Prom date! Prom date!

September 11, 2008

Like others, I’m really, really bothered by senator Obama’s comments regarding the McCain campaign’s economic policies. “You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “But it’s still a pig.”

“Still a pig”? C’mon! Get it right. The expression is “you can put lipstick on a pig, but that don’t make it a prom date.”

I expect higher standards from the Obama campaign.


No comments yet

  1. As you are clearly in the tank for Obama, your lack of concern over his misstep is understandable. You chuckle at the obvious insult to a disliked political opponent (to infer that a woman is a pig is quite insulting). Only the truly dishonest would attempt to forward the opinion that it was not meant as a clever insult. The crowd got the joke and laughed when he said it….some nervously. Ok, that’s politics….sometimes politicians get nasty and personal.

    What does it really tell us though. It was a rather intemperate red meat comment made without concern for it’s possible repercussions. After it became public, rather than make a quick apology to end the issue, Obama bunkered up and went on the offensive. Where a quick and diplomatic “ I’m sorry it was taken the wrong way. It was a poorly worded joke aimed at my opponents policies” would have ended it, Obama responded with anger at his motives being questioned. Defensiveness, poor diplomatic tone, and an inability to admit a mistake are not good qualities for a man in an executive position.

    Oh, and the obvious “McCain does it too” response does not answer my accusation that Obama lacks the good judgment to be President. Obama may be a leader some day…..but for now, his personal growth leaves something to be desired.

  2. What I’m chuckling about is the utter ridiculousness of the charge. “Only the truly dishonest would attempt to forward the opinion that it was not meant as a clever insult”? I disagree. Only the blindingly partisan could possibly interpret it as an insult to anyone, anywhere.

    Look, there are partisans on television and in politics who feign outrage at this supposed insult. Them I understand. I don’t like that they do this, but I get it. You, on the other hand… you actually sincerely believe it?? There truly is such a thing as eating too much of your own dog food, man.

  3. And, for the record, I think Obama got the tone of his response >spot frickin’ on. Apologize?? I’d have slapped my forehead in disbelief had he done anything so stupid. Thank goodness he’s too smart to fall into the trap.

  4. I don’t think Obama intended to insult Palin with his lipstick analogy. However, it’s easy to see why people took it that way, isn’t it? You can see from the crowd’s reaction, for example, that they took it that way. When I first heard of it, that was how I interpreted it myself. On further reflection, I realized Obama wouldn’t be that deliberately stupid….

    However, I agree with Dennis Miller that Obama’s use of that particular analogy just days after Palin’s speech, which contained another analogy to lipstick that became the most famous part of said speech, shows just how much Palin is on Obama’s mind!

    I also think Obama probably realized he shouldn’t have used that particular analogy as soon as it came out of his mouth. It was poorly timed, and it is understandable why some took it as a reference to Palin, and there was no reason for Obama not to admit as much.

  5. I think what it shows is that the McCain campaign will seize upon anything–anything!–in order to not talk about the actual issues. They lose if the election is about issues. They could win, however, if the election is about pigs and lipstick. And it also shows how base and stupid the media is that they devoted more than 3 nanoseconds to this BS.

  6. You guys have really drunk the Rove kool-aid if you believe in any way that the joke had anything at all to do with Palin. I don’t believe that you believe it, and as Scott says, you and the campaign are desperate to change the subject. What, are we to cede the word “lipstick” to the good governor because she used it once? Republican, please.

    If you DO believe it, what do you make of St. John’s use of the same phrase this year while referring to HRC’s health care plan? Sexist? Of course not, right? So, it’s only sexist when Karl and Rush tell you it is.

    Riddle me this: what do you make of St. John laughing this year as one of his female supporters asked him “How are we gonna beat the bitch?”

    I wish one of Obama’s surrogates would bring up the McCain “joke” about Chelsea Clinton being “so ugly” because “her father is Janet Reno.”

    Sexist? Check. Bringing children into politics? Check. Repulsive homophobia? Check.

    That’s the real St. John. So odd that you tough guys have taken to your fainting couches over a well-known and perfectly appropriate phrase. How you discern what the people in the crowd were laughing about is a mystery.

