. It didn't cost him the nomination obviously but it did weaken him. It did allow the story for months to revolve around disunity and PUMAs and whether or not he was a sexist and whether or not low education white people would vote for him. All of this was crap he had to contend with and to some extent, is still dealing when he could have been defining McCain and forcing his issues for months.
Actually not so well Jake. He won the race eventually but at a cost. Senator Clinton was able to control a lot of the narrative and for a long time after it was pretty clear that Obama was going to be the nominee, the story was all about her.
Once Obama's in the WH, I'm sure people will also be saying how he screwed up during the general and still has to deal with McCain in the Senate, as opposed to vanquishing him from the planet for-evah.
Would it have been better if he'd changed the joke to, "you can put lipstick on a dog..."? A dog (also schoolyard slang for an ugly woman) is an animal that Gov. Palin has no problem being associated with. (She'd rather be associated with ugly than with fat, I suppose.)
From a "turn about is fair play" standpoint, I don't think Obama supporters have credibility when complaining about cynicism & phony outrage.
We've now been informed that "tall and skinny" is a code word for black (by Tim Noah at Slate), as is "community organizer" (by NY Governor Patterson), which is also a secret code that black people are tring to better their lives and boy do conservatives hate that (by Alterman)! Combine those with the charges that McCain was trying to stir up miscegination fears by including white women in anti-obama ads; and Obama, on this sunday's "This Week," first claiming that the McCain campaign manager was was behind the Obama-as-muslim rumor, only to have to back down when challenged by Stephanopoulos, and Obama supporters really don't have much room to complain about fake outrage.
The left has made identity politics and the assumption of bad will on their opponents part key aspects of how they do business. Complaining when those things are turned around on you isn't going to garner much sympathy, and is just lame, lame, and more lame.
So, essentially, McCain has handed over the reigns of his campaign to the right-wing-nutosphere.
Technically, he did that when he nominated Palin.
I think the real issue here is that a Republican candidate can get away with tons of misogyny, racism, etc. (http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/08/misogyny-yee-ha.html) and get away with it because the media knows it won't change the race.
Why? Because the Republican candidate's core constituency doesn't give a damn.
On the other hand, if a Democrat says something racist, sexist, etc., then s/he's at risk of alienating their core voters.
If you put lipstick on a Repiglican, it's still a warmongering cheapskate and a creationist wackaloon.
He's just prepping for an evening in the public restrooms. Go easy on him!
McCain's camp looks absolutely crazy right now. Look at what they're juggling:
- She was for the bridge to nowhere, before she was against it, which is really her Al Gore invented the internet moment.
- Trying to accuse Obama of being offensive over an innocuous comment (which just so happens to highlight McCain's complete acquiescence to Bush-era policy) on the same day they run an ad accusing Obama of wanting to teach sex-ed to Kindergartners.
- Trying to maintain a press blackout on Palin at the same time they are trying to push a media narrative based on numerous falsehoods.
- Trying to get their VP candidate up to speed on the host of issues she will be debating Joe Biden on in three weeks.
- Hoping that people don't catch on to the fact that change is defined as "to give a different position, course, or direction to" and actually has some contextual meaning.
Forget "hiding your hand". This election has become a four corners offense version of "hide the issues" and run out the clock. This has got to be exhausting for them. There's going to be a hard comedown off this manic phase the campaign seems to be in right now.
On the other hand, if a Democrat says something racist, sexist, etc., then s/he's at risk of alienating their core voters.
Well, duh.
"From a "turn about is fair play" standpoint, I don't think Obama supporters have credibility when complaining about cynicism & phony outrage."
Get the fuck out of here. We are talking about the actual McCain camp calling for an apology over something they comepletely know is bullshit. You haven't seen Obama telling anyone to apologize over anything. Obama has been called a "boy" and "uppity" by two Republican members of Congress. You didn't see him say a word.
Try harder.
How can you not see they are connect?
Shorter Sam: All our base are belong to us!
Seriously, though... comparing this to calling Obama "boy"? Really?
This is really through-the-looking-glass. Wake me when John McCain says something like "Obama accuses me of wanting to raise taxes, which is like the pot calling the kettle black," after Obama used the same phrase in recent memory about someone else (and after one of his ex-campaign members writes a book called "The Pot and the Kettle: a history of GOP smears"), and after the Obama campaign holds their breath and turns red until the news media makes in an all-day hysterical issue.
Then we can talk equivalences.
Now, we're only just talking about the stupid, which burns.
Seriously, you have to try pretty hard to be offended at this.
"I think Republicans get a pass on this shit because everyone knows they're being cynical."
oh really? what are you talking about? have you forgotten everything you ever learned. you think "everyone" knows its disgusting, debased, propaganda? well, you don't get a "pass" from me on this. the weird, mutated media has turned over like a beaten submissive dog pissing on itself before the republican scum machine that is running mccain's campaign. the media is becoming complicit in the most anti-democratic presidential election campaign i have ever witnessed. and i started following presidential campaigns since 1963!
the press seems to have decided that lies get equal time with the truth. when you call out lies and distortion that's not bias, it is righteous and courageous. what is this fear all about?
this is about life and death for god's sake.
The McCain camp may have just "jumped the barracuda" with this one.
It was obvious that the insult was deliberate. The audience understood that. It is amazing of the folks here cannot understand the intended insult. Old Fish referenced McCain.
Jane said any women with a half of brain would have seen it was not intended. So that means any woman who sees the pig with lipstick comment, as an insult to Palin is stupid. Keep it up folks. Obama keeps complaining that McCain thinks Americans are stupid if they agree with him.
This is real smart to call anyone who does not agree with Obama stupid. This is a meme. That if you are not totally sold on the Obama campaign, we are stupid.
