THE LIPSTICK MEME AND WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN.
The Democrats attacked the Republicans twice on Tuesday using a lipstick metaphor. First,
Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan on Tuesday – introducing Joe Biden at a campaign event – ripped into Palin’s record and punctuated it with this snarky jab. “There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick,”
Later in the day, Barack Obama referred to lipstick on a pig and immediately after to an old fish who smells:
Before this, Obama listed many issues on which he said that McCain was simply following Bush’s policies.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 gonna stink.
Those juxtapositions allowed Obama's supporters to claim that he wasn’t actually calling Palin a pig, and allowed his opponents to claim that he called Palin a pig and McCain an old fish who stinks.
This coupled comparison and the lipstick meme introduced earlier on Tuesday tends to suggest that Obama’s comment was not off-the-cuff; it was probably planned.
Palin’s defenders complain that it’s an insult. Of course, it’s an insult. Insulting the opponent is what Palin did to Obama in her convention speech and what Obama did to McCain in his.
Probably, the Democratic speechwriters today were trying to do their own version of Palin’s pointed gibes (about community organizing, talking about victory, personal discovery, etc.), but got the tone wrong. There is little question that in literal textual terms, Obama was referring to the views of McCain and Palin, not McCain and Palin themselves. The choice of language, however, suggests a high likelihood that Obama was also intentionally alluding to Palin and McCain personally.
It is not just a case of plausible deniability; the speechwriters were trying to be witty. By referring to McCain and Palin’s ideas using colorful language that will cause his audience to think of the actual people Palin and McCain, Obama was almost certainly trying to come right up to the line between acceptable and unacceptable insults without actually crossing it. That Obama's crowd understood the allusion to Palin is suggested by the enthusiastic cheers that started even before he finished the pig sentence. Without seeing the Palin connection, would they have cheered in the middle of him uttering an otherwise completely ordinary cliche?
Did Obama have female speechwriters work on his speech? If not, would he have miscalculated if he did?
Was Obama calling Palin a pig and McCain a stinky old fish? No, it would be too crude to do – and he didn’t directly do so.
But when Obama talked about a pig and a fish, was he slyly referring to them personally? Almost certainly. Very likely, this paired comparison was intended to be a Palin-style sharp, but good natured insult. It misfired because the insult was far less sly (and far more crude) than he and his speechwriters thought it was.
THE PROPER RESPONSE
The proper Republican response for a joke that misfires would be to make fun of Obama’s gaffe, but not to demand an apology. Palin is tough. An off-color joke may not be that big a deal – and even if it is, she should be tough enough to brush it off. The Republican narrative should be that Obama is losing his cool and that he is acting like a VP candidate by going after the other VP candidate — ie, they should be suggesting that Obama can't take the heat.
Further, having people other than Palin demanding apologies on her behalf sends a false message that she is weak and needs protection.
Republicans should make some political hay about Obama's crude insults for a couple days – as the Democrats did about McCain’s multiple apartments – and then move on.
This is far from the worst thing that either side has said – or will say – about each other.
Instapundit has a nice roundup on this issue.
Agree with your basic analysis of motives here, but whether the line "misfired" is in the eye of the beholder. As a Democratic symphathizer, I was sufficiently turned off by Palin's speech to switch from "not going to bother to vote" to "going to vote for Obama at 9am in the morning." And I find Obama's comment precisely the sharp jab that feels good. I suspect that Palin's speech invoked precisely the same response in Republican sympathizers (i.e. felt great to jab) and Obama's line will also do so (i.e. motivates them more strongly to vote for Palin).
If it's the latter - if it is merely a bad choice of words, given how many people associate the "hockey moms were lipstick" with Palin, then she and McCain should just ask the American public if they want someone who is liable to make those mistakes negotiating with Russia and Iran.
There is the line to never assume animosity when stupidity could be the cause, but BHO doesn't look great from any angle.
At least, that was the impression the Obama campaign gave last Thursday.
after the democratic convention, where the democrats fell over themselves trying to be deferential and respectful of mccain even while they were attacking his policies, followed by the obnoxious GOP convention that dripped with utter contempt PERSONALLY for Obama (especially Palin's speech)...
now the mccain/palin ticket wants to WHINE...
theobromophile... given the amount of gaffes and outright lies spewing forth from mccain/palin, i certainly don't want them negotiating with Russia and Iran.
