Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 10, 2008

LIPSTICK ON A PIG.... I suppose it's possible for our political discourse to get even dumber, but it's hard to imagine how.

Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt. McCain said Clinton's proposal was "eerily" similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig," he said, "but it's still a pig."

A common expression, right? McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig. After all, McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era." Elizabeth Edwards told some health journalists that McCain's health care plan was like "painting lipstick on a pig."

Tonight Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said of McCain painting himself as a change agent, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." ... "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,'" Obama continued, "it's still gonna stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing! It's time to bring about real change to Washington. And that's the choice you've got in this election."

The McCain campaign called Obama's comments "disgraceful" and demanded an apology. The campaign added that Obama, in addition to calling Palin a pig, might have also been calling John McCain a fish, which, of course, would also require an apology.

The media seems to find all of this fascinating, as if use of an old American expression, utilized by all kinds of political candidates from both parties for generations, might be some kind of sexist insult -- not when McCain used it to slam Hillary Clinton, but only when Obama used it to criticize the Republican campaign in general.

It's honestly like being stuck in a "Twilight Zone" episode in which reality has no meaning at all.

Obama campaign senior advisor Anita Dunn said, "Enough is enough The McCain campaign's attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy -- the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run."

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (62)

Bookmark and Share

i always find it amusing (although truly sad) that the republicans can smear the hell out of democrats, but when a democrat says something like this they whine like spoiled children. pathetic.

i predict this story will go away in a couple of days when they find something else to get all histerical about.....


Posted by: just bill on September 10, 2008 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe the lesson here is we don't need to stoop to dirty tricks and gotcha campaigning, but we *do* need to learn how to whine like spoiled children.

Posted by: Thud on September 10, 2008 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

When Obama criticizes McCain for lies and insincere baloney like this, he should occasionally change his "that's not change" line to "that's not honor."

Posted by: Danp on September 10, 2008 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

between this ad and the disgusting distortion on the sexual predator prevention bill, between Palin's endless lying and the Paris Hilton ad - and most of all, the fact that the public seems to eat it up judging from the 10-point swing in the polls - hopefully Team Obama will finally realize that there is no upside to being nice, to being classy, to being above-board. The favor will not be returned, the public will not reward it. these dirty theiving SOBs understand one thing and one thing only - brute force. a public raised on Rambo and bad Michael Bey action flicks seems no better. it may seem silly to us on this blog, but that sex ed ad will hurt, probably badly, unless Obama goes all out in response. its way past time to rip McCain apart savagely - "a change in politics" be damned.

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 10, 2008 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

They will use a child with Down Syndrome, the disaster of 9-11, and the fact that John McCain was a POW to sell their shit, I hate to think what crap they'll pull next. They are masters of taking a big election and making it about small issue that only matter to small minded people. We need to keep reminding people it's not about Palin, she won't be in charge, McCain will be. It's about McCain being four more years of Bush, it's about the economy, health care, leaving the world a better place for our children and not leaving them as indentured servents paying off the massive debt from the Bush/McCain years.

Posted by: Flee on September 10, 2008 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

McGrump demanding and apology, to be disregarded, he is only speaking in tongues.

Posted by: Ted76 on September 10, 2008 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

I totally agree with zeitgeist!
rip the dog & pig show apart. leave nothing recognizable in our wake.
nice guys/gals finish LAST!
let's get out there & get this thing wrapped up.
President Obama has such a nice ring to it.

Posted by: vwmeggs on September 10, 2008 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

At least he didn't use my grandma's favorite idiom,
"You can't make ice cream out of sh*t."

Posted by: apeman on September 10, 2008 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

I think the McCain campaign is insulting pigs if they beleive that statement refers to Palin. Pigs are actually much cleaner and more honest than Palin.

Posted by: J. on September 10, 2008 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

On the bright side, it looks like most in the media -- Jake Tapper, Ben Smith, Marc Ambinder -- are dismissing the McCain whine as ridiculous.

But, yes, Obama needs to take the gloves off. The ad where they call Palin a liar was a good start, but they need to bring the high heat.

Still, every time it seems the Obama campaign is on the ropes, they always manage to surprise us with some strategy that's been in the works for a while. Hope that's true here as well.