Obama seems to have forgotten that he is no longer in a Democratic primary. He is now trying to convince the American electorate to vote for him. Continuing to insult Americans that they are stupid is not they way to get us to vote for him. He has insulted mayors, women, small towns, gun lovers and religious people. This is the guy who says he wants to represent us?
The hard-core supporters have spread every slime ball story they could think off hoping it would stick against this woman. Other than insults about Biden’s hair plugs and his tendency toward gaffes, no one has tried to denigrate Biden.
See the comparison. The left occupy no moral high ground and neither do the right. But Americans are watching carefully now and they like Palin and see the venomous attacks and think why?
This does not reflect well on Democrats. But if supporters believe that demolishing the political enemy is more important than winning, keep it up.
Once Obama's in the WH, I'm sure people will also be saying how he screwed up during the general and still has to deal with McCain in the Senate, as opposed to vanquishing him from the planet for-evah.
I am not sure how this is actually meant to respond to what I said but I will try to clarify. How one wins is important, especially in a primary. Its important in terms of money. Its important in terms of time. And perhaps most importantly, its important in terms of how well one is able to communicate their message to the public.
I happen to think that there is ample evidence that Obama was actually helped by the long primary process especially in terms of registration numbers in late voting states. But I think it is an error to think that limping to the finish the way he did not also cost him some important advantages in the general. I mentioned a few of them in my previous comment and there are a few more.
Talking about the general, how one wins is important in terms of mandate, and down ticket races and the progressive agenda and for many other reasons.
Now besides all that is the very obvious point that the primary is not the same as the general. It involves a lot more people who don't follow the issues nearly as closely and so controlling the narrative is even more important.
The Obama campaign certainly deserves a lot of credit for what they have achieved so far but none of that changes the realities that we can all see in front of us. McCain is controlling this conversation. That hurts Obama's chances. There is nothing wrong in saying so. Obama has some major advantages but he can still lose this. No point in pretending otherwise.
Let's be honest though, RAH, you do seem pretty stupid. Or your post is some type of parody. Seriously, that is one of the worst thought-out posts I've seen in quite some time.
"Still we should call this what is--whining, complaining and fake-ass outrage."
It's not whether the base is outraged. As Nixon once said, paraphrased, "heck with them, they don't vote for us anyway".
What one ought to be worried about is if there are swing voters out there who wrinkle their brow at the comment.
Obama had a handful of, shall we say, unfortunate phrasings during the primaries.
Of *COURSE* he didn't mean them to be sexist or anything.
And yet this (can we call it an unfortunate phrasing) is an example that fits a pattern.
Maybe the previous unfortunate phrasings were not, in fact, jabs.
But, man, chicks get all sorts of crazy about the littlest things. It may be worth Obama's time to consider whether this or that colorful and folksy phrase might result in Obama defenders getting all huffy and saying stuff like "of course he didn't mean that!"
I mean, given the polls and all.
What examples are there of Obama using "unfortunate phrasing" in the primaries that might hint at sexism? Do tell...
Todd thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.
How does that illustrate your point? I'm not a Democrat you idiot. I just point out stupidity whenever I can, and your post was really, really dumb. You didn't even seem like you believed it.
It's a LIPSTICK JUNGLE out there. Pitbulls. Pigs. What's next? I'd place my bet on donkeys or elephants.
Outrage? Try hysterical laughter.
C'mon!
"Obama keeps complaining that McCain thinks Americans are stupid if they agree with him."
I mean, really, you don't truly believe this, do you? Obama has been complaining that Americans who agree with McCain are stupid? Care to show where you came up with this conclusion?
Obama has been stating that John McCain must think Americans are stupid with the way he has tried to pander to them. Quite different, I'd say.
Let me count the ways, Todd. You don’t rationally argue my comment you just claim I am stupid. See since you have difficulty in understanding, calling someone stupid because they disagree with you is insulting.
Insulting people is a good way for them to decide that they won’t vote for Obama.
I like forward for you to continue to demonstrate that.
RAH,
I didn't even disagree with everything you said, you just happened to go about it in an intellectually dishonest way. That was obvious. What else is obvious is the fact that you wouldn't vote for Obama regardless. I'm not voting in the upcoming election, so fuck off, idiot.
brent,
thanks for saying what i've thought, in a way that was much more succinct and on point.
i think that you are absolutely right.
Good point Stacy. But it is never a good idea to claim Americans are stupid. I have watched the videos and rally speeches and he implies if Americans do not think McCain is pandering they are stupid. So, yes I do take it that way.
It is good to try to see the view from both sides, but Obama is not outreaching here. His education address was a good example of outreach, which is good positive campaigning. McCain on the stump is showing by past examples his reform mantra but talking about earmarks stopped. Palin has a real message of reform since she did just that. These are a strong message based on deeds and not just talk.
Obama should stop complaining about McCain stealing the change message and just promote his message of what he will do to change the government.
Obama had a handful of, shall we say, unfortunate phrasings during the primaries.
Well no. We shall not say that because "we" do not agree that that is the case.
And yet this (can we call it an unfortunate phrasing) is an example that fits a pattern.
Once again, "we" cannot cdall it an unfortunate phrasing because "we" do not agree that there is anything wrong with his phrasing. It is possible however that it does fit some non-existent and imaginary pattern.
It may be worth Obama's time to consider whether this or that colorful and folksy phrase might result in Obama defenders getting all huffy and saying stuff like "of course he didn't mean that!"
You're right. That might be something to consider. Then again, it might not. I think probably not. The thing to consider might actually be that no matter what one says, a campaign built like McCain's will find a way to twist the plain meaning of words and try to create false controversies. Indeed I think a ban on "this or that folksie phrase" will not change that dynamic at all.