If I was McCain/Palin I'd be tempted to say something like:
"We appreciate that Sen Obama is keeping the campaign lighthearted with his joke the other day... about how he might not raise taxes in a recession after all."
It seems that not only is McCain distorting what Obama said, he is simultaneously being a hypocrite.
Just calling a spade a spade- or is it sometimes a good idea to drop certain commonly-used phrases in certain contexts?
Bill Kilgore: So no matter what, it's bad for Obama?
Outstanding! Explication by humorous example.
As to those comparing this to Palin's speech - get some perspective! Obama's phrasing is an insult - not an attack, not ridicule, but just plain mean and dirty.
Personally, I think it was a slip, but as Kilgore says, that tells us a lot about Obama's lack of qualifications!
The McCain/Palin campaign should laugh it off. Maybe their campaign store should sell "Pitbull Lipstick." But to even have faux outrage over Obama using the phrase is stupid.
So to answer your question, yes. Unless Obama has internal polling to indicate that the way to stop his slide is to call Palin a pig or use an expression that would allow for this argument. I doubt he has that type of internal polling.
This gaffe seems to reinforce the not ready for prime-time argument. Learning to avoid words that clearly mean "X" but can arguably be interpreted as meaning "Y" is something all politicians must learn (particularly those who will be engaged internationally.) Generally this lesson is learned by trial and error during difficult campaigns. However, Obama has never been in a particularly difficult campaign- over the last week, it shows.
Do not fear- I suspect Palin will make this same mistake. The problem for Obama is that she may not make it until after he has lost the election.
Women are quicker to turn to personal attacks than men. The kind of women involved with Sen. Obama's campaign--ugh. They're drinking the Kool-Aid. To them, Sarah Palin is a disgusting inbred hillbilly and any dig they can make at her--or her family--is high comedy.
Anyone who dares to stand in Obama's way is "fair game," as is their career and their family.
It should also be noted that while Palin hit hard in her speech last week, she did so with biting wit and sardonic turn of phrase. She didn't resort to immature name-calling, unless "community organizer" is now an epithet.
Obama is smarter than that and he should demonstrate such intelligence. If he's on his game he'll briefly apologize for the bad joke, use the "controversy" to make the same point in a more emphatic manner, then make another bad joke without the using the word "lipstick."
The last two weeks give no indication that he'll do this.
Bill is right. This is bad or bad - either he stupidly did it on purpose, or he stupidly did it on accident. The race is a dead heat. Hillary supporters were already suspicious, so he needs to be careful about saying anything that might be construed as sexist by the most unreasonable woman.
I'm not ignoring it; it probably suggested using this particular metaphor.
But Obama's not calling Palin a pig, he's calling the Republican political agenda a pig. He's insulting her political beliefs, not her appearance.
This economy is falling apart. Unemployment is UP. For some, this is a real economic depression. There are real folks having some really bad economic times now.
There are a couple of wars going on, with no end in sight.
No one seems to have any answers or solutions.
So we have our chosen "best and brightest" of our "leaders" engaged in word fights that should embarrass any self-respecting third grader??
Ya, they've all thrown around personal insults. Then the other side wastes time and tries to distract the public by demanding apologies and pretending the p*ssing contests are the real issues.
I'm disgusted with this Presidential campaign, on both sides, and I'm disgusted that someone bright enough to join Eugene Volokh's Volokh Conspiracy would think anything like this was worth any analysis.
This is behavior an elementary school teacher would tell everyone to ignore. It's stupid and does nothing but distract people from the very serious problems that need to be addressed.
If either side had some real solutions ready to put in place, I don't care who he calls a pig. H*ll, he can call me a pig if he knows how to solve the many real disasters this country is now facing. ... BOTH sides are into the name calling because neither side knows what to do to solve the disasters that this country is now dealing with. As between these two sides, it has been reduced to something akin to a high-school student council election, where the kids know they can't do anything, so the elections become personality contests.
This is frightening. Terribly, terribly frightening.