Posted by: TR on September 10, 2008 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

Well, since use of the word "lipstick" is off-limits now and belongs to only Sarah Palin, we should change this up a bit: You can try to polish a turd, but it still smells like shit.

I think that one's more appropriate for these tools, anyway.

Posted by: Jennifer on September 10, 2008 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

off topic, but Steve appears on rachel maddow's show and she beats larry king and more than doubles up Glenn beck. Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by: bubba on September 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

Obama, in addition to calling Palin a pig, might have also been calling John McCain a fish, which, of course, would also require an apology.

Does John toss 'em back enough to warrant the misunderstanding?

Do we want an alcoholic ion the White House?

Will anybody else pick up on this horrifying admission of a severe character flaw by John McCain? (who, admittedly, does not speak for the McCain campaign)

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on September 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

The media seems to find all of this fascinating

Hey, it's a lot easier than covering the issues. And the McCain campaign isn't running on issues anyway...

Posted by: Gregory on September 10, 2008 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

They should just call them cowards and liars. Honestly, when was the last time a VP pick drew larger crowds than the presidential candidate. Has this ever happened?

When was the last time a newly selected VP candidate refused to hold a press conference? I don't think Agnew or Dan Quayle were that bad.
Cowards and liars.

Posted by: msw on September 10, 2008 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

Has anyone else seen McCain's new ad about this?

First it runs Obama's "lipstick on a pig" clip.

Then they run Palin's "lipstick" clip.

With just white words on a black screen it says "Obama is smearing Palin" and "Is he ready to Lead?" and "No."

It's sort of brillinat-- because it's an ad where McCain claims that Obama is "smearing" Palin when they are infact smearing Obama. The day after they came up with the fucked up ad accusing Obama of wanting to teach kindergarteners about sex-- which was a total smear job.

But that is all neither here nor there-- ball is in your court, Obama. Just plodding along taking the high road isn't enough. You have to push back and put THEM on defense.

This is going to be one sick twisted election. It's this bad this early? It's only 8:30 and I want a stiff drink.

Posted by: zoe kentucky from pittsburgh on September 10, 2008 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK
Obama campaign senior advisor Anita Dunn said, "Enough is enough The McCain campaign's attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy -- the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run."

...and from TPM Election Central, on the Obama campaign's response to McCain's disgustingly false sex ed ad:

It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why.

Memo to the Obama campaign: Cut the number of words in your responses in half.

Then, cut the number in half again.

One suggestion: McCain's lying again.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Gregory on September 10, 2008 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

Obama showed up to a boxing match ready for a debate. What kills me is all the ammunition Obama has and will not use.

Obama can actually beat them at their own game instead he is trying to define what the game is.

It's about who can deliver the most effective smears!!

It's what the public wants! Read the polls!!!

Posted by: GeorgiaGirl on September 10, 2008 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

Let's be honest here. The comment was completely tone-deaf considering the McCain campaign and the Republicans are laying in wait to charge SEXISM over the slightest and even imaginary things. Obama served up the slowest pitch possible with this one. His campaign is in shambles, there's no other way to say it. Obama's interview with Keith Olbermann was painfull to watch. That was his perfect oportunity to slice, dice and bludgeon McCain and Palin into oblivion. Olberman was begging him to, and all Obama did was "Uhhh...uhh, well Keith..." If he wants it he has to fight for it. No one else can do it for him.

Where's Joe Biiden? This is 2004 all over again when John Kerry acted like he couldn't be bothered and Edwards (we were told a great attack dog) completely disapeared. Same thing.

The lipstick on a pig remark? Obama stepped in the Repubicans' shit, and he should have been much smarter than that.

Posted by: Saint Zak on September 10, 2008 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

This lipstick on a pig crap is a distraction from McCain's dishonorable ad. That ad is itself a distraction from the revelation that a judge warned Palin that her attack on her brother-in-law and what it did to her sisters children was borderline child abuse. All of that is a distraction from the real issues facing America. An unemployment rate that is out of sight, the mortgage crisis, and a looming Christmas buying season that is going to be the worst in decades.

