Lipstick On An Idiot?

Hmm, did you actually listen?

The question was about Hillary’s plan, not Hillary herself. The reply was about the plan.

And Hillary had not just famously made a statement identifying herself with lipstick. Lipstick did not suggest Hillary then or now. At the current moment, lipstick immediately suggests Palin’s hockey mom/lipstick/pitbull line which got a lot of play just a day or days earlier. I’m surprised you did not think of this.

Well, at least we can’t say that you didn’t make the effor to reach.

Btw, do you acknowledge that Obama’s crowd believed – before finding out that Obama was being criticized for it, then they (not necessarily the same persons, but supporters in general) turned around 180 degrees – believed at the time, on the spot, that it was a reference to Palin?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmm, did you actually listen?

The question was about Hillary’s plan, not Hillary herself. The reply was about the plan.

And Hillary had not just famously made a statement identifying herself with lipstick. Lipstick did not suggest Hillary then or now. At the current moment, lipstick immediately suggests Palin’s hockey mom/lipstick/pitbull line which got a lot of play just a day or days earlier. I’m surprised you did not think of this.

Well, at least we can’t say that you didn’t make the effor to reach.

Btw, do you acknowledge that Obama’s crowd believed – before finding out that Obama was being criticized for it, then they (not necessarily the same persons, but supporters in general) turned around 180 degrees – believed at the time, on the spot, that it was a reference to Palin?
[/quote]

Ooh, that touched a sore spot. Don’t swiftboat if you can’t take swiftboat back…
Or do YOU really beleive McCains latest ad on the lipstick controversy is really truthful and not just brilliant editing? They even got Katie Couric as a shill.

[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
Here’s the vid of Obama implying Palin is a pig.

[/quote]

No, he was talking about McCain and his claims to change. It is a metaphor. Watch the first few seconds of this, then be amazed by the idiotic reaction of Republicans
http://www.devilducky.com/media/124907/

It’s a metaphor. John McCain has even used it himself, as the video shows.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I didn’t get the impression from that video that he was calling Palin a pig.

Sounded like a “don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining” kind of statement.

I won’t believe it unless you find something that shows a connection.[/quote]

I diasgree, I think it was a smart ass remark that he would easily try to deny. If you watch the whole clip, he next says, “you can wrap up an old dead fish and call it change, but it still stinks”. He paused after each statement, the audience chuckled, and he thought he got away with it.

To me, it looks pretty clear that he was referencing McCain and Palin.I can’t believe he’s that stupid, but it sure looks like it.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmm, did you actually listen?

The question was about Hillary’s plan, not Hillary herself. The reply was about the plan.

And Hillary had not just famously made a statement identifying herself with lipstick. Lipstick did not suggest Hillary then or now. At the current moment, lipstick immediately suggests Palin’s hockey mom/lipstick/pitbull line which got a lot of play just a day or days earlier. I’m surprised you did not think of this.

Well, at least we can’t say that you didn’t make the effor to reach.

Btw, do you acknowledge that Obama’s crowd believed – before finding out that Obama was being criticized for it, then they (not necessarily the same persons, but supporters in general) turned around 180 degrees – believed at the time, on the spot, that it was a reference to Palin?
[/quote]

Exactly, it was a smart ass dick move that he could easily deny.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
If Obama did not mean it as a play off of Palin’s very famous, very recent joke about herself and the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom being “lipstick,” if it was merely using a tired old cliche with no relevance to Palin, then why did the crowd scream and cheer repeatedly in applause and start chanting “No more pitbulls?”

Why then did the original AP story on this read:

“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin’s joke.

This is exactly what I thought of the comment. Obama knew that everyone would instantly think of Palin’s lipstick comment, then he tried to cover his tracks with the stinky fish comment that took him almost a minute to deliver. He knew what he was saying, and he knew how everyone would interpret his comment.

Covered his tracks???

With the audience clearly believing that the lipstick comment referred to a specific woman, then coming up with what-seems-to-me a novel parallel of you can wrap a fish in paper but it still stinks, this was not intended to play on some negative, misogynistic, anti-female-directed imagery?

I doubt he would dare in any way let it sound to a woman’s face like he even might be implying that she was like a fish that stinks.

But with the crowd that clearly strongly objected to Palin believing he was talking about her, and so cheering the lipstick/pig comment – thus obviously themselves NOT viewing it as just an old cliche – that’s the imagery he chose to follow up with.

Maybe the thinking required to come up with that parallel is why the slowdown in delivery that you noted.

Doing a Google search, I can’t find anywhere on the Internet a (“wrap a fish” paper “still stinks”) usage where the fish still stinks except his usage just now – there is one single usage where the paper now stinks but that is different – so if it’s not novel, it’s certainly rare.

I do think he thought it up on the spot to meet the situation of the crowd being so satisfied with thinking the lipstick/pig meant Palin and perhaps being hungry for another negative-image innuendo, which the “fish” “stinks” deal certainly accomplishes if taken to be another comment about a woman as the crowd took the preceding lipstick/pig.

Coincidence combined with blithe lack of awareness on his part? I’m sure some will say so, but I don’t think he’s that unaware.

[/quote]

To be fair Bill, didn’t he say old dead fish? I would think that refers to McCain in my eyes. No matter what , he was trying to be smart and got busted.

Don’t try to be smart or a smartass if you’re not smart. It never turns out well.

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
If Obama did not mean it as a play off of Palin’s very famous, very recent joke about herself and the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom being “lipstick,” if it was merely using a tired old cliche with no relevance to Palin, then why did the crowd scream and cheer repeatedly in applause and start chanting “No more pitbulls?”

Why then did the original AP story on this read:

“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin’s joke.

What’s worse than being nasty is being nasty and then lying about it saying, in effect, “I didn’t mean that” and furthermore attacking those that correctly say you did, when it’s overwhelmingly obvious that those hearing it at the time did indeed take it to mean that;

and then the media deliberately misrepresenting it now, playing all sorts of audio clips of past use by politicians but somehow not finding time to include the current Obama clip with its cheers and screaming approval that prove this was not taken as being an unrelated cliche. (I refer to ABC Radio News.)

This is exactly what I thought of the comment. Obama knew that everyone would instantly think of Palin’s lipstick comment, then he tried to cover his tracks with the stinky fish comment that took him almost a minute to deliver. He knew what he was saying, and he knew how everyone would interpret his comment.

The Obama campaign must slamming their heads into the wall over Palin, just like all the other libs. There is just no way they can attack her without looking like the assholes that they are.

Politics is FUN![/quote]

Again, I think the second part was a reference to McCain. Warp and old dead fish in a paper and call it change but it still stinks… To me he was referencing the ticket.

Here’s something to think about, does anyone here over 40 ever remember a vice presidential candidate being attacked as much as this by the presidential candidate?

Looks like Barry is a little nervous, well maybe a lot nervous. The latest polling data i have seen has shown a large shift in votes from independents and women towards McCain/Palin.

I’d be crapping my pants with any large shift right now.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
If Obama did not mean it as a play off of Palin’s very famous, very recent joke about herself and the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom being “lipstick,” if it was merely using a tired old cliche with no relevance to Palin, then why did the crowd scream and cheer repeatedly in applause and start chanting “No more pitbulls?”

Why then did the original AP story on this read:

“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin’s joke.

What’s worse than being nasty is being nasty and then lying about it saying, in effect, “I didn’t mean that” and furthermore attacking those that correctly say you did, when it’s overwhelmingly obvious that those hearing it at the time did indeed take it to mean that; and then the media deliberately misrepresenting it now, playing all sorts of audio clips of past use by politicians but somehow not finding time to include the current Obama clip with its cheers and screaming approval that prove this was not taken as being an unrelated cliche. (I refer to ABC Radio News.)

Hold on, you’ve seen the “no more Pitbulls” chant? The oft repeated clip I’ve seen lends itself to the incidental cliche explanation and I cannot believe that wouldn’t be front n center on FOX.

If that’s so then it does cast it in a different light, but he can still claim exoneration from responsibility for the crowd misunderstanding it though he should have clarified for good measure.

I can’t believe anybody could be that stupid. She is, for the moment, the most popular person in America. It would be political suicide to launch a grade school playground attack like that. You know I DO NOT want this man elected, but I find it tough to believe he could do that intentionally. If he in fact did then I’ve been woefully guilty of giving him too much credit.[/quote]

It was discussed on Fox news and there was a a split on what he meant. I did see the stop and pause and the audience laugh, but I didn’t hear the chant. He knew what he was doing.

Think like a girl, they see these small slights easier than us guys. And being that Obama is more of a girl than Gov. Palin, and not as pretty and more popular now, what do you think he meant, hahaha!

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This wasn’t even CLOSE to implying that Palin was a pig; as a matter of fact, it had nothing directly to do with Palin.

He was clear; the same policies (“the pig”); attempt to make them new and refreshing by labeling them change (“lipstick”); they are still a pig (old policies).

The GOP was really reaching on this one.

Mufasa[/quote]

Wrong, I saw the clip, he paused with a smirk for effect, everyone laughed, then he proceeded with the old dead fish and call it change. And as bill said, the AP already reported a different version than what Barry claims.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
AynRandLuvr wrote:
Here’s the vid of Obama implying Palin is a pig.

No, he was talking about McCain and his claims to change. It is a metaphor. Watch the first few seconds of this, then be amazed by the idiotic reaction of Republicans
http://www.devilducky.com/media/124907/

It’s a metaphor. John McCain has even used it himself, as the video shows.[/quote]

The fact that he said this so soon after the convention shows that he either shows poor judgment (think of James Watt using the word ‘niggardly’ at an NAACP convention) or he insulted Palin.

So he’s either stupid or a lowlife.

He also seems pretty arrogant to me, as if he has some sort of mandate from heaven. LOL!

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

With the audience clearly believing that the lipstick comment referred to a specific woman, then coming up with what-seems-to-me a novel parallel of you can wrap a fish in paper but it still stinks, this was not intended to play on some negative, misogynistic, anti-female-directed imagery?

I doubt he would dare in any way let it sound to a woman’s face like he even might be implying that she was like a fish that stinks.

But with the crowd that clearly strongly objected to Palin believing he was talking about her, and so cheering the lipstick/pig comment – thus obviously themselves NOT viewing it as just an old cliche – that’s the imagery he chose to follow up with.

Maybe the thinking required to come up with that parallel is why the slowdown in delivery that you noted.

I do think he thought it up on the spot to meet the situation of the crowd being so satisfied with thinking the lipstick/pig meant Palin and perhaps being hungry for another negative-image innuendo, which the “fish” “stinks” deal certainly accomplishes if taken to be another comment about a woman as the crowd took the preceding lipstick/pig.

To be fair Bill, didn’t he say old dead fish? I would think that refers to McCain in my eyes. No matter what , he was trying to be smart and got busted.[/quote]

It seems to me both from the delivery and the apparent-uniqueness of that parallel analogy that he thought it up on the spot.

It’s possible that his conscious intent was to follow up a reference to Palin (by using “lipstick” which she had just famously identified herself with) that got such screaming approval from the crowd with a novel McCain parallel to hit him too, and “old” does suggest that.

Though Obama at 47 may personally view women past 40 as being “old” and tend to use, or mentally use, expressions with “old” in them as a way of being further derogatory to such women. Possible. So it doesn’t rule out it being constructed to refer to Palin.

Back to the possibility that conscious intent was to now create an image of McCain as an old fish, how would “fish” and “stink” come to his mind from imagining McCain?

But if he is misogynistic and mentally himself had a really nasty picture of Palin, well there it is.

Anyway, two related points:

  1. While in an ideal world the best thing would be for an opposing candidate to ignore nastiness and other crap from the other side, in this case we know that the only way the media will bring to public attention an Obama action that could harm his image is if the other side does bring it up.

Then it’s a news story and they have to. Otherwise they’ll choose not to report.

But once that is done, let others bring it up if they want to.

  1. I’d take it as just typical nastiness such as you can find freshly posted on Daily Kos, Moveon.org, or Democratic Underground every single day.

We know that they love such stuff (and much worse, such as wishing cancer on those that disagree with them): that’s why the screaming approval of the crowd.

My objections are the hypocritical turnaround of Obama supporters at the time immediately taking at as being about Palin and screaming their approval, but then as soon as Obama starts taking heat for it, Obama supporters now insist it was obviously just an old cliche. That’s crap. Man up.

And secondly that Obama himself didn’t man up. He could have simply said

"It’s an old phrase I was going to use in any instance (if he was) and it’s true that I noticed at the time that, Governor Palin having just made famous her pitbull-lipstick line, that it could have sounded like I was meaning Governor Palin.

I went ahead anyway on the spur of the moment because I didn’t see where I really had to change my words, but obviously I should have found a different way to say it."

Or if he really did not intend it and actually wasn’t aware even at the very moment, then for example "I wasn’t referring to Governor Palin, but given that within the last few days her statement about hockey moms and lipstick had gotten so much play, I should have realized that my statement could easily have been taken to be a disrespectful reference to her and so I should have found a different way to say it.

I didn’t realize it at the time. I apologize for any offense that I unintentionally caused." That would have been class and would not have been taken as “weakness” by anyone, or at least not anyone reasonable.

Or something like those things. But no, not only did he not man up, but he came up with some weaseling along the lines of, “Well, if I had meant Governor Palin at all, though I didn’t, then it would have been only the lipstick that was Governor Palin while the pig was the McCain policies, but that’s hypothetical.” (Paraphrase.)

That’s I get out of this odd little story. Hypocrisy from his supporters and behavior from Obama that I just can’t call stand-up.

Lipstick on a pig? Well, if the shoe fits…!
After all, with that whole Bridge To Nowhere thing, she’s the Queen of PORK!

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Lipstick on a pig? Well, if the shoe fits…!
After all, with that whole Bridge To Nowhere thing, she’s the Queen of PORK![/quote]

I think your Lite Brite is calling. Now run along and make sure you don’t lose the red ones.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Lipstick on a pig? Well, if the shoe fits…!
After all, with that whole Bridge To Nowhere thing, she’s the Queen of PORK![/quote]

Either you or Irish need to change your location. Just being from Jersey is bad enough, but to tag team with a fellow guido - you guys get points taken away just for posting.

[quote]Mental Dwarf wrote:
Lipstick on a pig? Well, if the shoe fits…!
After all, with that whole Bridge To Nowhere thing, she’s the Queen of PORK![/quote]

You do understand that she is not a senator? Don’t you?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
Lipstick on a pig? Well, if the shoe fits…!
After all, with that whole Bridge To Nowhere thing, she’s the Queen of PORK!

You do understand that she is not a senator? Don’t you?[/quote]

If you have nothing nothing from the parade of idiots on the left, you would know that facts mean nothing to them.

My God - don’t you understand? A woman who has never had an abortion, loves her husband, and children, has drive and ambition is running for Vice President. She must be stopped, and all derogatory references to her should be ignored.

Think of the greater good, man - free healthcare, and higher taxes on the people who already pay 90% of the taxes.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
Lipstick on a pig? Well, if the shoe fits…!
After all, with that whole Bridge To Nowhere thing, she’s the Queen of PORK!

You do understand that she is not a senator? Don’t you?

If you have nothing nothing from the parade of idiots on the left, you would know that facts mean nothing to them.

My God - don’t you understand? A woman who has never had an abortion, loves her husband, and children, has drive and ambition is running for Vice President. She must be stopped, and all derogatory references to her should be ignored.

Think of the greater good, man - free healthcare, and higher taxes on the people who already pay 90% of the taxes. [/quote]

Her success highlights in 10,000,000 candle power the irrelevant and vapid nature of the man hating militant feminists for whom a live human birth might as well be a funeral.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
Lipstick on a pig? Well, if the shoe fits…!
After all, with that whole Bridge To Nowhere thing, she’s the Queen of PORK!

You do understand that she is not a senator? Don’t you?

If you have nothing nothing from the parade of idiots on the left, you would know that facts mean nothing to them.

My God - don’t you understand? A woman who has never had an abortion, loves her husband, and children, has drive and ambition is running for Vice President. She must be stopped, and all derogatory references to her should be ignored.

Think of the greater good, man - free healthcare, and higher taxes on the people who already pay 90% of the taxes. [/quote]

I think the parade is in the left and the right lanes. The most informed voters always vote independent. I recommend that people wishing to inform themselves visit: http://factcheck.org/

From what I can tell, many on the left are not particularly hateful of Palin for any of the reasons you list. I do not consider myself a Democrat on all issues, and on certain issues, such as education, I am a conservative.

I don’t like her candidacy. She has little executive experience. I have no problem with this. Obama is also inexperienced in a governmental executive position.

However, only recently arrived on the scene (and with many credentials somewhat inferior to Obama’s), she belittled (in many ways falsely, see link above) and attacked Obama with the words of another, coincidentally much like a “pitbull” on the command of its master.

To me, typical of the Rovian strategy of attacking one’s own weakness in another to deflect attention from one’s own inadequacy. In addition, there was a complete lack of respect. People who cannot respect others, especially those whom they haven’t even met, tend to lack a basic dignity, and I think their service reflects poorly on our country.

Her attack was a brilliant ploy, no doubt, because it motivated Obama to react to her, somewhat dissolving the “high-road” campaign which he had been running up until that point. Her speech writer is to be commended on the content, and she on the execution.

I interpreted this as indicative of her hubris (as she is running as an “average” person). Now I have no problem with her as an attack dog, because this highly unpleasant role had to be fulfilled by the Republican VP for the party to have a chance in this election.

But the fact that she has to read from cue cards at her daily events and consistently repeats a speech calls me to question her intellect and savvy. Her zealous account of herself as an attack dog in her speech furthered my perception of her as a thoughtless, aggressive agent.

Her educational and employment background has not particularly reassured me. The debates will be most informative in this regard.

I hope she is well informed and capable, because she will become President if John McCain were to die in office. I think ultimately either McCain or Obama will be better for the United States than GW Bush, because, fundamentally, even if I disagree with certain policies of both men, I believe they both are prudent and intelligent enough to implement them well.

Note that I do not base this estimation of their character on their educational background, (of course there are many “well-educated” idiots), rather on the sum of their actions, and the reports of their peers and rivals. I do not hold Sarah Palin in the same regard, and this is why I personally object to her candidacy.

She is also kind of hot. This is a good thing. But unfortunately does not influence my vote.

[quote]Demiajax wrote:
<<< I think ultimately either McCain or Obama will be better for the United States than GW Bush, <<<>>> I <<<>>>t base this <<<>>> on the sum of their actions, and the reports of their peers and rivals. >>>
[/quote]

You seem a decent and pleasantly disposed, but nonetheless entirely clueless individual.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
<<< I think ultimately either McCain or Obama will be better for the United States than GW Bush, <<<>>> I <<<>>>t base this <<<>>> on the sum of their actions, and the reports of their peers and rivals. >>>

You seem a decent and pleasantly disposed, but nonetheless entirely clueless individual.[/quote]

An oldie but a goodie, “The more you go in search of an answer, the less you understand.”