I doubt that the McCain campaign has any self-restraint left at all after their latest ad that implies Obama is a pedophile who supports teaching sex-ed to kindergartners.
Whatever respect I had for McCain vanished when I saw that ad.
The 'Straight Talk Express' became the Bullshit Express a long time ago.
and I think that the Palin response should be say that it was "an unfortunate choice of words" (quoting Obama on the 'RFK assassination' controversy) while the McCain campaign, when asked, should say "no comment, but people have a right to make up their own minds" (quoting the Obama campaign on the MLK/LBJ controversy).
In other words, I don't know if it was an intentional insult or not --- but McCain/Palin should use it to mock the Obama campaign.
A) Obama does support quite demonstrative sex-ed for quite young children.
B) To eviscerate your false implications, I as you to cite the ad.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
my politics haven't changed -- I'm still quite far to the left, while being pragmatic about the odds of my opinions being adopted as policy. But as an eventual, and very reluctant, Clinton supporter in the primaries (based not on her policies, but on her knowledge and experience and Obama's lack thereof) I was appalled by the media throughout the campaign (even before supporting Clinton, I was appalled by the media's treatment of her).
And I'm equally appalled by the witchhunt/feeding frenzy Palin coverage, and the complete betrayal of what was once a rational media critique by the progressive blogosphere.
I don't have a dog in this hunt at this point -- I can't support Obama because of the combination of his lack of experience and his hubris/arrogance/petulance (a Democratic version of Bush would be a disaster -- and that is what Obama looks like to me). I was planning on voting for McKinney until I found out she won't be on the PA ballot -- and may wind up voting for McCain based on the need to prevent a GOP takeover of Congress and the White House by 2012.
Everyone on this board knows what Obama was talking about when he was talking about something smelling like fish. Any guy who spent a day in HS would know what Obama was talking about. $ women friends I spoke with last night all knew what he was talking about.
Combine this with his sexism against Hillary in the primaries(likeable enough, periodiaclly, the claws come out, kitchen sink, sweetie, etc...)and it's beginning to be apparent that Barack has a problem with white women
I know he wrote in his book about how he used to date them but couldnt because of the race issue. Maybe thats part of it.
Everyone knows what he meant and its hliarious to watch the media try and cover up for him.
I love the "it's just a cliche" defense. Lets say McCain yesterday had said of Obama attacking Palin over earmarks when he himself has requested close to a billion dollars, "let's just call a spade a spade here, this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black". Would the MSM be sticking up for him?
We all know the answer
No of course not. Lindgren's got such a problem with Obama or such an infatuation with Palin, his posts are almost becoming self-parody.
Care to back that bullshit up with a reputable (newsmax, LGF, MM, Redstate, et al are not reputable) source that doesn't use out of context quotes?
View it for yourself
Notice the 'creepy smile' picture the ad uses when it mentions teaching sex-ed to kids.
But of course dishonest shills such as yourself will deny the point.
Just as Georgia Congressman Westmoreland denied any racial intent when using the word 'uppity' to describe Obama.
Only an idiot or a dishonest shill would believe a southerner wouldn't be aware of the racial context of the word 'uppity' when used to describe a black man.
Just like they'd deny any ill-intent on McCain's part.
So much for the 'honorable campaign' McSame promised to run.
Also, when you consider that the dem introducing Biden in MO also made a lipstick reference. When other dems on TV have made the same reference. It's clear it was an attack aimed at Palin.
Obama was sexist against Hillary throughout the primary, why are people surprised at this? Remember you're likeable enough, periodically she gets down, her claws come out, the kitchen sink, sweetie, gibing hillary the bird when doing jay z's shoulder brush off, playing 99 problems but a bitch aint one at his IA victory speech, etc...
and the fish reference was so beyond the pale ive lost all respect for Obama as a man. He's no man, he's just some kid in HS or the frat house.
Vote RED, Vote REPUBLICAN
krac@live.co.uk
The pit bull lipstick idea is great. You should send that to McCain.
Indeed.
For the record, I'm wondering why so many posters on an allegedly 'libertarian' leaning blog attack Obama relentlessly while ignoring McCain's wholesale assault on the personal rights libertarians claim to hold so dear.