    P.S., TFG, King of All Spelling: you need to fix your grammar. Whether you infer that a woman is a pig is your business, but trust me that Obama didn’t imply it. You have no way of knowing whether he inferred something from his own speech, although it seems quite unlikely, as he knew what he was saying. And big guy, the possessive of “it” is “its.” Do they really pay you for writing this stuff?

  7. Snabby: TFG is NOT the King of All Spelling. I am.

  8. Yes Snabby. Karl Rove uses money he got from Dick Cheney when they plundered Iraq’s oil reserves to hire me to post political commentary on a tiny blog in Milwaukee. I type the post exactly the way Rush Limbaugh’s satellite beams it to my brain. I really have to get back to the hurricane machine now. The Democrats have a chance to win Texas so we plan on destroying Houston in retribution.

    Sleep tight Snabby. We know where you live. You should never have recycled that tinfoil hat.

  9. “tiny blog in Milwaukee?” Uh, Scott, my Kos cell leader implied (or perhaps I just inferred) that I was participating on one of the top 10 liberal blogs in Obamanation. Is this not so?

  10. I think I’m in the top ten liberal blogs in the east side of the city of Waukesha. Probably.

  11. LOL.

    I can’t believe people even argue that this is “OMG SEXISM!!!11”
    Um. the pig is the GOP, and Palin is the Lipstick-which she herself claimed to fame. Get over it! haha.

  12. Exactly Jennifer.

    If you follow the logic of the McCain campaign accusation, (and Obama himself pointed this out) Palin would be the liptstick in that analogy and not the pig.

    Its amazing that people get distracted by this nonsense (including myself). Lipstick and celebrity doesn’t put food on the table.

  13. If someone on the right a similar remark about the Obama camp, you’d be out with the pitchforks and torches. Heck, the pitchfork and torch crowd were angry because they said John McCain “might” resort to racist attacks. If someone called your wife a pig you’d punch ‘em in the nose….well, I would. A good liberal might at least exclaim their displeasure at the self-esteem damaging remark.

    Keep up the attacks though. Every time a Charlie Gibson uber edits Palin remarks to twist them into an attack, McCain’s numbers jump. When they mock McCain for not being able to send e-mail (which is due to his inability to use a keyboard due to his disabilities) he gets a bump. Call Palin’s daughter a slut, claim her son is a criminal and was forced to join the military, claim an old man is too senile to be President, Call Sarah a bad mom….even claim the baby is not hers…..always good news for the Republicans when liberals show the true nature of their diversity

  14. I don’t think anyone here has levelled the charge of sexism in relation to the lipstick comment… not that there has been any lack of sexism directed against Governor Palin.

  15. Where was the outrage from the liberal media here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM

  16. Can’t we all just get along!

    p.s. Scott come back to class

  17. Wow! The heat is on. TFG, in regards to your last comment, I think this is exactly what earns Republicans such a lack of regard in some liberal circles: the more facts you are presented with that contradict your positions, the more dearly you cling to them. There is ample evidence that Sarah Palin is not a pork-cutting, honest reformer, but rather a pork-seeking political hack who aligns herself with whatever forces seem to be in ascendance at the moment (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp). I have not read a single attack on Palin for her daughter’s behavior, her son’s behavior, or her own sexual behavior (these attacks may be out there, but I’m not hearing them in the so-called “liberal press” – NYT, NPR). However, the fact that she does not know what the Bush Doctrine is should make anyone who seriously cares about the fate of this nation very concerned.

  18. Nina, here are some facts to contradict your position:

    According to Charles Krauthammer, the man who coined the term “Bush Doctrine”:

    “The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.” While Governor Palin may not have known what the Bush Doctrine is, “neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know.” (See full text of Charles Krauthammer’s very enlightening piece here).

    Since you brought up Charles Gibson’s interview with Governor Palin, I thought you might be interested in viewing a transcript of the complete interview. Note that the bolded and underlined parts shown here were edited OUT of the aired piece. Note especially that in some cases, the answer that Palin is shown giving is not even to the question she was originally asked! (Anyone else remember the ISN News interviews from Babylon 5?)

    For another example of liberal bias in the media, I refer you back to your own citation: the NYT’s 3000-plus-word slash job on Governor Palin. I wonder if you even realize that this article only presents one very slanted side of the story? There is no attempt here to report without bias. The piece is a fine example of Yellow Journalism.

