WP: McCain Camp Sees An Insult in a Saying

[Larry]

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

When People magazine and The Daily Show became the only organizations who aren't too terrified of the political hit squads to actually point out professional hypocrisy?

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Candidates are not allowed to ask each other direct questions in most Presidential debate formats. There is a good reason for it too IMO. Asking questions should strictly be the role of the moderator, as should be the agenda. If you let candidates ask the questions then they dictate the agenda and then we end up talking about lipstick instead of real issues.

[PeterMP]

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.

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.

That's great DjTj, and you know what, I agree. Unfortunately, I wasn't responding to a post that was discussing lip stick on a pig. I was responding to a post that was discussing the issue of teaching sex-ed to kids in kindergarten, and while I understand that the McCain ad is almost certainly slanted so that it misrepresents Obama's position, it is a position based on a law that Obama voted for that he can defend. If McCain is misrepresenting it, let Obama explain how.

To be truthful, I have a 2 year old daughter. I really don't think I want a kindergarten teacher teaching her ANYTHING about sex, even it is just an effort to prevent pedophiles and deals with things like "bad touching" if I'm not present.

My wife and I are actually starting to work on this at home, and my daughter is in daycare, and we like her daycare, but I don't want them doing it.

[Midnight Judges]

That's great DjTj, and you know what, I agree. Unfortunately, I wasn't responding to a post that was discussing lip stick on a pig. I was responding to a post that was discussing the issue of teaching sex-ed to kids in kindergarten, and while I understand that the McCain ad is almost certainly slanted so that it misrepresents Obama's position, it is a position based on a law that Obama voted for that he can defend. If McCain is misrepresenting it, let Obama explain how.

To be truthful, I have a 2 year old daughter. I really don't think I want a kindergarten teacher teaching her ANYTHING about sex, even it is just an effort to prevent pedophiles and deals with things like "bad touching" if I'm not present.

My wife and I are actually starting to work on this at home, and my daughter is in daycare, and we like her daycare, but I don't want them doing it.

That doesn't necessarily put you at odds with the Illinois Law that Obama favored. Under that law anyone is free to opt their child out of sex ed.

[Larry]

That's great DjTj, and you know what, I agree. Unfortunately, I wasn't responding to a post that was discussing lip stick on a pig. I was responding to a post that was discussing the issue of teaching sex-ed to kids in kindergarten, and while I understand that the McCain ad is almost certainly slanted so that it misrepresents Obama's position, it is a position based on a law that Obama voted for that he can defend. If McCain is misrepresenting it, let Obama explain how.

The law's been posted. Two people have asked where that law mandates teaching sex ed in Kindergarten. No response to either one.

Smoot provided a link. Claims he's read the law. (But when I ask him where it says what he's claiming, he doesn't answer.)

You wanna take a shot at it?

[JMS]

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.

I have not seen anything but the sound bite clips, so I don't know the answer to this question. How is it an exageration to say John McCain want's to stay in Iraq for 100 years, if that's what he flat out said? He also said, the casualties were the problem, not the occupation. John McCain see's iraq as a long term occupation, like Germany, or Japan after WWII. I don't know what GOPer's are claiming when they object to the quote.. Right from McCain's lips. It's not like the GOP shyed away from sound biting Kerry to death on much more misleading statements.

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.

Since President Bush and the Iraqi government are now both on record as endorsing a with drawl plan which has very similar timetables as Obama first proposed, isn't it more accurate to say. Obama would withdrawl as quickly as is responsible possible after the job is over. John McCain advocates we extend the occupation, even when we are not wanted, for many decades... ( 100 years ).

People who would be most opposed to 100 years in Iraq (pacifists) are people who would be likely to vote for Obama.

At 10 billion a weak I think we might find a few fiscal conservatives who also would opose this position. Especially since Iraq itself is saving up it's money and has a 70 billion dollar surplus currently from oil sales.

I'm so old I remember when Republicans critisized Democrats for "nations building" policies. Wait, that was President Clinton being critisized the Democrat prior to George Bush.

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.

no he can't. History has already played this hand. McCain's position on Iraq has been rejected even by President Bush. You do realize Bush has signed a deal with a timetable of about 18 months for the withdrawl of troops from Iraq don't you?

It's like beating up Obama for saying his administration would talk to our enemies. History laid down those cards. Bush has sent a senior ambasidor to talk to Iran, and has negotiated and signed an agreement with North Korea. McCain was wrong on that those too.

Any student of history could have told you that from the start. Roosevelt exchanged correspondence and had an ambasidor with Hitler's Germany. Truman and Eisenhower spoke with Stalin and Krustief. Reagan spoke with Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. America has always talked with our enemies, before Bush.

The reason you are not hearing McCain talk about these polices, is because nobody agrees with him anylonger. Not his president, not the military, nobody. McCain can't admit he was wrong, cause he would have to admit Obama was right. So McCain wants to talk about lipstick.

Hell even Clinton talked to North Korea. The nuke deal Bush pulled out of in 2001 which freed North Korea up to obtain Nukes, was negotiated by Clinton's administration.

People who are most offended by hearing Palin called a pig (feminists) are not likely people who would vote for McCain.

:doh:, Like Obama was ever talking about Palin. Like John McCain was ever talking about Hillary clinton when he used the exact same expression to reffer to Hillaries health care proposal in 2007. It's phoney to even suggest Obama was talking about anybody personally.

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.

Which is classic Karl Rove politics. Classsic GOP politics. Give your base something to be outraged over, even if it's untrue. The more they talk about meaningless drivel the more they won't be talking about your record.

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

Swift boat.

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:

Hello... putting lipstick on a pig is funny. It's a joke. The people laughed in 2007 when John McCain said the same thing about Hillary Clinton's Healthcare plan. Cause he was making fun of Hillary, dressing up a sow is something only a fool would do. McCain wasn't saying Hillary was a sow.

[PeterMP]

That doesn't necessarily put you at odds with the Illinois Law that Obama favored. Under that law anyone is free to opt their child out of sex ed.

The law's been posted. Two people have asked where that law mandates teaching sex ed in Kindergarten. No response to either one.

Smoot provided a link. Claims he's read the law. (But when I ask him where it says what he's claiming, he doesn't answer.)

You wanna take a shot at it?

I'm making NO claims about the law or the accuracy of the ad (well, except that I'm pretty sure the ad DOES misrepresent Obama's position). My understanding of it, from what I read in the other thread on it based on what Obama supporters were saying, is that the law was designed to help teach kids what they know at a young age to protect themselves from and inform other adults about pedophiles hence my statement.

The point I was trying to make (even before the DjTj post), is while I think the pig in lipstick thing is stupid and irrelevant and shouldn't have become an issue let's not pretend all of the sudden that all of the McCain ads are bad and none of the Obama ads aren't. The original poster I responded to was grouping the pig in lipstick ad with the kindergarten sex ed ad.

The kindergarten sex ed ad almost certainly misrepresents Obama's position (by misrepresenting the law). It is an issue though based on a real law that Obama supported. Obama should be able to defend that based on the law.

Obama has run the Ralph Reed ad, and then alluded it to the samething in his "same" ad. It is full of inaccuracies (I posted the fact check for it before), but corruption and lobbyist are a real issue and the ad is losely based on real things that happened that McCain should be able to respond to in an issue related manner.

McCain's campaign stepped over the line IMO with the pig nonsense because it isn't at all relevant to the future of the country, but on issue related ads/statements let's not pretend that Obama has been a saint and McCain hasn't.

[PeterMP]

Since President Bush and the Iraqi government are now both on record as endorsing a with drawl plan which has very similar timetables as Obama first proposed, isn't it more accurate to say. Obama would withdrawl as quickly as is responsible possible after the job is over. John McCain advocates we extend the occupation, even when we are not wanted, for many decades... ( 100 years ).

Obama was going to withdraw before the job was finished. His original law would have caused a pull out in March.

McCain said that we COULD stay in Iraq for 100 years (if there no casualties), but he also said that he expected to have combat troops home by the end of his first term.

Anybody actually seen a copy of the status of forces agreement. I'd be curious to see how it actually reads.

Any student of history could have told you that from the start. Roosevelt exchanged correspondence and had an ambasidor with Hitler's Germany. Truman and Eisenhower spoke with Stalin and Krustief. Reagan spoke with Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. America has always talked with our enemies, before Bush.

Any student of history would tell you there were MASSIVE meetings at a non-Presidential level BEFORE the President's met with those people in most cases. There were intense negotiations between us and the Soviet Union before Reagen met with Gorbachev. There were even negotiations over what shape and size the table would be.

Obama said he would meet with a whole list of people without preconditions. He's since had to clarify those comments that he would require lower level meetings to do things such as set an agenda.

The Obama camp would have you believe we weren't communicating with Iran at all. They ignore the fact that for example our ambassadors met in Iraq, and that we played a role in putting together a proposal that the Europeans then actually presented to the Iranians.

[81artmonk]

If he didn't mean what he said and it was all just overreaction by the McCain side than explain this away.

NBC Nightly News. The reporter, Lee Cowan, who is traveling with Obama reported this.

COWAN: An Obama rally the crowd actually started chanting, "No more pit bulls!" Pretty sarcastic reference to that lipstick joke that Sarah Palin made at the GOP convention.

So the same night that Obama makes the lipstick joke and the crowd laughs, they than proceed to as reported by and NBC newsreporter to chant "No more pitbulls".

Doesn't that seem odd to anyone?? If obama was only talking about politics, why is it than, that only the crowd he was speaking to and the McCain side got the reference and not obama??

Look, I don't care either way, it's politics, live with it....both sides. To make the comments, meant or not, and than blame the media and the republicans of playing dirty, when his own audience got the reference intentional or not, is just laughable.

Like I said before, I don't care if he did said it, it's politics. But in combination with his "old fish" comment, I don' think there is any doubt he was taking a swipe at McCain and palin.

[Predicto]

Like I said before, I don't care if he did said it, it's politics. But in combination with his "old fish" comment, I don' think there is any doubt he was taking a swipe at McCain and palin.

Ok, I'll bite. What does "old fish wrapped in a newspaper" have to do with sexism?

Remember, the disputed assertion is that Obama was being sexist. No one cares if Obama was taking a general swipe at McCain and Palin.

[Larry]

If he didn't mean what he said and it was all just overreaction by the McCain side than explain this away.

So the same night that Obama makes the lipstick joke and the crowd laughs, they than proceed to as reported by and NBC newsreporter to chant "No more pitbulls".

Wow. You mean, the same day that he said "lipstick", he talked about Palin?

Wow.

You know, yesterday, I made a post about the claims that Obama supports sex education for Kindergartens.

Guess that means that, at lunch, when I told the waitress "Sweat Tea, please", that I was really saying that I wanted to give her kids sex education.

Look, I don't care either way,

Right. That's why, every time the Republican Party gets exposed lying, you run in here to defend it. So you can show how neutrally skeptical you are.

[JMS]

Obama was going to withdraw before the job was finished. His original law would have caused a pull out in March.

McCain said that we COULD stay in Iraq for 100 years (if there no casualties), but he also said that he expected to have combat troops home by the end of his first term.

Anybody actually seen a copy of the status of forces agreement. I'd be curious to see how it actually reads.

"before the job was finished"? I don't even know what that means. We invaded, We caused Al Quada to go into Iraq. We allowed the civil war to break out. Now we are arming and paying both sides of the civil war to not shoot at us. What do you think we accomplished in Iraq? What job do you think we "finished".

McCain hasn't changed his position. He still want's us in there as occupyers for 100 years. al-Maliki had to insist, but now even Bush in forced to face reality. Iraq doesn't want us there. They don't like occupiers. They don't like us. John McCain's not talking about this position because history has proven him wrong.

One of the only last remaining justifications for going into Iraq was this misguided belief we would be allowed to remain and create a long term presense in that strategic area of the world. Well now that reason is gone too.

Any student of history would tell you there were MASSIVE meetings at a non-Presidential level BEFORE the President's met with those people in most cases. There were intense negotiations between us and the Soviet Union before Reagen met with Gorbachev. There were even negotiations over what shape and size the table would be.

Obama said he would meet with a whole list of people without preconditions. He's since had to clarify those comments that he would require lower level meetings to do things such as set an agenda.

Pete, We had no diplomatic contact with North Korea or Iran for the vast majority of Bush's terms in office. When Obama said he would meet with these guys, I think it was always clear he was drawing a distiction with Bush, who had had zero diplomatic contact with them.

The Obama camp would have you believe we weren't communicating with Iran at all. They ignore the fact that for example our ambassadors met in Iraq, and that we played a role in putting together a proposal that the Europeans then actually presented to the Iranians.

One of Obama's critisms of Bush's intrangisens on meeting with our enemies was that it required us to over-rely on allies who had their own competing agenda's. Having input on a document, or getting a briefing on what their positions are from a third party; is not as effective as having the conversations yourself.. ( by yourself, I and obama meant the United States )...

And Yes Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan all met face to face with the Soviet leaders even during the cold war.

McCain was wrong on this issue. He tried to make a cheap political gain, by feigning outrage, and events have overtaken his position. He doesn't want to publisize this, cause he will just look silly, petty, and political in the face of recent events..

[PeterMP]

"before the job was finished"? I don't even know what that means. We invaded, We caused Al Quada to go into Iraq. We allowed the civil war to break out. Now we are arming and paying both sides of the civil war to not shoot at us. What do you think we accomplished in Iraq? What job do you think we "finished".

I don't know you tell me. You said:

"Obama would withdrawl as quickly as is responsible possible after the job is over"

What job is going to be over for Obama to pull out? I used finished you used over. Whatever was going to be over/finished Obama was originally wanted to pull out in March.

McCain hasn't changed his position. He still want's us in there as occupyers for 100 years. al-Maliki had to insist, but now even Bush in forced to face reality. Iraq doesn't want us there. They don't like occupiers. They don't like us. John McCain's not talking about this position because history has proven him wrong.

Except McCain never said he WANTS us there 100 years. He said, if we had to stay for 100 years to protect Iraq and there weren't American casualties that he would support it.

Oh and Obama supports leaving troops in Iraq to deal with Al Qeada if necessary.

Pete, We had no diplomatic contact with North Korea or Iran for the vast majority of Bush's terms in office. When Obama said he would meet with these guys, I think it was always clear he was drawing a distiction with Bush, who had had zero diplomatic contact with them.

I agree, but that's not what he said.

McCain was wrong on this issue. He tried to make a cheap political gain, by feigning outrage, and events have overtaken his position. He doesn't want to publisize this, cause he will just look silly, petty, and political in the face of recent events..

McCain wasn't wrong. Obama was. He said something he didn't really mean in trying to distinguish himself from Bush. He was criticized for it. He clarified his position. It isn't an issue because of the Obama clarifications (but I do believe in at least one of the GOP convention speeches the clarifications were ignored and therefore distorting his position).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Peter, here's what this 100 years thing boils down to:

1) the idea that American troops can be in Iraq for one year or 100 years, or one month "without American casualities" is not a realistic one.

2) Even giving that McCain was saying that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years if it meant no casualties to American troops, Obama is saying - and most of us are agreeing - that we don't want our troops there, even under those conditions for 100 years.

[PeterMP]

Peter, here's what this 100 years thing boils down to:

1) the idea that American troops can be in Iraq for one year or 100 years, or one month "without American casualities" is not a realistic one.

2) Even giving that McCain was saying that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years if it meant no casualties to American troops, Obama is saying - and most of us are agreeing - that we don't want our troops there, even under those conditions for 100 years.

1. Well, I generally don't comment about possible events far into the future, but I seriously doubt that at the end of the Korean war people thought that we'd be there as long as we have with the number of casualties we've had.

2. That's fine. Have the arguement on that basis. My point is that Obama misrepresented McCain's position, and it has trickeled down into everything, including JMS's arguement.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

1. Well, I generally don't comment about possible events far into the future, but I seriously doubt that at the end of the Korean war people thought that we'd be there as long as we have with the number of casualties we've had.

2. That's fine. Have the arguement on that basis. My point is that Obama misrepresented McCain's position, and it has trickeled down into everything, including JMS's arguement.

I don't think Obama has said anything other than "McCain wants us to have troops there for another 100 years." I don't know if you consider that a misrepresentation... I, personally, think that's an honest assessment of what McCain said.

[Hubbs]

Even with the partisan extremists that linger here in the Tailgate, I'm absolutely astounded that there are some people who are honestly trying to argue that Obama was referencing Palin. That's a leap of logic that Keanu Reaves wouldn't be able to make in the Matrix.

[PeterMP]

I don't think Obama has said anything other than "McCain wants us to have troops there for another 100 years." I don't know if you consider that a misrepresentation... I, personally, think that's an honest assessment of what McCain said.

Don't take my word for it:

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

"Obama twisted the words of Republican John McCain, saying he has suggested "war" might "go on for another 100 years." McCain expressly said otherwise. He said a 100-year presence would be acceptable in the absence of violence against U.S. troops, and later said "the war will be over soon.""

[81artmonk]

Ok, I'll bite. What does "old fish wrapped in a newspaper" have to do with sexism?

Remember, the disputed assertion is that Obama was being sexist. No one cares if Obama was taking a general swipe at McCain and Palin.

I'm just saying that if he had only made the lipstick remark it might have been passed over, however that coupled with an old fish, points to mccain. I'm not saying it was sexiest, but merely a political swipe at his opposition.

[81artmonk]

Wow. You mean, the same day that he said "lipstick", he talked about Palin?

Wow.

You know, yesterday, I made a post about the claims that Obama supports sex education for Kindergartens.

Guess that means that, at lunch, when I told the waitress "Sweat Tea, please", that I was really saying that I wanted to give her kids sex education.

Right. That's why, every time the Republican Party gets exposed lying, you run in here to defend it. So you can show how neutrally skeptical you are.

You completely missed my point....which isn't unusual. His followers got it, and later that night even a reporter reports that another crowd of followers got by chanting no more pitbulls.

Your conspircey theories about the republican party are growing old and worn out.

[Predicto]

I'm just saying that if he had only made the lipstick remark it might have been passed over, however that coupled with an old fish, points to mccain. I'm not saying it was sexiest, but merely a political swipe at his opposition.

Yeah, but the only reason everyone is screaming is because what he said about lipstick was purportedly sexist to Palin. Which is bull.

Basic political swipes at your opponents are fine. That is what we expect the candidates to be doing.

[81artmonk]

Yeah, but the only reason everyone is screaming is because what he said about lipstick was purportedly sexist to Palin. Which is bull.

Basic political swipes at your opponents are fine. That is what we expect the candidates to be doing.

I agree, the media is playing that one up big. I don't think it was. I think it was just simpley a policitcal swipe at her and McCain, nothing sexist just a political swipe.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Yes. You can.

The Daily Kos for example has become a huge influence on the democratic party. Slimebucket operations set the tone for the left wing nutjobs that the democratic party panders to. Officially the party does not talk to or about them but they happily look the other way as websites like the Kos act as attack dogs.

I don't think groups that ally themselves with a party can be said to speak for a candidate, no.

I think the campaign can speak for a candidate - they have some "apparent authority" to do so. They have been chosen by the candidate, specifically, after all.

The candidate's own words of course have the most weight, but second is the campaign, and there isn't really any other apparent speaker for a candidate.

Unless I missed the part where Obama said "The Daily Kos speaks for me" or something to that effect.

[Baculus]

Don't take my word for it:

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

"Obama twisted the words of Republican John McCain, saying he has suggested "war" might "go on for another 100 years." McCain expressly said otherwise. He said a 100-year presence would be acceptable in the absence of violence against U.S. troops, and later said "the war will be over soon.""

Well, I think even suggesting that US troops may be in Iraq for a hundred years is questionable suggestion unto itself. Do you really think the US public is enthralled by such sentiments?

And it has already been suggested by the Bush administration that the War on Terror could be a war fought by the future generations.