You know, when I first heard the “lipstick” comment, I kind of rolled my eyes. No way that it was meant as a reference to Palin, especially given the larger context of the speech. Then I read how it was paired with a reference to an “old fish” trying to wrap itself in change. And it became quite a bit more difficult to imagine that the analogy he was drawing wasn’t intentional.
The left, of course, is apoplectic. Every reference to every person who ever knew McCain or Palin who used the term is being trotted out, even at good lefty blogs like OpenLeft. Andrew Sullivan’s histrionics, temporarily abated for a couple days for some unknown reason that can only be explained in German, is now once again outraged:
We are being asked to believe that he called Sarah Palin a pig. If the people making that accusation have half a brain they know it’s not true. This is not a question of interpretation. It is a fact. So we now find out again that John McCain is prepared to tell an absolute lie – in public, verifiable, uncontestable.
He does not have the minimal public integrity to be president of the United States.
Just remember, these are the same people who were absolutely certain that putting Obama in the same ad as Paris and Britney sent a subliminal message to us white folk that Obama had a penchant for white women (in fairness, Sullivan considered it an open question). Which seems like more of a stretch to you?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I remember when you used to actually write about substantive issues in a clear-headed way. Pity you’ve gone all petty and snarky. Oh well.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
jason bonham thinks mccain is engaging in selective outrage. maybe we should get him a premium membership to the daily kos.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Well, precisely. If Obama wants to accuse his rivals of subliminal or sub-textual racism then how can he explain away his clear reference to Gov. Palin as anything but the lowest of highly-gendered attacks?
This goof-ball screw up has already cost Obama 1, going on nearly 2 news cycles. Obama’s flustered, he’s flummoxed, he’s off-message and defensive, and this is just a campaign. Imagine if Obama were our president!
September 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Sullivan is a caricature. Verifiable? Uncontestable? Methinks these words don’t mean what you think they mean.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Oh, and did anyone mention that we’re now nearly afloat with Obama supporters trying to give us advice about how to talk about politics and issues etc.? It’s touching really. Almost sad.
Here would be an example:
September 10th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Jason needs to be relieved of his duties here. He’s insinuations and innuendos about McCain have gotten old. His candidate lost. He needs to get over it or go away.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Why is Jason being brought up? I don’t see him mentioned in the post.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Actually, I found Jason very mature about Romney not being selected.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
#5: Every time Obama screws up, we get a bunch of people we’ve never heard from before rushing to his defense. A couple days ago, when he made that bonehead “I thought about joining the military, but…” comment, we got several, including one who claimed to be a military officer.
I don’t know if trolling Republican sites is an organized effort by Kossacks and their pals on the fringe left (probably not), but I think it reflects their growing panic.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
My mistake. I thought I saw his shadow pass my window. It may have been the meter reader guy.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
So… just because the other campaign exhibits phony outrage, that means it’s ok for McCain’s campaign to do it? Lamest justification around in politics these days.
“Well, George W killed 50 little children on purpose!”
“Oh yeah? Well Kerry killed 60! And they were all girls!”
This de-evolution of intelligence in political discourse is exactly what’s meant by the term “Washington is broken”.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
#1 Someone
Pity you Dems are so utterly desperate that you are infiltrating this website with your venemous comments.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Who says the outrage is phoney?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Well then, the crowd must have been full of psychic pro-McCain liars. What has happened to Sullivan?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Me neither. Sampo, take a deep breath.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
OH MY GOODNESS…
I am beginning to hate this two party system… “Lipstick” is this what our presidential election has come down to? I miss talking about Romney and Rudy.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
The very moment I posted one of the first links about Obama’s lipstick gaff here yesterday I had 3 anonymous nobodies appear to lecture me about how this was “freaking nonsense” etc., etc. They must have a rapid response team on hot standby.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Oh, I’m pretty sure I know who #1 is, and I still like her.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I want to know how roe will be overturned.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Here’s another example:
It’s the Obama-gaff-police again. They flit about casting moral aspersions while they cluck their tongues and roll their eyes. In the above version they writer suggests a moral equivalence between the two camps and claims to hate them both. Clever.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Say, what?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Then I retract my remarks and blame the anonymity of the medium.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Reuters;
“Under burning sunshine at a park in a suburb outside Washington, D.C., McCain and his newly minted running-mate Sarah Palin drew a crowd of approximately 23,000, which his campaign said was his biggest on the presidential trail.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/10/mccain-palin-draw-large-crowd-in-battleground-of-virginia/
September 10th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@ 20 oh yeah.. i want to talk about issues i must be a left wing nut job… c’mon don’t you get tired of this ?
I volunteered for Rudy i don’t need to prove crap to you.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Sean, could it be a frequent commenter (who apparantly DOESN’T like me in the least) from days (and websites) gone by?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Here’s what really happened yesterday… Obama was quoting that Troll comic… “watch out Mr. Bush, except for economic policy, war on terror, blah blah blah blah, we’re going to change things…” Then he went off message a bit and dropped the lipstick line – intentional or not – the response clearly caught him off guard… 20-30 seconds of “ums, well, you know, umm” as Obama’s mind is racing for another little quip to say so as not to appear that the lipstick remark was intentional. And so what did he do? Added the line about a stinky fish wrapped in change…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#16 this form of political “discourse” is enabled by people who see only two viable political parties
September 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Then talk about issues. Talk all you want. No one is stopping you, you who I would still insist would never, ever support Rudy in a ker-jillion years. But if you presume to lecture me about what I would like to talk about then you’re going to get push back. See how that works?