    For attacks on Sarah Palin’s daughter’s behavior, son’s behavior, motherhood, hairstyle, glasses, clothing choices, et. al., see Sarah Palin Sexism Watch. There are some particularly juicy ones from Salon, and from many, many other sources.

  19. Well, Nina, I am actually more of a conservative and less a Republican, but in your liberal circles, I’m sure no one has taken the time to define those terms. I do not really support McCain at all. I will, however, be voting for McCain as “the cult of Obama” scares the devil out of me. I’m sure the other Obamabots in your “liberal circles” have devoured all 6000 words of attack pieces in that bastion of journalism, the NY Times. You probably salivated at all the “Sarah Palin should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” stuff on the web….the stuff you claim not to have seen in the same paper whose diaphoretic chop job you tout as “truth”. Why are you folks so filled with hatred and anger for this lady? Is it fear that she is not an elitist and might connect with common people? Is it anger that a woman could be a liberated and independent thinker without being a Democrat who puts 24/7 abortions ahead of all rational thought? Well, no matter, there is no way to reason people out of things that they didn’t reason themselves into to begin with.

    Does it trouble you that no similar research has been published about Obama, or are you happier avoiding the facts that contradict your positions? Does it bother you that Obama has less experience than you fault Palin for not having….and HE is running for President? When he said that he would seek help from the UN Security Council on the Russia/Georgia thing (not knowing that Russia is on that council and has veto power) were you concerned about “the fate of the nation”? Does it bother you that Obama VP Joe Biden said “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there” of Obama on 8-2-07? On 9-9-07 Joe said both “This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops.” And “if you tell me I’ve got to take away this protection for these kids in order to win the election, some things aren’t worth it. Some things are worth losing over” when referring to an Obama vote on Iraq war spending. Of course, now Mr. Biden firmly backs Obama. Makes you wonder if Joe is a “political hack who aligns himself with whatever forces seem to be in ascendance at the moment”. Or do those type of things only bother you when it is a Republican who utters them?

    As for me, here is why I am an anti-Obama voter: Obama’s unsavory past in the ethical septic tank that is Chicago politics (can you say Tony Rezko? Let’s say it together….. “corruption”); his total lack of experience in government (187 days actually attending the Senate….but no legislation authored); lack of foreign policy experience (the Obama world media tour not withstanding—but skip the hospital please, no photos); and lack of solid positions (Will take public campaign finance, then won’t – will end the war in 16 month —then won’t, will ban off shore drilling – then won’t). Obama should change his slogan to “Change that keeps on changing.

    But none of these items contaminate your “liberal circle”, now do they Nina. Well, while you “cling” blindly to your positions, I wear the lack of regard from your liberal friends as a badge of honor and a diploma of political honesty.

    Now go have some more brie and a sip of chardonnay.

  20. Say what you like about Obama supporters. Call it a cult if that makes you happy, but it doesn’t change anything. He was voted for by a slim majority of Dems, and his campaign, because of his race and his background, has captured many people’s imaginations. That includes me. I was not a Obama supporter, and I find his approaches too close to the status quo.

    But McCain, and in fact any Republican, would be a disaster on top of the current disaster. I am afraid we’ve already driven off the cliff, and that the only difference between McCain and Obama is how long it will take to hit bottom, but I am still hopeful enough that maybe there’s time to save things. As I have youngish kids, that’s most important.

    TFG, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. They rely on lies, propaganda, voter intimidation, and trying to insure that voters have as little information as possible. If you are really a conservative, you know it. That’s not to say Dems are perfect. But they are better. And please, spare me about ACORN voter fraud. There has been NO voter fraud, but plenty of voter disenfranchisement and intimidation. The entire US Attorney scandal has that at is core. Republicans can’t afford too many knowledgeable or “colorful” voters, or they’d never hold office.

    What is horrifying is how Republicans try to deny that there is even such thing as objective truth. I’ve seen you write enough about climate change to see that you think it’s unproven. It’s widely accepted by science. Call it a cult if you like. This is the kind of crap that is going to kill us all. Same with the thoughtless muscular foreign policy carried out for the last 7 years, and promised to be continued under McCain.