I think we should drill--oh wait, that's not today's talking point? What is it? Oh SEXISM! DRILL SEXISM! oh wait, I got that wrong, what does John McCain want the liberal media talking about today?
The unfortunate phrasings from the primaries:
"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."
"She's got the kitchen sink flying, and the china flying, and the, you know, the buffet is coming at me"
(and my favorite)
"periodically, when feeling down, launches attacks"
I'm not really inclined to argue whether they did, in fact, hold some secret anti-chick sentiment.
I'm just saying that if a chick out there got all huffy and pre-menstrual over how sexist these statements were, I'd know better than to try to argue otherwise because you just can't reason with women when they get a certain way.
It was obvious that the insult was deliberate.
It wasn't obvious to me, at all. But lets accept, for the sake of argument, that this is a reasonable interpretation. I mean, so what if McCain used the phrase, and one of his ex-campaign staffers wrote a book using that phrase in the title? It's different this time.
So then: Is John McCain really the guy to lecture us about propriety? The guy that got a nice laugh out of it when he was asked how we "beat the bitch?" (referring to Hillary?). The guy who joked about Janet Reno being Chelsea's father? The guy who used the exact same phrase when referring to Hillary Clinton directly (which we now must interpret as cruel sexism)?
McCain has not exactly been the paragon of gender propriety. It does come to resemble the sort of straight-ish talk that we are now coming to expect, where he means one thing one day and another thing another day.
The complaint seems like a ridiculous stretch to me already, but when you pile on McCain's history, this just smells rotten. It sounds like he is whining that Obama might get be trying to do things that he likes to do, which is, of course, deeply deeply unfair to him.
(Oh, and the deference thing? I thought they were mavericks! The whole point of being a maverick is that you don't put the established order, or process, or other people, on a pedestal. Demanding deference is about the least mavericky think you could do.)
Woman makes a joke about wearing lipstick. Man makes a joke about pigs and lipstick less than a week later.
And my daughter is wearing lipstick today! She must be a secret operative for...um....one of the campaigns.
This notion that Palin owns all references to lipstick after describing herself as a pitbull is silly. Retroactively all uses of "lipstick on a pig" are now held to be insulting to Palin's femininity as well?
How can you not see they are connect? I do not believe it makes Obama sexist. I do believe it was a slap in the face or a kick in the shins or maybe throwing a rock and hiding their hand as has been stated.
That reassures me, given how well the "everything that happens is a slap in the face/kick in the shins/poke in the eye/noogie in the noggin to Hillary" meme went over. Let McCain pick it up. "Barack Obama ate a chicken sandwich today--a clear attack on John McCain who referred to chicken feed only a week ago." Poor fings.
It was obvious that the insult was deliberate.
The point isn't whether insult could possibly be read into the remark. (As with anything, it could, but it's pretty damn silly to take a common expression and whine about it.) The point is that the Republicans retiring to their fainting couch at the use of an expression found in the mouth of both McCain and Cheney is silly in the extreme, and we are going to call it silly. Silly. And disingenuous. And desperate. And they think the voters are extremely stupid.
Ironically I'm pretty sure Palin would not be swooning with a hand to her forehead and whimpering about how mean the boys were. But since she doesn't emerge to actually say anything not read off a teleprompter, we'll just have to speculate.
If we call her a "pitbull in lipstick" is that considered mean and degrading to women? Where exactly is the line across which all these Tennessee fainting goats must collapse?
The point is that the Republicans retiring to their fainting couch at the use of an expression found in the mouth of both McCain and Cheney is silly in the extreme, and we are going to call it silly.
In the future, I will wait before writing a poorly composed version of a sentiment that can be expressed so much more clearly, and with greater entertainment value. I shall now retire to my very own fainting couch for a good swoon.
Look, since the Palin pick, McCain's campaign has been Johnny on the spot to cry "sexism!" or "demeaning to women!!!" at anything and everything that came out of the Obama campaign. This has been very obvious from the get-go. It's clear that what they were looking for was something that would gain traction with the media, and now that they sense they have it, they're going 100mph.
It's so incredibly transparent, and yet, people fall for it left and right. If the country elects McCain/Palin, we'll deserve them both and then some.
Well, Jake, its yet to be seen if people are falling for this one. Given the track record, we could probably assume so, but I think McCain might have overreached here. I hope I'm right...
The difference Brad, is that this is the sprint of a Presidential election. Not an insult done years back. This type of colloquiums can be death to a campaign, this fresh in front of the voters. The immediate audience of the crowd is not the real audience and may not be partisan and see things from a different prism.
A candidate has to think about the larger audience. The local audience can be very appreciative of comments that are perceived a different way by others watching on Youtube or cable TV.
The problem for all candidates is being in the bubble; they need hardheaded advisors to burst the bubble so different perspectives can be seen. Obama does not seem to have those advisors, because he makes these errors. It is like he thinks he is so clever to slip in the insults and then say no I am innocent. That is passive aggressive.
For example: The famous statement he made to SF donors that got written up by a sympathetic Huffington Post with audio. He got sandbagged because she did not see the insult in the comment about clinging to religion and guns. It did not seem wrong to her, because she is not a small town person who loves their guns and religion. Candidates need to see thing from the other viewpoint and needs supporters who see that also, so not to make a mistake. Democrats seem to make that more often than Republicans.
A Republican example was the Maaaca comment in Virginia, which was not a televised event but was caught on a cell phone. That destroyed the candidate’s election prospects. That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made.
Watch the colorful sayings and never claim Americans are stupid are rules for a candidate to live by. There is little time to recover from mistakes. Early voting is October 15th.
Very well put Deborah. I especially liked the fainting couch and Tennessee goats.
McCain camp has gone as it can without appearing whining and I doubt Palin will even address this if she evers gets released to speak on her own.
We are talking about the actual McCain camp calling for an apology over something they comepletely know is bullshit. You haven't seen Obama telling anyone to apologize over anything.
If you're saying the Obama camp hasn't tried to use issues of race to it's advantage, what about the whole "dollar bill" comment, or more recently the Obama's claim that the McCain Camp is behind the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor (see this post from the Volokh Conspiracy: http://volokh.com/posts/1220849368.shtml).
Also, this TNR piece pretty convincintly outlines his campaign's use of race against Hillary.
A sample quote: "The very next morning, Obama's national co-chair, Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., a congressional supporter from Chicago, played the race card more directly by appearing on MSNBC to claim in a well-prepared statement that Clinton's emotional moment on the campaign trail was actually a measure of her deeply ingrained racism and callousness about the suffering poor. "But those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said, "they have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest ... we saw tears in response to her appearance, so that her appearance brought her to tears, but not Hurricane Katrina, not other issues."
So of course Obama has played the race card. It's a damn powerful card to play, and he wants to win. Politics is a rough sport. But it's exceedingly lame to complain about fake outrage over sexism when his supporters, and even his campaign, have done their share of stirring up outrage over imagined racial slights.
This is not to say there haven't been any racist comments made about Obama. The guy who called him uppity, for instance, ought to be ostracized & the Republican Party ought to pull all funding from his campaign, congressional seat be damned.
The difference Brad, is that this is the sprint of a Presidential election.
Two of the three examples that I gave were during the primary season. THIS primary season. Reno aside, these are not some tossed-off comments from "years back." They happened when there was some impending voting to be done, and they happened quite recently. I'm not seeing a real difference (well, except that laughing at calling Hillary a bitch actually does seem somewhat offensive to me), nor am I seeing any less comedy in McCain waving and gesturing madly about this. The fainting couch is the perfect imagery here.
That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made.
"Macaca" was anything but a colloquialism. It was a naked attempt to portray someone who looked different as un-American, despite the fact that he, as I did, grew up right outside of DC. And, it came from someone (Allen) who has a genuinely troubled past when it comes to race: Nooses in the office, open accusations (and plenty of them) from former associates, etc etc.
(FWIW: I've never subscribed to the idea that the word "macaca" was, itself, a specific slur. It was the different-ness that was being mocked, as if Allen had turned to an Asian and called him something like "Chien-Ming-Foo." The word itself was meaningless, while the meaning of the sentiment was very clear, and very, very ugly.)
Let me ask you this...if McCain would have referred to a policy position of Obama's that he felt was being obscured and said something like, "let's just call a spade a spade," this exact scenario would be playing out with the shoe on the other foot. "calling a spade a spade" is an old turn of phrase which has zero to do with racial prejudice, but three decades of observing the PC left says there would be strokes in every news room if that indeed happened.
With a heavy background in radio, what I noticed most was not what he said, but the pregnant pause right after and the reaction of the audience he was speaking to. If it wasn't a slam and they didn't perceive it as such, there wouldn't have been any of the whooping you hear in that sound byte.
I was going to vote for Obama until recently as the lesser of two bad choices. Frankly, I see Palin's addition to the RNC's ticket as very unsettling to him and he doesn't seem to be handling it very well. We'll see if he rallies, but now, the clock is a-tickin'.
As far as false outrage is concerned, it's not false outrage. It's the type of outrage you get when you're co-worker tells you over and over again not to listen to music at your desk because it bothers him, then brings the boss in to punish you for it...then HE gets away with it over and over again. THAT'S the outrage you will see from the right every time someone from the side of the spectrum that brought us all PC (thanks, political progressives).
Frankly, PC has put more of a stranglehold on leadership and problem-solving in this country than any foreign power could hope to muster on their own.
RAH writes: "Continuing to insult Americans that they are stupid is not they way to get us to vote for him."
Writing sentences as poorly constructed as that one is makes you look fairly stupid, RAH, so be careful.
And stop pretending that you're unbiased here. You're a right-winger and your so-called advice for Obama is just silly.
The campaign that is betting on the stupidity of the American voter is the McCain camp with all of this "hockey mom who said no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere" crap. Stupid voters are numerous and appealing to them can win elections. Just look at 2004.
A Republican example was the Maaaca comment in Virginia, which was not a televised event but was caught on a cell phone. That destroyed the candidate’s election prospects. That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made.
except that however obscure, 'macaca' is actually a racial slur, whereas this is just absurd
T-web writes: "If you're saying the Obama camp hasn't tried to use issues of race to it's advantage, what about the whole "dollar bill" comment"
What about it? The McCain campaign had already put Obama's face (distorted, of course) on a dollar bill before he made that comment. Obama's comment was correct.
"This is not to say there haven't been any racist comments made about Obama. The guy who called him uppity, for instance, ought to be ostracized & the Republican Party ought to pull all funding from his campaign, congressional seat be damned."
That's the last thing the GOP would do. The only racist I can recall them ever denouncing is David Duke. They lionized vicious old bastards like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms as great men and almost reelected Macaca Allen in Virginia. The party has been riding the racist train for 40 years and it's not about to get off just yet.
Allen was an ass, and his opponent was sharp likable man. I never knew what the term "Macaca" meant but it was meant derisively. But it destroyed his chances since it was in the heat of the race. Many people pay no attention to politics until after Labor Day. That is why this can hurt worse than a laugh at calling Hillary a bitch eight months ago. It was not a statement made at a rally when McCain laughed, but it was for Obama. There are fewer distractions since we are down to two nominees and mistakes are amplified.