Sorry folks, everything McCain does is smoke and mirrors. He is just waiving bright shinny objects in front of us. He doesn't want us to see that he is 4 more years (or worse) like the last 8.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 10, 2008 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

The minute the Obama camp responds in kind to this type of attack, is the minute he officially cedes control of this race to McCain. McCain WANTS him to respond that way; wants this to be about ANYTHING other than issues.

Stay focused and keep hitting on the issues. Call a spade, a spade, but never lose focus of the issues. If they do, they lose. Period.

Posted by: Keith on September 10, 2008 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

actually the best response to the pig ad is to simply explain the statement:

"you know, a joke is never as funny when one has to explain it, but apparently the Republicans seriously misunderstood what I was saying. I never, in any way, called Sarah Palin a pig. I was referring to having the same old Bush policies and politics delivered by new messengers - its still the same old Bush policies. So to be clear, in this comparison, the 'same old' policies are John McCain. He tried to jazz it up by putting the unknown, untested Sarah Palin on the ticket. Sarah - and I want to be clear on this - isthe new face on the same old policies, that is, Sarah is the lipstick. I was calling John McCain a pig. Nothing sexist about that."

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 10, 2008 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

Here are two ads I would like to see in Florida.
(My retired Mom in Florida almost pearced my eardrum through the phone when I told her McCain thinks SS is an abomination.)

1. "Social Security is an abomination." - John Mccain

If SS was in the hands of Bear Sterns, instead of
backed by the US govt, seniors would be trying to file lawsuits to (maybe) get back pennies on the dollar instead of being in retirement and guaranteed SS for life.
"Thank goodness he didn't get his way."

2. One line ad showing Palin with that "Nowhere" T-shirt.
"She Lies when convenient."

Posted by: GeorgiaGirl on September 10, 2008 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

I am seeing a glimmer of hope. The more the McCain campaign lie ("Bridge...", etc.) - and now cry crocodile tears.... There is the beginning of a pushback by the MSM. Really, I saw it last night on CNN where they started saying "this is ridiculous". So maybe there is SOME hope that they will finally get sick of being used and snap out of their collective trances.

Posted by: John on September 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

They'll govern like they campaign.

Nixon did.
Reagan did.
Bush does.

They'll govern like they campaign.

No rules.
No shame.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

Even Joe Scarborough spent the better part of the morning making fun of the whole McCain lipstick thing-- ALL of them sat around saying how absurd and ridiculous it is.

Posted by: zoe kentucky from pittsburgh on September 10, 2008 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Steve appears on rachel maddow's show and she beats larry king

Really? That's great. King had Woodward on that night. I very seldom watch him, but even I Tivoed that episode. Of course, watching Maddow was top priority.

Posted by: Danp on September 10, 2008 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

collectively the MSM is pitiful, but there must be journalists who are embarrassed at all this nonsense. In large measure the MSM has become nothing more than a mirror in which is reflected the huge shit pile that has become our nation's political discourse. Either journalists protest or they are part of the problem: it's time for them to choose and to take a stand. Most, I know, will "do" the latter and dress it up with the usual faux objectivity.

Posted by: sjw on September 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

It's 1988 all over again. We've forgotten about it now, but the Repubs actually didn't look very good that summer - Dems retook the Senate in 86, and there was outrage over Iran Contra, and the Oct 87 stock market crash made people think the economy was going down the tubes. And GHW Bush was a "wimp" lacking charisma. We've forgotten about it now, but Dukakis seemed pretty appealing at one point - smart, smooth, a successful governor. Americans were tolerant enough for a Greek guy who didn't quite fit the white-bread heartland image, right? And then Bush picked Quayle, who was obviously unqualified and easily mocked.

Then it all went to hell. Stupid, unfair, inaccurate attacks, about pollution, about the pledge of allegiance, about Willie Horton. But they worked, and the rubes went back to what they knew best: the white protestant guy.

This time the attacks are if anything even stupider, and the Dems have twenty years of experience fighting back. But I'm starting to worry that it's all just surface noise. After all the attacks, counterattacks, claims & counterclaims, passively reported rather than challenged by the press, the rubes will go back to what they know best: the white protestant guy.

And then things really will go to hell.