    Talk about Rezko, whatever. Obama is a sitting U.S. Senator. He has been vetted as a result. Palin is a proud know-nothing, and you certainly can see it. You’re going to take the word of the Straussian Krauthammer that he doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is? You know what it is, I know what it is, Gibson knows what it is. Palin doesn’t, and that’s pretty crazy for a VP nominee in the very party from which that doctrine emanates, particularly when she would certainly follow it, if not expand it. It’s actually sad that the Republican brand has sunk so far, but it’s terrifying to think that someone with as little knowledge or experience could even be considered for the role of VP.

  21. Wow, this thread has gone all over the place! I love election years!

    Snabby, there is hardly scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans. See here for a list of scientists that disagree with Al Gore. And these are actual scientists, not politicians who are making a ton of money selling carbon credits.

    The Earth’s climate has always changed. It changed before humans ever made an appearance on the planet. There have been at least four ice ages on Earth. The first was probably around 2 billion years ago. Periods of warmer climate occurred between those ice ages. Many scientists and historians feel that there is a documentable correlation between the activity of the sun (you know, that big fireball in the sky?) and the climate on Earth. If you think about it, that sure does make a lot of sense doesn’t it?

  22. Do you read other post’s before you formulate your response manifesto, Snabby? Negative points about Obama just bounce off as you repeat the “Republicans are bad” mantra. In any case, many of the reasons you espouse for your beliefs either lack any basis in fact or are simply opinions being used to support opinions. I have given you specifics….ignoring them does not make the truth less glaring.

    If you are simply voting for Obama because of his race and your imagination (as you stated), well, I already suspected as much. He lacks qualifications but he is the right color for you. I can’t argue against that point. I would never vote based on race, but to each his own. You can vote knowing that your children will spend their lives paying for the additional 800 billion dollars of new entitlements….ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can give you that you did not earn.

    Republicans ashamed? Show me a factual instance of voter intimidation or disenfranchisement (an instance other than Al Gore insisting on the overseas military votes not being recounted in Florida). Mind you, it must be a factual one. No baseless lies, or 3rd hand accounts published on KOS. If you want instances of voter fraud, consult The Milwaukee Journal for dozens of cases and hundreds of instances (I wrap my fish in the Journal, but I’m sure you can read it as well). Deny as you might, the proof has been published in many newspapers. Attorney scandal? When Clinton did the same thing, it was called cleaning house. Will you shriek scandal if the Obama wins and does the same thing. Of course not….

    Global Warming? Hardly accepted science. The fact that you only expose yourself to one side of the argument does not make it fact. I have no reason to believe one way or the other. My conclusions came after reading much contradictory evidence. In truth, even the faithful are admitting that there has been no warming for a decade now.

    Oddly, you seem to feel that Obama is “vetted” by his Senate seat, yet Palin’s Governorship does not offer her the same status. Winning a Senate race in Illinois against an out of state opponent does not make you “vetted”. And the “Bush Doctrine thing”? Palin asked Gibson to clarify what aspect of Bush’s policies he was referring to….there is no single definition of “Bush Doctrine”….nor do I take anyone at their word on it. Krauthammer published his piece in many newspapers prior to 9-11. Go read it yourself. Was Charlie referring to unilateralism, fighting terrorism, spreading democracy? Even the Wikipedia entry admits that there is no single definition according to foreign policy experts. “Straussian”? Where do you people think this stuff up?

  23. Let’s say warming isn’t anthropogenic. Let’s say there is no warming. Do you say the seas are not rising? Do you say the ice caps are not melting? Do you do nothing because it’s all “natural?” Or do you work toward solutions because you value life as we know it? What we’ve done in pumping as much carbon into the atmosphere as we have is unprecendented. Maybe the earth can simply absorb it. I’d rather work toward solutions, just in case.

    Why don’t Republicans and “conservatives” get upset about wasting trillions on defense boondoggles? My kids are going to be paying for those.

    Regarding Obama, I am voting for him not because of race, nice try, but because he represents ideals closer to mine than your boy McCain, although as I note, he is not nearly populist enough. We’re not going to get universal health care here for a long time, if ever, and that’s criminal. But most Dems and virtually all Republicans are corporatists, and that’s that for now. He’s captured my imagination because he talks a good game, and I hope we’ll see how that translates into action. He’s also a guy who has done a lot for himself, particularly coming from the background he did. Say what you want, but McCain was born to wealth, and married into more. Obama came up in a much harder way. He was far from my first choice, but he’s a good alternative.