There are fewer distractions since we are down to two nominees and mistakes are amplified.
As a matter of analysis, saying that a mistake in September is worse than one in April is correct.
But that doesn't diminish the laughable hypocrisy of McCain, himself, rending garments and gnashing teeth about doing something (possibly, if you look at it in just the right light) that he repeatedly does.
That's what never ceases to amaze me. It's as if McCain's history of attacks and behavior doesn't exist. He attacks on experience, and manages to pick a Veep who is even less experienced. Now, he's attacking on gender sensitivity, when just a few months ago, he was literally employing the same turn of phrase, against a woman, that he now finds offensive. (And I hate to use the phrase "literally!").
Look, either they're tough, maverick reformers, or they are wilting violets who need an apology for any imaginable slight. Demanding an apology here (directly from the campaign!) might be a winning electoral strategy, but to me it comes off as a weak, whiny ploy, and it undermines the image they are trying to craft.
As a Republican voting for Obama this election, let me give you a little insight into this. First off, I am sexist. There, I said it. You got me. Point noted, I will not argue with you. I'm probably a little racist, too, if we got right down to it. If pushed, I wouldn't claim otherwise. That said, every Democrat (or Progressive or Green or Independent) that I know is sexist too. And probably a little racist. But they have so much social capital tied up in trying to appear otherwise, to toe the unimaginably stringent party line in every regard, that they can and will never admit it. Never cop to it for a minute. It would be social - and political - death. That's why it's so delicious to see it out there on full display with everyone watching. Because you know it exists, it's just so completely sublimated under all the PC garbage absorbed in the social contract you enter into as a left-leaning American.
For what it's worth, as others above mentioned, Obama was not calling Palin a pig, he was calling her the lipstick on the pig that is the McCain Campaign/economic plan. He's right. She is just that: window dressing. But he could have chosen a less sexually charged metaphor (deck chairs on the Titanic?) to get that point across. He is not an incautious speaker. He chose that specific metaphor to tie into Palin's earlier lipstick reference but also to throw back a little bit of macho putdown after his evisceration in her convention speech. Was it sexist? Yeah, a bit. Do I care? If Obama is going to stand there and say he's not sexist at all and that this is phony outrage blah, blah, blah, yeah, I do care. Because he's lying. If you hold yourself up as somehow better than your opponent because you're more sensitive to the historical tropes of oppression of the weak or less fortunate, then you slip comfortably right into those same tropes, hey dude, you're going to get some serious smackdown, and deservedly so. Whether right or wrong, if you claim a mantle of enlightenment vis-a-vis race and/or gender relations, as Obama and most Deomcrats do, you are then held to a higher standard in those arenas. If you don't like it, tough shit, them's the breaks.
That is why this can hurt worse than a laugh at calling Hillary a bitch eight months ago.
Except that referring to McCain's attempts to spin himself as a change agent "as putting lipstick on a pig" is in no way analogous to laughing at the reference to Clinton or any other woman as a bitch. Your imaginative reinterpretation of Obama's remarks notwithstanding, this particular bit of nonsense will not have the effect that you suggest. Already today I have see Republican strategists trying to back away from this fanciful interpretation, I suspect, because they know it makes them look ridiculous and severely damages their credibility.
So my unsolicited advice to you would be to hold on to this flatly ridiculous argument as long as you are able. My advice to any Republican spokespeople who may be reading is to associate McCain as closely as possible to this argument. Keep repeating it and keep assuming that they can actually sell this interpretation to the American public. Keep believing that they do not look at all absurd. They overshot with this and that is becoming obvious but I certainly hope that you don't take my word for it.
I'll put it this way... if HRC's campaign couldn't get any traction with legitimate complaints of sexism, how is the McCain campaign going to get anywhere with questionable ones?
There is one way for the Obama camp to end this bullshit. Obama, Biden and all their surrogates need to repeat a simple playground epithet for which there is no reply but to shut up, or blow up:
"They can dish it out, but they can't take it."
For what it's worth, as others above mentioned, Obama was not calling Palin a pig, he was calling her the lipstick on the pig that is the McCain Campaign/economic plan.
What is your evidence that he was talking about Sarah Palin... at all.
But he could have chosen a less sexually charged metaphor (deck chairs on the Titanic?) to get that point across.
Setting aside that those metaphors do not mean the same thing, and I assume that you don't mean sexually charged but rather gender-based, it is not reasonably interpreted as having anything to do with gender at all. In fact, thinking about it now, there is something especially odd about even bringing gender into this that I didn't think about before. It is the Republicans who are trying desperately to make a fuss out of this who are associating both women in general and Palin in particular with pigs. The idiom can be applied to any policy or attempt to spin the truth. Its Republicans who leapt to the notion that it had anything to do with Governor Palin at all.
"You can put a bowtie on a turd, but its still a turd."
Practically every article written about Palin since her speech has mentioned the "pitbull with lipstick" line. Obama was referencing that and the crowd knew it. Go watch the actual tape of his remarks. He says, "You can put lipstick on a pig..." and then pauses to let the crowd laugh and cheer before finishing the saying. I can't decide if the people pretending Obama didn't know what he was saying are giving him too much credit, or too little.
I can't decide if the people pretending Obama didn't know what he was saying are giving him too much credit, or too little.
That is a tough decision. I feel for you. But maybe you should also wonder whether your your interpretation of the crowd's reaction is correct. Like perhaps the possibility that being sentient human beings who have been immersed in the English language their whole lives, they knew the idiom and laughed because they knew what he was saying before he finished saying it. That was certainly my sense of it but then I don't have the ability to read the minds of individual people in a crowd in a video. Now I know that just makes your whole decision calculus just that much more complex but I am confident you can handle it.