"It is not just a case of plausible deniability; the speechwriters were trying to be witty."
Nice theory, except as I said before, according to my source high in the Obama campaign, BHO writes his own speeches. Of course this time might be an exception, but I doubt it.
Really. Can you provide an example of something you consider worse that this?
What a cynical political ploy!
attacking women, using crude fish references to their anatomy
flipping the bird to a former first lady and current senator
blaring misogynistic rap music at parties and soliciting endorsements from Luda and Jigga
saying John McCain has no honor
sliming a former President as a racist
the list goes on
Lie much, omarbradley?
Frankly if I had my way, Obama would be painting McSame (accurately) as a cross between Grandpa Simpson and George W Bush.
Luckily for the Republicans, he has moral qualms about such attacks.
After reading Nixonland, I don't.
If you want to know the 'truth' about McCain, visit Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.
Two can play 'slime the opponent'. :p
Is he some kind of unthinking idiot-beast in a suit, then?
Having watching the ad, I think you've got some pretty serious issues.
Are you saying Obama and his people didn't play the race crad on Bill Clinton. Of course they did. They made as much hay out of the fairy tale remark as McCain is now. Karama is a bitch, Barack.
He did play 99 problems but a bitch aint one at his IA victory party and easgerly accepted the endorsment of Luda and Jigga both of whose songs have numerous misogynistic references.
Everyone on this blog knows what the smells like fish reference meant.
Sarcastro, Obama isnt doing this on purpose. Right now he's like a QB whose offensive line has broken down and is getting blitzed on every play. He's being rushed, he's hearing the footsteps, he's being forced in to bad throws and interceptions.
Wow, I'm glad neither McCain nor Palin said this. "Boy" has long been recognized as a derogatory term for a black man. Obama is not a boy, but a 47 year old adult. If you said this on purpose, shame on you. If you said this accidentally . . . .
Having followed your posts for a while, I can say that your 'concerns' WRT misogyny ring about as genuine as a Klansman's concerns about the civil rights of illegal aliens does..
In other words, go peddle your bullshit somewhere where the knuckledraggers will believe it.
I know it's a tough ask, but if you go back and read his second sentence you may find your answer.
Nice way to try and attack the attacker instead of responding to the post, but no dice.
Read this definition of a pedosmile, and try to tell me that it wasn't what the McCain campaign was aiming at.
Truth?
No, I can deal with that.
Lies, bullshit, and character assassination?
Hell, that's all you neocons have to run on, so I don't know why I took McCain's pledge to run an 'honorable' campaign at face value.
Other than naviete, of course.
I certainly won't make that mistake again.
I think they had a legitimate complaint when Joe Biden essentially accused Palin of not loving her child because she doesn't support stem cell research. But this is going to backfire if they keep complaining.
point out my lies.
Did Obama give Hillary the finger? It's on video you know
Did his campaign and supporters call Bill Clinton a racist?
Did he play 99 problems but a bitch aint one at his victory party in IA?
Did he say Hillary is likeable enough?
Did he he say she gets down periodically and her claws come out?
If you want to believe that everything you mentioned was sexist, than you will and nothing I nor Hillary Clinton herself can dissuade you.
For the true HRC supporters who might be reading this, I'll leave you with one statement to keep in mind: 'No how, No way, No McCain'.
The proper response would be a witty counter-joke.
How about:
McCain: You now, Senator Obama is right. Why I was just telling Cindy yesterday, Cindy, you can put a fancy label on a three-piece. But after all, it's still just that: an empty suit.
or try this:
Palin: Senator Obama is right. I was just telling my husband, you know, you can paint cotton candy green. That doesn't turn it into a piece of broccoli. It's still all fluff and empty calories.
It wasn't what the McCain campaign was aiming at. Happy?
If this was an isolated incident, I'd agree.
But it's merely one in a series of incidents where McCain questions the character of his opponent, including several where he outright stated that his opponent 'would rather lose a war than a campaign'.
Perhaps you don't see anything wrong in that, but if McCain said that about me, I'd punch him in the gut for daring to question my love of country.
Again, all of this 'character' bullshit goes directly against McCain's stated desire to run an 'issues' campaign.
that's why the McCain campaign is using surrogates like Jane Swift (just as Obama used surrogates in the whole 'Clinton is racist' thing).
I don't know if Obama was intentionally insulting Palin, whether is was some kind of subconscious hiccup, or whether it was "just a cigar". But regardless of the motivation for the "pig/fish" rhetoric, given the way Obama ran his primary campaign, Obama has no one but himself to blame for those who read malevolence into his statement.
Obama's primary campaign strategy was to get people to see what they wanted to see in Obama -- his vagueness in terms of policy and issues was a feature, not a defect, and it worked for him because the Democratic electorate wants to think the best of Democratic politicians -- and take the WORMs (What Obama Really Meant) at face value.
But that deliberately vague "read what you want to" strategy is disasterous in terms of a general election, because there is an entire political party that thinks the worst of Democrats, and is unafraid to communicate their own "reading" of Obama.
If you are going to call people liers, then you should probably specify the lies. Otherwise, you sound like a hack. I would bet that your so-called lies are really just half-truths and opinion.
He could have played any Jigga song. H to the IZZO. Hard Knock Life. Can I get A...
The Bill Clinton smear wasnt sexist, it was just shameful and dirty
and the periodically the claws comes out was clearly sexist, same with the finger
BTW, Darrin, it;s why Hillary crushed Obama among white women
Look at the exits from OH, PA, MO, NC, WV, KY, etc.... She avged close to 70% of white women
That's not a good sign for Obama
I agree McCain shouldnt push it that much. Creating one day today and taking Obama out of his planned news cycle is enough
But Obama is on notice and if he says anything else remotely sexist, the hammer will fall
That's an interesting spin on it.
And judging by the reaction of the morning news shows, there was no 'misfire': Obama put his campaign in an aggressive posture, sticking McCain on the defensive and forcing him to attack a phrase he himself used to describe Hillary Clinton('s health plan). And when you've spent the last week trying to get the press to put McCain-Palin on the defense over her record, and anything that puts them on defense will get there eventually. This put them on defense. It's not "the politics of change," but it's pretty smart politics.
-YES! This must be on purpose!
Are some of his supporters crazy people?
-YES! We must impute all their opinions onto Obama.
Did an Obama supporter put on 99 Problems?
-YES! Again if one of Obama’s supporters did something it is just like Obama did it!
Did he say Hillary is likeable enough?
-SEXISM! Cause Hillary is a woman!
"She gets down periodically and her claws come out"
-OMG! He said "periodically" it's about PMS!
-Obama has spoken millions of words. Some of them are sexist! It's just like McCain and Clinton are stone racists cause they said the word black once!
I think most people agree that it's been a dirty election. But thinking McCain is trying to paint Obama as a kiddy fiddler is a bit of a stretch.
I'm a white man in Vanderburgh County, Indiana, which Hillary won 52-48%.
That's not much when you consider that she was expecting to win the state by a much larger margin.
Sexist?
Yeah, you could make that argument but considering Indiana's somewhat dishonorable historty WRT the Ku Klux Klan and racism in general, it'd fall flat on its face.
In fact considering both Indiana's past history and recent
Obama, the much hyped "orator" simply can not perform with out prepared remarks.
Obama is clearly the guy you want on the free throw line with the clock showing 00:00 because you would hear his knees knocking.
He is so rattled it isn't even funny.
FWIW: According the latest ABC News poll, page 5
Considering this is an absolutely true statement, your post makes no sense.
Since you can rebut the fact that Obama wanted to lose the war in Iraq, you starting waving your arms about "charater assassination" and such.
Keep waving. It isn't working.
There is an old saying that basically says that 'Once is accidental, twice is coincidental, and thrice is enemy action'.
In other words, the McCain campaign has pissed away any benefit of the doubt they'd normally get because of their previous actions and statements.
Prove that Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign, and then I'll agree.
Until then, I'll assume that you're simply a dishonest shit unworthty of further consideration.
Um, the fact that Obama a) Opposed the war and used that stance to rise to prominence b) Tried to cut off funding for the war c) said "the surge" can't work, and wasn't working even while it was d) tried to cut off funding for the war all while the war was politically unpopular.