Besides: Obama’s inability to control his own message is a HUGE issue.
So write whatever you want about issues already.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
25. possibly.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
nvermind… it’s all over now… CBS has pulled the plug on McCain’s lipstick ad…
We can all return to the regular programming now…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Discourse really has nothing to do with it. First-past-the-post electoral mechanics tends to result in 2 party systems. Proportional representation, OTOH, tends to result in many parties. Discourse tends to follow the social and material formations that support it. Canada, for example, has a mixed system; hence they have 2 dominant parties and then a second tier of minor parties.
In the past in our system when one party has passed away what happened? Another immediately assumed its place and we had 2 parties again. Did you ever wonder why?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Then I read how it was paired with a reference to an “old fish” trying to wrap itself in change. And it became quite a bit more difficult to imagine that the analogy he was drawing wasn’t intentional.”
At first I thought Obama made an unfortunate analogy and probably not more, but a further more detailed look at the larger picture and his history causes me to agree with Sean. The incredibly vicious attacks on Palin, both above and under the radar, indicates they are really worried about something and may be losing control. These early, aging baby boomers (those 55+ ) really resent not having their way ALL OF THE TIME. The Woodstock Generation has been so certain that they were going to prevail this year and “make up” for what they were “cheated out of” 8 years ago. Now things are looking a little dicey and some of them are becoming unhinged it would appear.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Most NY’er that have seen how Rudy turned this city around would be proud to support him… I am pro life and even though he is personally pro choice his stated support for Constitutional integrity is a plus to me… Do i vote Dem sometimes: YES, Do I vote Rep; Mostly, Do I vote third part; yes.
I can sit here and shout about the issues but what good is that going to do when the whole country seems to be in a tizzy about lipstick.
Do as you chose, I know many folks that feel like I do, and god willing, little by little you will see the political dynamic in this country change cause many are fed up with this. Maybe Dr. Paul was correct.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Oh, and you think that this will make the issue go away? Nice try.
CBS has a point: the use of Couric in the ad was a copyright violation.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
And I am not blaming McCain for this… look at how his cynical supporters reacted to his comment.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Message, yes. But I’ll change it slightly — what is scary here is that Obama seems to be flustered and off-balance just from getting a few counter-punches, losing momentum a bit, and seeing his opponent get a (predictable) bounce in the polls.
If he can’t handle that, can you imagine him dealing with a major crisis? Can you see him at the negotiating table with Putin?
The last few days are showing what a lightweight Obama is.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Obama’s cynical supporters that is.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
“CBS has a point: the use of Couric in the ad was a copyright violation.”
Not it is not.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
CBS isn’t the only network in town, fortunately
September 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
My take is that Obama’s primary intent was to use this analogy in comparison to the economic package, however this was a double entendre and the secondary purpose was to use already familiar lines used by Sarah.
1. Sarah’s line regarding hockey mom and pit bull
2. McCain is the pig (representing old unchanging ideas) and Palin (lipstick) is added to make it appear better
3. The crowd’s reaction indicated they understood the secondary (subtle) reference
Obama was smart enough to create this clever remark and could always revert back to the “context”, which is true, and make the repubs look like they are distracting the electorate. It was actually quite political savvy in my book. Although, I don’t think he anticipated this kind of response…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Sean Ox and Richard M
It isn’t by any chance…
Sweeeeeet __________ Oh Oh Ohhhhhhhhhhhh
Good times never seemed so good
September 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Sorry to be off-topic, but this just in — guess who are the top recipients of money from Fannie Mae?
1. Chris Dodd
2. John Kerry
3. The Messiah
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
September 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
BobH: The Messiah I would say. (The WSJ reported this too.)
It was savvy but THE ONE failed to anticipate the response? Do you realize that your statement contradicts itself flatly? How can a COMMUNICATION strategy be savvy and pig-ignorant (get it? PIG ignorant?) at the same time?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“C:\Documents and Settings\Paul\My Documents\My Pictures\2008_09_10t132559_450×282_us_usa_politics.jpg”
They running scared
September 10th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
September 10th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Of course I’m going to do as I choose. Do I really need your permission for that? So be off with you then to change our divided political culture. I prefer to engage with the world as it is and not the way I would wish that it was. This would be Obama’s mistake.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Do you realize that you posted an address that begins on your hard drive?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
hey dotan, why don’t you get lost? i’m getting sick of your snide and accusatory comments
September 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Dude. That hurts. I’m only trying to help you by pointing out the hiccoughs in your reasoning. Call it argument therapy. You’re a long way from fully functional but you’ve made your first few steps toward the hard light attitudes conditioned by evidence. I’m proud of you.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
edit: … hard light OF attitudes conditioned by evidence …
September 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I like this – i got my popcorn right here -
Go Dotan!
Go Fred!
September 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
btw dotan, maybe if you’d get out of your mom’s dimly lit basement occasionally, you’d realize that just because someone questions the usefulness of debating Barack’s “lipstick” comment, doesn’t mean that person is an Obama supporter.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I’m sorry, but am I supposed to dispute that? You see, this would be one of those hiccoughs in your reasoning I refer to. You need to connect your claims to evidence; you need to link your propositions on logical grounds. That way you become more coherent and more intelligible. Do you see how that works? Now, try again. This time try to reference something I may have actually, you know, expressed, suggested, or implied.
(My immah–that would be mom to you—says hi, BTW.)