For further evidence of RAH's reliability, consider this:
"A Republican example was the Maaaca comment in Virginia, which was not a televised event but was caught on a cell phone. That destroyed the candidate’s election prospects. That reference was a lot more obscure than pigs and lipstick, a week after the pit bull with lipstick joke was made."
He got just about all of it wrong. The event was filmed with an actual CAMERA - Allen knew he was being recorded and he stupidly decided to mock the non-white cameraman. As far as having his election prospects "destroyed," he lost in an extremely close election because Republicans don't really mind noose-collecting idiots who use racial slurs publicly. And anyone with any real sense who watched the tape knew immediately that "Macaca" was some sort of racial slur, even if we'd never seen it before. (I had, and I wasn't the only one.)
So why would anyone trust RAH's analysis here? And what are Republicans kicking about, really? They vote for pigs on a regular basis.
Until Barack Obama dumps Michelle for a cuter, richer woman and jokes that Megan McCain is so ugly because Phyllis Schafly is her father, John McCain has no business lecturing anyone on the evils of sexism.
...has mentioned the "pitbull with lipstick" line.
Oh, man. Someone called her a dog wearing lipstick? Ouch! I want the person that made that sexist, demeaning comment to apologize to the McCain camp immediately!
I think the McCain campaign has overplayed their hand on this one. Plenty of Republicans who have said the same thing themselves are thinking, 'Really?'. They'll see all the outrage, and McCain Campaign playing the victim, and they are going to be saying to themselves, 'You lost me.'
Obama is supposedly a master of words and he knew the crowds’ reaction. He meant the implication. He just was not wise to think he can get away with this in general election.
Please see the youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM&feature= just after the Philadelphia debate two days earlier about Hilary Clinton. It was sly gesture of the middle finger as he talked about Hilary and the crowd cheered. They knew what he was saying in the gesture and approved. He does this type of stuff among his supporters and is still acting like the American electorate is the same as his supporters when half is not even Democrats. He only received about 50% of the Democratic Party support when he won.
The perception of his personal insults is damaging his campaign. He had to spend time today to address this issue and is losing the message among the press.
Foolish to indulge in this type of petty insults when he is facing a challenge.
But if all of you don’t agree, that is fine because like the smear on Daily Kos helped Palin get her message to a 37 million audience of Americans and made her the most talked about person in politics today.
However McCain has gone as far as they can and should refrain from further complaining and ads on this issue, she can handle this herself.
Obama should unapologetically use the lipstick-on-a-pig line in every speech between now and the election. The more times it is repeated and the more attention it gets, the more people will internalize the association between McCain's "change" jive and lipstick on a pig. This is how branding works. And if Obama drops it during one of the debates, McCain will get the vapors.
Shorter Brad L: We're Tough, Maverick Wilting Violets!
Someone should make a T-shirt...
It does occur to me that the McCain group probably has several things going on here beyond the obvious:
1. Dominate a news cycle
2. Try and nab some still-angry Hillary people
3. Someone associated with McCain will say something stupid (see the head of the college Republicans this week), so the more news they make about "hey, we're offended too" the more hope they have of everyone tuning out by then.
4. The age issue. Where McCain is very vulnerable--he forgot how many houses he owns, and while it's being cast in the "too rich to remember" mold "too old to remember" lurks close behind. McCain has made too many Suni/Shia/whatever slips--they want the chance to go ape on any agism that might suggest itself, in the hopes that more won't follow. (I doubt Obama will go there explicitly because of the fact that seniors vote in high numbers. But the 527s are acomin'....and whom amongst us trusts MoveOn not to get stupid?)
In the "uppity" thread, I mentioned Obama needs to act like Jackie Robinson-esque. Retaliate, but not immediately in the heat of the moment. (I had suggested that Obama make age or adultery references to Mccain policies, and then question the manhood of the McCain campaign when they started complaining). Well, he takes a swipe at McCain-Palin, the McCain campaign claims outrage, the MSM starts laughing at the McCain campaign. Don't be surprised if the new meme is that the McCain campaign, besides being stone cold liars, are a bunch of pansies who can't take a punch. ("politics is a rough sport. if the McCain Palin campaign can't face criticism for their policies, they need to find another line of work.")
brent, dude, come on. BHO is not an idiot. He knew exactly what he was saying when he trotted out this metaphor. Watch the video. He's savoring the line. He's savoring the crowd reaction. And, btw, I'm not sure if you know this, but lipstick is a cosmetic product that women apply to their lips to enhance their sexual attractiveness. I'll grant you that maybe the statement is more gender-based than sexually charged, but dude, he was referring to Palin. And again, as I said, he's right. I agree with the statement. McCain is putting lipstick (Sarah Palin) on the pig that is his boring old white guy campaign (I don't think deck chairs is that far off, but OK, I'll give it to you). As everyone's said, it's a Hail Mary pass, a huge gamble, etc. It's an act of absolute desperation, his only shot. Obama, if he were smart, would not have taken the bait. His response (and all the Democrats') should have been: "Sarah Palin? Huh, who's that? Isn't she the mayor of Juneau? Oh, Governor of Alaska, hmm. Well, I don't know anything about her, but I'm sure John McCain has his reasons for the choice." And then shut the fuck up. But, of course, the idiots can't help themselves, and they're setting us up for another four years of old white guy time. Thanks, Democrats!!
And please, can't we declare a moratorium on "Rovian". Karl Rove is neither a genius nor a master campaigner nor an omniscient satanic force. He's a Best Buy regional manager or a General Mills market researcher. He's Dilbert, at best. He looks formidable because he's playing against two-year-olds.
@RAH: I've seen the video and he scratched his friggin' nose. With two fingers. You're getting into the silly season now, and the fact that Obama gets cheers from crowds all the time--including memorably when he had to pause a speech to blow his nose--may be proof that we are an easily entertained people, but not that there is always a grand conspiracy in hand to insult someone or other via secret code phrases and gestures. We just tend to cheer and laugh a lot.
And I'm with the poster above who says use this line more. Tie the lipstick on a pitbull ticket to their lipstick on a pig Bush 3 policies. They invited the comparison when they used the lipstick formulation. (Alas, had they but gone with mascara all would be different....) And let them continue clutching their pearls and disavowing every single Republican (including, I would lay money, Palin, if only she had a larger YouTube genre) who has ever used the phrase with its commonly accepted meaning and didn't realize they were insulting poor Sarah. (Who may at some point emerge to shoot this 'help help I'm being oppressed' bs like an unlucky moose, but so long as she's under wraps from an insufficiently deferential press she's stuck with the image of her Schmidt wants to paint.)
brent, dude, come on. BHO is not an idiot. He knew exactly what he was saying when he trotted out this metaphor.
You are right on a couple of things. BHO is not an idiot and he did know what he was saying. It seems, on the other hand, that it is you do not have any idea what he was saying.
Watch the video. He's savoring the line. He's savoring the crowd reaction.
Which tells you what? I know that a number of posters on here seem to believe that they are mind readers but how does the crowd reacting to a pretty common joke imply that it has anything to do with Sarah Palin at all. I wonder for instance if you have exactly the same interpretation of this remark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c&feature=iv. In that video, McCain uses the exact same line, the crowd laughs and in fact he never even states the punch line. Now it is pretty clear that he is not talking about either Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton in that piece and yet people thought it was funny. People actually think that phrase is funny even when it is clearly a discussion of policy disagreements. Strange huh?
And, btw, I'm not sure if you know this, but lipstick is a cosmetic product that women apply to their lips to enhance their sexual attractiveness.
BTW, I am not sure if you are aware of this but the idiom, "lipstick on a pig," is used to describe policies and spin and all sorts of things that have no gender association at all. It has been used in that gender neutral way for at least several decades. So saying it is "gender charged" is a flatly inaccurate claim.
but dude, he was referring to Palin
I have asked you for evidence of this assertion. You have merely asserted it again while not providing that evidence. This is not persuasive.
Just a rhetorical thing here: while I agree that the charges of sexism are silly, do we have enough ground to say so given that quite a few people bounced on the community organizer = racist dogwhistle angle?
A GOP spokesperson wrote the book on this. Really...
http://marccooper.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/torieclark.jpg
I just don't think it's plausible that most people who heard the line didn't immediately think of Palin. From what's being reported by various news organizations, most democrats thought immediately that it was funny in that context, but probably an ill advised line. I've seen it reported that way in the Telegraph and on Slate.
You don't have to mean it to allow the connotation to be implied and Obama had to know how it would sound. He is capable of nuance.
It was a good line too. I'd have more respect for Obama if he admitted that the interpretation was possible and just apologized for any offense.
From what's being reported by various news organizations, most democrats thought immediately that it was funny in that context, but probably an ill advised line. I've seen it reported that way in the Telegraph and on Slate.
I haven't heard of a single dem making the claim that that is what they immediately thought. Cite please.
stc1 writes: "Obama was not calling Palin a pig, he was calling her the lipstick on the pig that is the McCain Campaign/economic plan. He's right. She is just that: window dressing. But he could have chosen a less sexually charged metaphor (deck chairs on the Titanic?) to get that point across. He is not an incautious speaker. He chose that specific metaphor to tie into Palin's earlier lipstick reference but also to throw back a little bit of macho putdown after his evisceration in her convention speech. Was it sexist? Yeah, a bit. Do I care? If Obama is going to stand there and say he's not sexist at all and that this is phony outrage blah, blah, blah, yeah, I do care. Because he's lying."
So who was he talking about when he used THE EXACT SAME PHRASE before Palin was picked?
Your mom? Lucille Ball? Barbara Bush?
Sometimes a pig is just a pig.
threecheers@moelarryandjesus.
Thankfully, this silly story is turning the news cycle. The stories on Palin are starting to trend negative, zomg questions are being asked, the press is starting to take the abuse personally, leading up to the Charlie interview which will be a huge fucking farse ala the Clinton/Obama debate!
Patience!
I cannot believe (well, I would like not to believe) that all this discussion is taking place about a goddam comment about lipstick and a pig, when there are still Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy is in the shitter, jobs are being lost by the score on a daily basis, banks are falling apart, the government budget is nearly half a trillion dollars in the red FOR ONE YEAR, people are losing their homes at a rate not seen in 75 years, the US is torturing people, and the idiots in Washington are screwing folks in the oil companies that are screwing us.
The most comments I have ever seen on this site are about a fucking silly comment by Obama.
No wonder Bush got elected twice. Jesus Christ on a freaking popsicle stick.
The comment was an obvious double entendre. Obama has been pulling this bullshit during the entire election. Does anyone remember the JayZ-gesture, flicking the dirt (Hillary) off his collar, the use of "99 Problems But a Bitch Ain't One." No? You don't remember the way he baited Hillary all during the primaries? Periodically? The Kitchen sink? The china?
Obama's gonna lose. You are all fucking clueless.
the use of "99 Problems But a Bitch Ain't One."
The funny thing is that you don't remember that either because it never actually happened. Although I suppose it is theoretically possible to remember something you that you only imagined happening.
Periodically?
Yes, I do remember him using the term periodically. I have probably used the word myself a few hundred times, sometimes in front of actual women, but my hatred of women still seems to go unnoticed somehow. Strange that.
The Kitchen sink?
I do remember Clinton's campaign often referring the kitchen sink as a way of describing their strategy. I supposed it is possible that Obama used it as well. But of course, I am sure he could have only meant it in a way that revealed his deep, deep misogyny. Indeed why would anyone even use that term (except for Clinton and her people of course) unless they were somehow talking about women.
Obama's gonna lose. You are all fucking clueless.
Both are always possible but there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between those two statements.
TNC,
http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote
I wanted to post this article here because it seems the GOP is employing a two-pronged plan to win this election. First they will smear Obama to obscure the facts and barring that they'll challenge every vote cast for him to once again have an appointed president. Mr. Coates you have a very diverse audience its important that audience sees the lengths the GOP will go to win. I don't have a problem with fighting to win I wish Obama would fight harder, but I think the bullying, underhanded tactics of the GOP should give everyone pause.
Two further thoughts on this and how the McCain camp may come to regret their theatrics:
First, we already have the "Palin isn't ready for prime time so they don't let her out without a teleprompter" meme. This story, with the entire GOP including Jane Swift having a collective fainting fit on poor dear Governor Palin's behalf while Palin remains cloaked from that notorious lack of deference--not a good combination.
Second, the one time I agreed with Palin was her criticism of Hillary for complaining of sexism--that of course it's there but you don't win by complaining about it. (For example, no one remembers Thatcher or Meir complaining, and it's not because the eras they won in were misogyny-free.) This whole pearl-clutching thing seems very unPalin. Now, I believe Palin is disciplined and willing to do what it takes to win--but is Steve Schmidt's idea of what the role the delicate female candidate should play going to fly with Palin for the next 8 weeks? They adapted from their earlier "look a woman" theme to "pitbull with lipstick and she shoots moose"; this seems like going backward.
Obama's first mistake was believing Americans by and large were smart enough to see past this nonsense.... People were looking for any reason not to vote for him other than the obvious one..
The second mistake was not to unleash the 527's left and right... This dude goes to war with the Al Qaeda of American politics and leaves the Navy Seals and Army Rangers at home... This is one reason people are iffy on him, if he can't handle these high school insults from fake political thugs, how the hell is he gonna handle real thugs?
I've been noting the irony that Meghan McCain can give interviews and Sarah Palin cannot and now, per Wonkette:
Because when some reporter asked her about Pigdildostickgate and whether she thought Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig (btw, why do reporters have to ask people this question when it’s an established fact that Barack Obama didn’t?), she said she didn’t and — here’s the good part — “I’ve heard my dad say that, the term ‘lipstick on a pig.’”
Ya the pigs are saying, WTF! Make us into bacon or ham, but don't associate us with these assholes!
I think you can fairly attribute two meanings to the statement-the clearly stated one that McCain adding the word "change" to his stump speech doesn't change the reality of his policies, and also that adding the new exciting VP pick doesn't change them either-both are there to obscure McCain's record. Neither seems particularly offensive to me.
This response is classic McCain-someone steps on your toes, you call in an ICBM strike. Google McCain's letter to Obama from 2006 excoriating him for some minor spat over ethics reform. Dude's got a serious temper.
McCain is rightly insulted by the "lipstick on a pig" comment.
But the idea that it's a sexist comment? Perhaps it's McCain's chance for a 'teaching moment.' Or, perhaps, 'that dog don't hunt.'
I'm glad to see that McCain's attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear may have failed after all.
FWIW: I've never subscribed to the idea that the word "macaca" was, itself, a specific slur. It was the different-ness that was being mocked, as if Allen had turned to an Asian and called him something like "Chien-Ming-Foo." The word itself was meaningless, while the meaning of the sentiment was very clear, and very, very ugly.
But, er, it is a specific slur. Specifically, it's a slur which was commonly used by French colonialists, and Allen's mother was, er, a pied-noir. The idea that Allen accidentally stumbled on an obscure French colonialist racial slur, when his mother is a French colonialist, seems to run up against Occam's Razor.
I know the fate of the free world hangs on lipstick, but just in case anyone was curious-in a single week the taxpayers have had to bail out the two firms which are the bedrock of our mortgage market and lehman posted one of the largest losses for any company in history-they will certainly be at the fed window soon looking for a loan, (a loan from the taxpayers mind you). This news was preceeded by wild swings in the market which surely suggests a level of insider trading. THe market has been incredibly volatile because the market itself cannot determine true values in this environment, so prices are all over the place.
But anyway, back to more important things,
So who else is a mindreader and knows exactly what an audience was thinking by watching a videotape?
The idea that Allen accidentally stumbled on an obscure French colonialist racial slur, when his mother is a French colonialist, seems to run up against Occam's Razor.
I think he was reaching, and it popped out of his memory, but not really with a full-blown meaning. That is, I suspect he found the word but not the meaning, and it sounded ridiculous in just the way he was looking for.
This, of course, is all mind-reading, something I don't like to engage in, and I fully acknowledge it as a guess. The reason for my suspicion is that Allen, despite being evil, is also pretty savvy (this gaffe to the contrary), and if he fully recognized that macaca was a specific and recognizable slur, he probably wouldn't have used it. But maybe he would have, if he assumed nobody else would have gotten it. I just don't think so.
It is all also besides the point. The truly offensive thing was not the slur itself, but what was an obvious attempt to humiliate a college kid for looking different (and therefor unAmerican) for his pleasure and the pleasure of his audience.
In point of fact, that may be the only comment in recent memory that has pinned the needle into the red (if you will), for me personally. It was more than insensitive; it was unnecessarily cruel; and the target wasn't his opponent, it was a college kid.
[And, as noted, it was barely enough to help Jim Webb eke out a win here in my home state, for all the hubbub it caused.]