    With regard to voter disenfranchisement, there was plenty in Ohio in 2004, but I would point you to Florida in 2000, specifically the purging of “felons,” which accounted for the removal of 57,000 voters, skewed heavily Black and therefore likely Dems. Greg Palast did yeoman’s work in uncovering it. There’s plenty of information to look through, but a sample is here: http://www.gregpalast.com/the-great-florida-ex-con-gamernhow-the-felon-voter-purge-was-itself-felonious/ Bury your head about the rest; I have neither the time nor interest in looking for information that you will ignore.

    It should make you sick to think of voters being purged illegally, but Republicans simply seem allergic to facts.

    If, TFG, there is something to Rezko, where is it? It must be sad to have to flail around so dishonestly, when your party has given you so little to work with. You know, for instance, that the Bush doctrine primarily refers to pre-emption, but you have to pretend otherwise.

    Straussian? Maybe you should inform yourself, O wise one.

  24. Defense actually benefits us, though there are too many fingers in that pie. More government causes more waste. McCain proposes to deal with that type of earmark abuse…..and not by just dismantling that un-needed arm of government, the Defense Department. Better money wasted on defense than on Nancy Pelosi billion dollar subsidies to turn more food into fuel to benefit “Big Corn” and raise food prices globally.

    YOU mentioned race as a reason to vote for Obama, Snabby. Perhaps, in addition to reading my post, you could read your own too.

    I like the Indiana Jones fashion sense of your conspiracy dude web link. Perhaps something a bit less X-Files might convince me more. It is good to know that felons, as a voting block, tend to go Democrat. Makes sense.

    Climate change is occurring, and has been for billions of years. There is no evidence that it can be stopped or even should be stopped. Sea level has risen ~1.5mm/year for the last 130 years as measured at 23 geologically stable tidal gauges, at a steady rate for over a century. CO2 has never been a precursor to warming. It’s more likely a result of temperature change, rather than a cause. While arctic sea ice has decreased somewhat (not nearly to the predicted extent), Antarctic ice has increased 0.6% per decade” from 1979 to 2006 according to satellite data. While you fret that my SUV may be changing global climate, real scientists have proposed that the sun (the big warm ball that heats the earth, maybe you’ve seen it) may be the biggest cause of change. Some see us entering a Maunder minimum that will result in more of the cooling we have seen for the last several years. To spend trillions of dollars on feel good solutions to something that we can never control is irresponsible.

  25. I mentioned race as one factor, my man. And it is one factor of several. But leave it to a disgusting dissembler such as yourself to twist words to suit your purposes. I’m sure your IQ is way up there, pal, and you can amuse yourself by thinking you’re winning. But there is really no point in discussion with you, as you are impermeable to facts that don’t suit you. It’s fine — I understand the current trend in Republicans.

    I was going to respond to the rest, but there’s no point. You’re right, and everyone who doesn’t see it your way is wrong, and stupid to boot. That must be very comforting for you.

  26. Well, good. So you admit race is a criteria for you. Acceptance is the first step toward healing.

    I have held many opinions that were changed by the presentation of facts. As soon as you present me some, I’ll look at them. The black helicopter, conspiracy, Area 51, Dick Cheney dynamiting the levees stuff is entertaining, but it is hardly fact. I do enjoy reading it as I take my lunch on a grassy knoll.

    I’m not sure if you are stoopit or not. You are, however, often wrong.

  27. BTW, Menagerie Manager, I am reading some material on climate change, and appreciate the link to the Wiki list. Regardless of what our sanctimonious and omniscient pal TFG says, I am hardly an absolutist on this issue, and fully understand the possibility that the consensus view doesn’t prove anything is correct.

    What I abhor is the politicization of reality, which seems to be a peculiar feature of the last 8 years. An honest disagreement is entirely a different thing, and I appreciate having an honest discussion.

  28. So Snabby, when you say “George the Stupid and his father the pork rind eater” or “bringing along an unqualified political hack who happens to have a uterus” does that fall under “the politicization of reality” or “An honest disagreement … (and) having an honest discussion.”? I am having trouble telling the difference.

  29. TFG, there is no reason for me to argue with you any further, as you are fundamentally dishonest. I have no doubt about your confusion, therefore: your reality is whatever you decide is best for you, regardless of fact. You are incapable of having an honest disagreement.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: