Lipstick Comment Creates A Stir
September 12, 2008
More absurdity in John McCain’s presidential campaign with a manufactured controversy over Barack Obama using the term “lipstick on a pig” in a speech [news story, Sept. 10, “Palin’s Popularity Throws Off Dems”].
The McCain camp immediately raised a furor over Obama’s use of the expression, saying it denigrated Sarah Palin. (Remember her convention speech in which she said the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick?) What short memories they have.
Several months ago, McCain was speaking about Hillary Clinton’s health care proposals and said, “You can’t put lipstick on that pig.”
When will the electorate wake up and realize that McCain is wearing his former prisoner-of-war status as a Teflon shield the same way the neocons use the American flag?
Please, whichever side you choose, do your duty as an American: Study, compare, register and vote. Make your voice heard on Nov. 4.
Barack Obama says his “lipstick on a pig” comment was not aimed at Sarah Palin, and the response from the right is “phony outrage.” He is either not telling the truth or is unintentionally admitting to, at best, startlingly poor judgment.
Obama’s party trumpets its supposed sensitivity toward women, and he is lauded for his nuance. Both seem utterly lacking in this instance. If he did not get that this reference to pigs and lipstick dovetails with Palin’s speech, and has apparently been interpreted as such by many of his own adherents, he is out of touch with reality.
There was something akin to phony outrage expressed in his statement Wednesday. Obama denied there could be any valid reason to interpret his statement as a slur against Palin. Had he said, “I understand how my words may have been perceived negatively, but that was not my intention,” it would have gone a long way toward limiting the damage this error will cause.
The damage? A loss of some votes, mostly among women who will remember that Obama can be perceived to have called Palin a pig, and then said, in effect, that anyone who had come to an opinion different from that of the Democratic National Committee and MSNBC was some kind of partisan prig.
In a tight race, the loss of these votes might be enough to cause a loss for his party. This episode negates the concept that superior judgment makes Obama’s limited experience unimportant enough to discount.