Posted by: Basilisc on September 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

st zak at 8:36 - Biden is out doing yeoman's work. He is giving great speeches in places like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin. He is fired up, he is hitting hard. The press has decided that he isn't a shiny new object like Miss Wasilla, so they just don't cover him (see Steve's mini-report from yesterday and the link to the Project for Excellence in Journalism study - Biden got just 2% of the campaign coverage last week while Palin got nearly all of it). But Biden is doing his part.

Keith @ 8:41 - I see what you are saying, and normally I might agree strategically, but the unavoidable reality is that the McCain campaign already has control of the race. Obama can't cede control; the media has already decided McCain will control it. McCain is making the bolder ads, stirring up more controversy, the Palin pick is more "exciting" that solid, experienced Joe Biden. So the agenda-setting issue is water under the bridge - the only question left is how to respond. The only chance Obama has to take that control back is to be as bold and newsworthy as McCain. Showing some fire, calling McCain out bluntly, will be one of the best ways to get the media's attention and get some control back.

McCain's campaign is dishonest and immoral, but it is very smart and frankly a very simple premise. They are at worst even in the polls, and they have momentum. There are only 50-some newsdays left for Obama to come back. But sort of like most sports, you can only score when you have the ball, when you are on offense. If McCain runs a new ad - the more specious the better - every few days, and Obama has to spend the intervening days explaining it is false and that exchange is what the media covers, Obama never gets the ball back. McCain essentially runs out the clock.

Obama has to go back on offense. The more offensive, the better (double entendre fully intended).

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

Somedays I'm convinced the country I once knew has been snatched away and normal people have been replaced by utter idiots. This can be of those "Kerry telling a joke" moment where people get stupid and feign outrage. Or it can be a "Webb wrotes porn!!" moment where the whiners look ridiculous and people got that.

They look like idiots. That was a good, quick hit back on McCain since he used the term before about Hillary. I hope and pray it backfires.

Posted by: Miss Otis on September 10, 2008 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Re: Obama needs to take the gloves off.

The reason we're all Democrats is because we don't take the gloves off. We don't use bullshit smear tactics, call people names, or play like assholes. We don't nitpick. We don't wheedle. We don't abuse or distort or lie or cheat or go for the gut. And we don't support people who do.

That's what makes us better than them.

But, with an electorate that largely refuses to vote based on what's best for the majority of people and who are fed gut-check bullshit by the corporate media and who respond as directed, we just can't win.

Our only hope is to hit back with SIMPLE, ANGRY TRUTHS. Examples:

1] John McCain thinks you're stupid!
2] John McCain only wants tax cuts for himself.
3] John McCain is old enough to be in a nursing home.
4] Sarah Palin is a liar.
5] John McCain is a liar.
6] John McCain is more of the same.

Posted by: chrenson on September 10, 2008 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

hey, Keith, you're way off base. The Obama campaign is in a unique position where they can hit Mccain hard on actual issues. Tear him down while still being honest. Hang him with his own stupidity. It won't be politics-as-usual, because it'll have the virtue of being true. And it's what needs to happen.

Posted by: slappy magoo on September 10, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

By all means, go on the offensive. Here's one for the Chosen One's next speech:

"If you elect this woman, we'll never get the smell of fish out of the White House pool!"

Posted by: BillyBobSchranzburg on September 10, 2008 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

Nail please meet head.

Posted by: Dave on September 10, 2008 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

I find this story to be quite amazing. If someone uses a word and you think that it applies to you, that says more about you than the other person probably ever could. If McCain feels that the word 'pig' applies to Palin, I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue with him.

Posted by: Mark on September 10, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

One good thing that has come out of all this is the welcome, sudden, and long awaited transformation of Republican sleazeballs into such passionate advocates for women's rights.

Right time to revive the ERA.

Posted by: gregor on September 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Most likely unintentional but incredibly tone deaf. This from the guy who justifies working with Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers, for YEARS, because he's now "mainstream". Yikes.

Posted by: Calvin on September 10, 2008 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Let's see, hmmmm, McCain calls Chelsea Clinton "ugly" and says her father is Janet Reno.

No apology.

And, "how do we beat the bitch" is a "good question".