On top of the fact you can't point to a single statement ever, by Obama, saying we can win and should win.
This isn't even up for debate. Questioning it shows you're being intellectually dishonest.
And I believe that the republicans actually used the fish thing with Kerry last election. Get over yourselves.
Er, considering you're typing out &out lies here, this silly statement is meaningless.
He did no such thing.
What I find funny is that you can't see the difference between referring to a policy and a person.
Since Obama is so clearly a traitor, why isn't he on trial?
I mean sacrificing one's country for electoral gain is clearly treason. And there is no chance Obama thinks stopping the war is the best scenario for America and not a loss at all.
Questioning me shows you're being intellectually dishonest.
Opposing the Iraq war doesn't make anyone 'unpatriotic' any more than opposing Bill Clinton's 'war for Kosovo' (which I opposed) does.
For those who believe that patriotism consists of unquestioning servility to the President, I'll leave you with this quote from the well-known communist pinko fag Teddy Roosevelt:
:"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
But I guess that TR was really a Leninist in disguise, eh?
When did I use those words again?
Since Obama is so clearly a traitor, why isn't he on trial?
Playing your silly game for a moment:
Because it would be politically unpopular.
For the same reasons Clinton wasn't removed from office by the US Senate.
Who said it does?
For those who believe that patriotism consists of unquestioning servility to the President
Who said it does?
Do you want to take a guess as to why you're arguing against positions nobody has taken?
Still not a big deal, and I think Palin needs to avoid looking like a whiner. She was right when she said that the perceived whining would hurt Hillary Clinton, and if it looks like Palin is directing the response here, it will backfire on her, too.
It won't hurt Palin with Republicans, who are already in her camp. And it didn't hurt Hillary with her supporters, obviously. But the people on the fence don't like to hear it.
It seems that both campaigns are doing an excellent job at seeing who can pretended to be the most offended over nothing.
USA. USA. USA. Sigh.
I would never have suspected that hoping we lose to the Terrorists in Iraq for electoral gain was neither treaonous nor even unpatriotic!
It's even more brilliant than the Chewbacca Defense!
Oh no, the Dems are fighting back!
Palin rips Obama a new asshole in front of 38,000,000 people and it's all good. But now that the fun is over, let's all get back to the high ground.
F* the Republican party.
How stupid do they think we are?
Lipstick on a pig is not an Obama creation.
"Lipstick on a pig" gets you 114,000 google hits.
The earliest uses of "Lipstick on a pig" I can quickly find are an entry into the UrbanDictionary, in 2004, by doo doo Brown, as well as another 2004 use of the phrase by Vice President Cheney.
I've heard it before.
But I can see why you're pissed, because Governor Palin said that the thing that separates her from an attack dog is lipstick, and so that means all lipstick analogies are sexist (when used by men) from now on. (She can still use the pitbull/ lipstick thing if she wants, because it's okay if she compares herself to a dog.)
I've sent an e-mail to David Plouffe asking him to instruct Sambo to go easy on Governor Palin, and to be etremely careful when turning phrases because we don't want to upset the very sensitive feminists, who are threatening to vote for McCain....friend to make-up troweling trollops everywhere.
Also, I've come up with a list of other things Sambo isn't allowed to say anymore, which I also passed along to Plouffe:
"That's like trying to sell ice to an Eskimo."
"That dog won't hunt."
"The difference between a barracuda and a mackerel? The mackerel isn't planning on overturning Roe v Wade."
"Hockey moms drive like shit."
"Cold day in hell."
"Juno blows."
"Mush!"
"Land of the Midnight Abortions."
"Alaskan Crab."
"Ted Stevens."
"I smell something fishy."
"That story has no legs."
"Pork."
"What an ass."
"Lipstick on a barracuda."
"Pipeline."
and of course...."Deadliest Catch."
McCain and Palin have Obama's number. It'll be whack a mole from here until November with Obama sputtering in rage and Hillary chortling on the sidelines.
Do you think this is a problem?
Now that he has the new one, what's he gonna do with Biden?
Personally, as a McCain supporter, I've become convinced that the "The Ace" is Obama campaign staffer whose job it is to go to right-leaning blogs and make ridiculous statements.
Obama is wrong on so many things in regards to the war, e.g. the surge. He is also wrong on health care, taxes, education, etc. However, I feel like most people don't attribute such evil motives as wanting to lose the war to such wrong-headed ideas.
For example, do you believe that because Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts on capital gains lapse that he wants a recession? That wouldn't be very good way to get reelected.
Obama is wrong, that doesn't make him evil. (It's the same tactic the far left engages in in its attacks on George Bush). Which is why reiterate my initial position that "The Ace" is a an Obama supporter. His job is to produce a reflexive response to defending Obama, without thinking about the issues.
To "The Ace": Well played Sir!
What is the best think to do when leftists start babbling? Let them keep talking...
No. But he was a dangerous loon.
If Obama didn't want to lose, what, exactly, did he expect would happen if we removed all combat brigades by March 2008 as he stated he wanted to?
That would be like me arguing I want to kick you in the groin but I don't want to hurt your groin.
Did he want us to win?
Since nobody could possibly produce a statement demonstrating the answer to that question would be "yes" what other conclusion could be drawn?
Why? You can't tell the difference yourself. Obama was talking about McCain's policies when he made the comment. Even if Lindgren deliberately omitted that part of his statements, the videos clearly show that was what he was talking about. Only in your minds was Sarah Palin part of the conversation.
As for calling opponents "pigs", John McCain had no problem doing so when the opponent was >Mitt Romney.
"DOVER, N.H. — As Senator John McCain rolled down a New Hampshire highway today in his "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus, he listened to a description of the latest attack on him by his chief rival in this state's primary, Mitt Romney.
He smirked as he heard the former Massachusetts governor's assertion that McCain wanted to allow illegal immigrants to remain permanently in the United States.
Asked how he intended to respond, the Arizona Republican said: "Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty — and the pig likes it."
The back-of-the-bus compartment in which McCain was holding forth went silent for several seconds. Finally, a reporter asked: was McCain comparing Romney to a pig? McCain laughed and paused as he formulated his response: "That was a general philosophical approach to American politics."
Does anyone believe that McCain was talking policy? That was clearly a personal attack on Romney.
Save the fake outrage for someone else.
Some choice samples from my harddrive:
This little piggie went to market:
This little piggie stayed home
This little piggie went "WEE WEE WEE"
During the primaries he simply did not care.
" And we are seeing it all across the country. And that was true even before the current economic hardships that are stemming from the housing crisis. This is the first economic expansion that we just completed in which ordinary people's incomes actually went down when adjusted for inflation. At the same time, the costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump has skyrocketed."
Then,
Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness....[And as to higher rates bringing in less revenue], well, that might happen or it might not.
Now, he's backed off that.
Who knows.
It was rude, lewd and totally unprofessional ... and it is indefenseable.
McCain campaign is pure sleaze.
Here is exactly what happened:
It began quietly on Monday in Michigan, but grew in volume as Mr. Obama made his way from Flint to Farmington Hills, carrying over to a speech on Tuesday morning in Ohio. By the time he arrived for an evening stop in the southwestern tip of Virginia, Mr. Obama's sales pitch contained nearly as many references to Senator McCain as to himself, suggesting how the McCain campaign has been driving the recent dialogue of the presidential race.
"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.
Really?
What is your proof of this?
???
Does anyone believe that McCain was talking policy? That was clearly a personal attack on Romney.
Typical.
If someone in the party you vote for acts like Republicans allegedly do, it is ok!
I assume he was also referring to David Petreus personally when Obama used the same line regarding the war in Iraq? Was McCain using it to refer to Hillary Clinton?
COME ON. Is THIS how you teach legislative interpretation? By taking a single line out of context, interpreting it at its least charitable, and then assuming you can read the mind of the author. Please.
This post has crossed a new low, in what at one point was reasonable if biased coverage of Obama. The Palin-worship, where she-must-be-protected-at-all-costs, have turned a bunch of anti-PC, anti-first-amendment infringmenet, into the "you can't say that for fear of offeding someone" crowd.
There is no left or right in this, except for one thing: The National Enquirer, and everything like it, has become the political truth machine since the 1980s. Though it doesn't discriminate between Edwards or Palin, it's a particular kind of political smut-making that is fostered above all by Republican responses to "political correctness" in the late 1980s, and is most likely an index of post-Cold War cluelessness about what politics consists of. The smuttier the election, the greater the chances the Republicans win. The more the election focuses on issues, the more likely they will lose. The fewer people who vote, the greater the likelihood Republicans win. Trash strategies are common to all. But it's still the conservative's ace in the hole, even though it's been looking shakier and shakier of late. McCain's "brilliance" here was to bring all discussion crashing down (witness so much even here on VC the past week and a half, really astoundingly hollow). What is most upsetting is that it looks like McCain wants simply to win for the sake of winning. The thought of an actual McCain presidency is currently the thought content-less smug self-righteous confusion. If he were to win and then die, it would be a terrifying free for all. This election shouldn't even be remotely close, taking into account, even exaggerating Obama's flaws and limitations.
Was McCain refering to the famous quote from Twain about teaching a pig to sing? Sounds like quite a coincidence if he wasn't.
Save the fake outrage for someone else.
Well I for one am not outraged. "Ecstatic" is more like it. If Axlerod doesn't get some control soon, the wheels are going to roll right off the bandwagon.
I think you have failed to parse that to some the best way to "win" is something different than what you believe a satisfactory outcome would be. I don't have time (you know with work and all) to get into a comprehensive discussion about what our end goal in Iraq should be: e.g. complete elimination of all terrorists and militants, or the ability of Iraqi troops to defend the country alone, or for that matter the successful creation of a sovereign government. But I think, well meaning people can disagree as to what the definition of "win" is. Merely because the ideas of what I think "win" is and what you think "win" is are not completely co-terminus does not mean that I think your definition means to "lose."
I think Obama's plan as you describe it would have been wrong. Do I ascribe a *motive* to "lose" to that position? No. No more than I do to the numerous generals who opposed the surge. (As detailed in Bob Woodward's new book).
Perhaps the rhetoric can be toned down, and we (as a populous) can discuss what the candidates plans are and why they may or may not represent the best option.
As for me, it's been fun Ace, but work calls.
Geez, I wonder where the eight years came from?
Probably some Muslim thing.
“
It is almost as if, well, these people are stupid.
Did the Democrats focus group a bunch of angry, non-makeup-wearing feminists on this "lipstick" stuff and think it would be a good idea or what?
Ok, that was funny.
I'm in total agreement.
I want them to keep this stuff up. Obama is a gaffe a minute and I can't wait to see what he and Senator "Hey you in the wheel chair, stand up!" come up with today.
The Ace's claim that Obama supports explicit sex ed for Kindergarteners is, of course, absurd. The law was intended to protect kids from perverts. Why would the Ace be against that? One guess.
At last! I should retire!
Meanwhile, is it okay for McCain to make disgusting, false accusations about Obama in the "before they learn to read" ad? The VC is a purely partisan blog now, it seems.
1. GV: "Jim, you’re becoming a caricature of yourself."
2. Big E: "Lindgren's got...such an infatuation with Palin, his posts are almost becoming self-parody."
or
3. Andy L.: Yawn. Slow news day, huh?"
Send your votes for winning comment here.
If it was an intentional reference to Palin, he is no gentleman.
On the other hand, Sarcastro has been in rare form with his comments.
Huh?
Um, newsflash: I never said this.
Ever.
This drives me crazy about you libs! Your candidate is lying about the decomposition rate of fish. He is totally ignorant of the natural history of cartilaginous fish specification. And he has not revealed his serious conflict of interest problem in the area of ichthyology: The media have failed to tell us that he sits on the Board of Trustees of the John G. Shedd Aquarim!!!!
A liar, a phony, and a crook. And you want to give him the net to the Oval Office goldfish tank?
I think not!
This whole thing gives me yet another reason to like Mike Huckabee: "It's an old expression, and I'm going to have to cut Obama some slack on that one," Huckabee told Fox News. But my favorite candidates never gets the nomination.
Jim with all due respect, based on your recent posts it's only natural that people would take it this way.