WP: McCain Camp Sees An Insult in a Saying

[GoSkins561]

Maybe. It is a politically incorrect thing to do, but it's refreshing and if the McCain camp is saying that they are liars. It's as simple as that. A rose by any other name, you know.

It is actually a mistake on his part, spin it however you want, people want to make up their own mind, not be told how to think.

[Predicto]

It is actually a mistake on his part, spin it however you want, people want to make up their own mind, not be told how to think.

I totally disagree.

People want to THINK they are making up their own minds. But when you see them parroting empty talking points (from either side) then you know that they are just kidding themselves.

[81artmonk]

After hearing the crowd react to the comments, IMO it was clear what they thought he was talking about.....or should I say whom.

If it were only the pig comment, I would say, just happenstance, but in combination with the "old fish" comment, I would have to say, he was trying to be hardball in a subtle way.

With that said, so what. neither party should be getting upset or hurt, this is how politics works. Has been for years. Both sides sling this sort of stuff at each other all the time and it really shouldn't matter. Does it really matter?

Now if Mccain called obama a ****** or Obama called palin a *****, now we have something to talk about and a real issue. This, however is nothing and should be swept under the rug and forgotten about!!

[mardi gras skin]

Is there a single person on this board who honestly thinks that Obama actually was making a sexist comment with this "pig in lipstick" saying?

Is there a single person on this board who honestly believes (or believed) that McCain was going to engage in a 100 year war in Iraq?

I've heard Obama perpetuate that myth in an interview. Why is anyone shocked that McCain's campaign would is willing to twist words the way Obama did?

[Special K]

I think it was used completely absent-mindedly but he still needs to be more careful.

Fair enough. I don't think that much of myself (well, most of the time ) where I can interperet intention definitively. So while I am inclined to think that it was more intentional than not, it certainly might not have been and you certainly could very well be right. Regardless, this whole issue is idiotic. Seriously, who the hell cares about this? I'm sick of seeing pundits argue about this on the news shows. Enough already, arrgh!

Okay so McCain can use it to describe Hillary's Universal Healthcare Plan, Obama can use it before, but now its unacceptable to John McCain. This is just an attempt to play the gender card which the McCain camp has used every single time anyone criticizes Palin. Its ridiculous, question her experience gender card, question her record gender card, when is someone going to call them out on this?

I'm just saying that after Palin made a big point about "lipstick" in her convention speech, it might be a little soon to bring up the saying again without thinking it's going to be tied back to Palin.

However, I agree with you that the McCain camp needs to not dwell on this. The more he and his camp dwells on it, the more they are going to be percieved by the general public as crying foul and totally playing the gender card with Palin. I think it would be wise for all parties to just move on...but I think that would be too much to ask in present day politics.

[zoony]

Is there a single person on this board who honestly believes (or believed) that McCain was going to engage in a 100 year war in Iraq?

I've heard Obama perpetuate that myth in an interview. Why is anyone shocked that McCain's campaign would is willing to twist words the way Obama did?

gotta admit, that's a good point

[tizzod]

I'm just saying that after Palin made a big point about "lipstick" in her convention speech, it might be a little soon to bring up the saying again without thinking it's going to be tied back to Palin.

Anyone that thinks that saying, in that context, could be tied back to Palin is a flaming moron and has no comprehension skills whatsoever.

Hopefully this is just what we need to hit the rock bottom of PC stupidity and get back to some semblance of sense around here.

[DjTj]

I asked for people that honestly thought that he intended to be sexist. Not "its a poor choice of words" or "his advisors should have told him" or whatever.

Maybe not five then, but

Fair enough. I don't think that much of myself (well, most of the time ) where I can interperet intention definitively. So while I am inclined to think that it was more intentional than not, it certainly might not have been and you certainly could very well be right.

there certainly could very well be one...

[Special K]

Anyone that thinks that saying, in that context, could be tied back to Palin is a flaming moron and has no comprehension skills whatsoever.

Hopefully this is just what we need to hit the rock bottom of PC stupidity and get back to some semblance of sense around here.

What do you think the audience was laughing at immediately when he mentioned "lipstick." Are they a bunch of "flaming morons with no comprehension skills whatsoever?" Certainly Obama may not have intentionally meant to tie that to Palin, but it seemed pretty obvious that some in the audience took it that way.

[Major Harris]

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

[luckydevil]

Is there a single person on this board who honestly believes (or believed) that McCain was going to engage in a 100 year war in Iraq?

It is not even remotely the same analogy. Some of us are opposed to a 100 year presence regardless if we are at war or not. Many democrats agree with that as well. McCain seems to have no problem establishing a permeant presence in that region of the world. That's the reel beef.

[Major Harris]

It is not even remotely the same analogy. Some of us are opposed to a 100 year presence regardless if we are at war or not. Many democrats agree with that as well. McCain seems to have no problem establishing a permeant presence in that region of the world. That's the reel beef.

so what you're saying is that no one really believes it. the democrats just say it to rile people up the fan base. sound familiar?

[PeterMP]

Someone has to draw a line in the sand jumbo. The latest mccain attack ad transformed a program to educated kindergarters on sexual predators into sex ed class for children. It's absolutely disgusting and manipulative what that party has shown they will do to win the election.

Okay, now this is really NO DIFFERENT than what Obama has done with the 100 year in Iraq and "pre-conditions" for talking to Iran.

Oh and the Obama ad that links McCain to Reed (and then essentially the same thing is alluded to in the "Same Ad". "The same questionable ties to lobbyist")

"Key facts are missing in an Obama ad linking McCain to Ralph Reed."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/reed_reality.html

[tizzod]

What do you think the audience was laughing at immediately when he mentioned "lipstick." Are they a bunch of "flaming morons with no comprehension skills whatsoever?" Certainly Obama may not have intentionally meant to tie that to Palin, but it seemed pretty obvious that some in the audience took it that way.

Maybe they were laughing because they agreed with Obama that that was a good way to describe McCain's policies as they applied to Bush.

Nobody ever mentions that.

[Ignatius J.]

I would have laughed at it Palin or no.

[DjTj]

so what you're saying is that no one really believes it. the democrats just say it to rile people up the fan base. sound familiar?

The Iraq quote is an exaggeration of the candidates' positions on an important election issue. The lipstick quote has nothing to do with any issue at all.

Okay, now this is really NO DIFFERENT than what Obama has done with the 100 year in Iraq and "pre-conditions" for talking to Iran.

I think there's a very big difference.

While the "100 years in Iraq" quote was taken out of context, it still highlights a real policy difference, which is that Obama will make it a priority to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, while McCain is more focused on staying there until the job is done. People who would be most opposed to 100 years in Iraq (pacifists) are people who would be likely to vote for Obama. McCain can easily place his quote in context and explain how he believes that his position is better. Any controversy arising from that debate would tend to educate the voters on one of the most important issues in this election.

This "lipstick on a pig" comment has no basis in the issues whatsoever. Are they suggesting that Obama is a sexist? That an Obama administration will discriminate against women? There is no real policy issue underlying this controversy whatsoever. It is purely a personal attack that misleads voters. People who are most offended by hearing Palin called a pig (feminists) are not likely people who would vote for McCain. There's no reasonable discussion that can come out of this controversy. The longer we spend talking about it, the less voters learn about any real issues.

Political hyperbole is one thing; deception and distraction is another.

What do you think the audience was laughing at immediately when he mentioned "lipstick." Are they a bunch of "flaming morons with no comprehension skills whatsoever?" Certainly Obama may not have intentionally meant to tie that to Palin, but it seemed pretty obvious that some in the audience took it that way.

Why did the audience laugh when McCain said "lipstick on a pig"?

Was it because they were all sexists and were laughing at Hillary? Or is it because "lipstick on a pig" is a funny mental image, which usually causes people to laugh? :whoknows:

[SkinsD]

Yea... here is McCain saying it:

it is a common saying that had nothing to do with Palin. It is simply the same game that makes people sick of politics.

[Cooked Crack]

What do you think the audience was laughing at immediately when he mentioned "lipstick." Are they a bunch of "flaming morons with no comprehension skills whatsoever?" Certainly Obama may not have intentionally meant to tie that to Palin, but it seemed pretty obvious that some in the audience took it that way.

The audience laughed when McCain said it. They must have took it that way too. It's just a colorful phrase.

[Jumbo]

As it happens with ever-increasing frequency (especially over the last month) in this forum, do most folks here notice that when either side responds to a flurry of point-scoring on some matter (be that matter significant or irrelevant) of the other side with some fairly irrefutable video(s) or solid-source link(s) that truly rebuts, or seriously weakens, or exposes the hypocrisy of that point in question...that there is little or no posting of acknowledment or modification of comments or behvaior from the side rebutted?

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Was that question long enough? Did it pull any muscles to make it work?

[mardi gras skin]

It is not even remotely the same analogy. Some of us are opposed to a 100 year presence regardless if we are at war or not. Many democrats agree with that as well. McCain seems to have no problem establishing a permeant presence in that region of the world. That's the reel beef.

And if that were Obama's point or the point of anyone accusing McCain of a "100 year war" I would agree with you. Instead, Obama used McCain's words to perpetuate a lie that worked to Obama's advantage.

When Obama refused to engage in the town hall debates and when he came at McCain with the 100 year war type stuff, he set the tone for this political cycle. As the frontrunner, he had the opportunity to bring real change to the style and format of the campaign season and he failed.

Crying over it now is contemptuous.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

When is the first debate?

If I was Obama, I would straight up ask McCain "Do you think that I was referring to Mrs. Palin when I said that?" Put him on the spot right there. He can not answer yes and hold any credibility with people and if he is honest, then people will know that he used a blatant smear.

If somehow he does answer yes, then bring up all the times he has used the same phrase.

[Major Harris]

The Iraq quote is an exaggeration of the candidates' positions on an important election issue. The lipstick quote has nothing to do with any issue at all. I think there's a very big difference.

good point. there's a difference, you're right. one's a baseless statement, the other has a base somewhere pretty far from actual reality. i still say both were done for the same reason.

[War Paint]

Obama was not calling Palin a pig. He used the saying "lipstick on a pig" as a pun. He used it to criticize McCain's policies, which the saying is used a lot to criticize policy, and also mocking Palin's popular line from her speech about lipstick. You can tell how he set it up like a punchline and by the reaction of the crowd. It was a gaffe. It's not political suicide or anything. It's really no different from when the Obama campaign jumped on McCain for saying 5 million dollars and not answering the house question.

[JMS]

duplicate post.

[JMS]

Seems like someone in the McCain campaign forgot to read the memo. No double standards here right? This one isn't even subtle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903531.html?hpid=topnews

it is amaizing to me that every news caster who I saw reporting this story stated flat out that the McCain campaign indignation is contrived, and some even pointed out McCain himself used this expression to describe Hillary Clinton's health care plan; and yet three days latter they are still talking about it.

Larry King last night was especially horrendese. Larry shows Obama's statement, shows a video of McCain using the statement, then critisizes the media for blowing it all out of proportion. Then has four talking heads describe what they think about Obama's "expression". Then Larry says... Let's watch Obama's statement again. That's when I changed the channel.

What has happenned to our TV news? when did every broadcast become the video equivelent of "people magazine"?