No apology.

"Lipstick on a pig." "Waaaaaaah waaaaah waaaaaaah!!! He's insulting our pretty little fascist! We demand an apology!

Posted by: Capt Kirk on September 10, 2008 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Jennifer at 8:24: Growing up in Georgia, we used to say, "You can dip a turd in bronze, but it's still a turd." I think I like yours better!

Posted by: Everett on September 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

For those who think the Obama campaign isn't being aggressive enough, listen up. The polls show a post-convention bounce, mainly due to increased enthusiasm from Republicans and right-leaning independents. If you pay attention to this statement and the one about the sex-ed ad, they both go straight for McCain's gut: honor. Honor, honor, honor. Dishonorable. McCain can't even define honor when asked by reporters. Get it? I suspect this word 'honor' is going to be slipped into the conversation quite a lot.

The Obama campaign is officially on the offensive.

Posted by: The Answer Is Green on September 10, 2008 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Palin is a pig with lipstick on except I have some better 4 and 5 letter words for her, like Harpy! If only President Obama said lipstick on a fish or lipstick on a Harpy.

"The sword gentlemen, cuts both ways"

Posted by: Mommie Dearest on September 10, 2008 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

Obama isn't so stupid as to not understand why the crowd rose and appaulded when he uttered the "lipstick on a pig" line. It really wasn't that great, especially if you assume it not to be an insult. If he had been smart, he would have put an end to it right there. At least with one of those "no no no no" lines that he does so well, but instead he just went on.

It was rude, lewd and totally unprofessional ... and it is indefenseable.

Posted by: Neo on September 10, 2008 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

You can put the entire global supply of lipstick on a lying jackal of a pig; it's still a lying jackal of a pig. Besides---given all the "pork" that "Mayor Palin" got for Wasilla with that lobbyist she hired (for a "village" of less than 6,000 people)---methinks the term "pig" is quite appropriate.

Time to go nuclear and wipe these devil-dog Rethugs off the political map. Cede nothing. Hold back nothing. Unleash the 527s from Hell and immolate these putrid scum.

Make the name McCain an all-encompassing antonym to the word "honor...."

Posted by: Steve on September 10, 2008 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

It was a very stupid remark for Obama to make.

First Palen says : Whats the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull, Lipstick.

Then Obama says you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Without thinking how it will be taken.

Is this the man we want negotiating with Iran?

Obama think before you speak.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on September 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Indeed, it's clear that the ten-year old B. Hussein Obama was a HUGE fan of the Weathermen Underground in 1971 and, in fact, if he could have gotten a bathroom pass from his terrorist training camp in the exotic hinterlands of Hawaii (which, at the time, I think it's important to note, had only been a state for 13 years and basically qualified as a foreign country), would have doffed his turban, caught a plane to Washington, DC, and helped bomb the U.S. Capitol. I mean, how else can one interpret the fact that Mr. Obama served on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with Bill Ayers?

Posted by: Calvin on September 10, 2008 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Gosh TruthPolitik, I thought it was Obama's treasonous naivete that made him want to negotiate with Iran. Shouldn't I just vote against him for that? Maybe you could explain. Oh right, you didn't get that talking point yet....I can wait.

Posted by: Everett on September 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Obama is going to address this stupid issue any minute, I hope he gives them hell. "Why are we taking the attention off the issues, four more years of the same Bush policies are the issues Senator McCain!"

Posted by: Flee on September 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

hey Neo and TruthPolitik, was it wrong when McCain used the exact same line about Hillary Clinton's health care plan? Was that equally sexist, or it is ok as long as your trying to "beat the bitch"? Or maybe its not sexist when a Republican says it? Or is it just that we know Republicans are scum so our expectations are low?

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Neo, you're like, so, right, and stuff. Obama went on with his scurrilous analogizing to say that espousing a continuation of the Bush policies and calling that "change" is like wrapping an old fish in paper. Clearly, Obama was calling McCain a stinky fish.

And let's not overlook Obama's support for intra-familial slavery in his convention speech! I mean, take a look at this quote:

"That’s the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper."

That's like, so, you know, rude, and, like, unamerican, and stuff.

Posted by: on September 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

It's seems to me that the definition of lipstick on a pig is when a man in public tells his wife to "shut up you stupid f**king c**t" and then chooses a woman for his running mate.

Posted by: Keith Evenhouse on September 10, 2008 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

So it's OK to directly refer Palin as a pitbull, a dog that has been hyped as a crazed four-legged tearer of throats and eater of babies.

But calling a presidential nominee's platform a pig (an animal that is smart and tasty!) triggers screams of outrage.

John McCane. Pouty Old Whiner.

Posted by: The Answer WAS Orange on September 10, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

heh. gotta agree with tAwO -

"If a common analogy about lipstick and pigs gets McCain and Palin all whiny, how can they possibly stand up to Al Queda!?!? Don't we need someone tougher to lead America?"

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

You note the following: McCain said Clinton's proposal was "eerily" similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig," he said, "but it's still a pig."

There are only two choices regarding John McCain at this point.

(1) Either he's the greatest, most cynical liar in American political history.

(2) Or he's the most addled, confused, and forgetful candidate in American political history.

Posted by: CMcC on September 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

[PUMA trolling deleted. -Mod]

Posted by: Elizabeth on September 10, 2008 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

being a Hillary supporter myself, it brings shame upon me to have other Hillary supporters show that they lack basic literacy. Elizabeth (assuming you are really a Hillary supporter, which I doubt) did you read teh actual Obama quote, or just the Republican Talking Points? It is abundantly clear that Obama was using this very old, very established colloquialism to describe the claim by McCain and Palin that they represent change. The old Republican policies (which any true Hillary supporter should abhor) are the pig. Allegeed mavericks McCain and Palin are the lipstick - the new names on the same old BushCo policies. This is beyond obvious to anyone who (a) can read the English language (b) is not totally insane from poisoned Republican kool-aid and (c) actually bothers to care about the real facts, the entire quote and context.

The Republicans who have you on payroll will appreciate your efforts to put a wedge between the real Hillary supporters and the rest of the Democrats, however, so you can go collect your points now.

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 10, 2008 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Elizabeth, I was ready to let this lipstick thing fall by the wayside as just stupid. Then I looked at that clip of him giving the finger to Hillary again. How can he be so careless in his speech when every nuance of gesture and remark is so carefully scrutinized. The McCain camp was so quick to respond with that youtube ad. They think they have him on the ropes now.

Posted by: Helen on September 10, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting way to muzzle an opponent--make the English language a minefield, and find something objectionable about, and demand an apology for, every word he says. Suppose they might leave a few prepositions?

Posted by: Georgette Orwell on September 10, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Oh fuck off Elizabeth. You don't even understand the word "sexism".

And btw: nice lipstick.

Posted by: MissMudd on September 10, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

the put lipstick on a pig saying is not offensive in itself. However, bringing it up after Sarah Palin won America over when she joked that lipstick was the only difference between her, the hockey mom, and a pitbull, is sexist. The biased media knows, the biased media agrees, and the biased media denies. Fine with me. I am clinging angrily laughing to my water pistol and my pagan beliefs while I am watching Obama's approval polls going down. Keep going Barack - I love watching a donkey making a jackass out of himself.

Posted by: munichmaedchen on September 10, 2008 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

It is NOT sexist, you stupid fucking oaf. When a woman willingly applies sexist images to her self, she opens the door.

She revels in the image. Besides, who can imagine a moose-shooting book-burning stark-raving mad lying sack of shit to ever whine about sexism anyway. She'd do a Lorena Bobbit and roast it on the fire. Just as she's done to that pussy-whip of a husband of hers.

Posted by: MissMudd on September 10, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

The only people pretending to buy this garbage are the former Clinton supporters who are so racist that they are now going to vote republican. We are not fooled by your sudden change in political affiliation or this desperate fake outrage. The outrage and disgrace is that Republican women like former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Jane Swift, are letting themselves be used in this manner to try to sway even more women into joining the Republican party. The Republican honchos obviously believe that the women of this country are so stupid and vindictive that we will swallow any nonsense they put out. We are not ! Keep trying things like this though, it only shows you for who and what you really are.

Posted by: Elizabeth on September 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly