To read the blogs today, you'd be led to believe that Barack Obama is either a malignant sexist, or an endearing saint who would never use language to attack his political opponents. Why is it so hard to grasp what most likely happened?
1. Sarah Palin's "What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? One wears lipstick," joke was one of the more memorable from the Republican convention.
2. Barack Obama and his advisers wanted to answer that joke with a pun arguing that while Palin may be a new figure on the political scene, she still represents the unpopular/failed policies of the Bush administration.
Yes, others have used the phrase, including McCain. But it's hard to believe Obama just randomly decided to use the phrase for the first time, unaware of what would be a perceived proximity to Palin's convention joke. The Obama audience certainly seemed to get the joke.
Obama cannot be simultaneously heraled as the greatest political orator since JFK, while also not having to take responsibility when he says something unartful. In other words, he tried to say something witty and has now had his own joke flipped against him.
Of course, he wasn't calling her a pig. But I do think it's fair to ask if he was making a subtle jab at John McCain's age when he followed up the lipstick remark with, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."
Again, I think Obama was only talking about the McCain/Palin policies, but to deny he was making any kind of verbal jab is the kind of blind allegiance that calls into question the intellectual honesty of Obama supporters. Instead, they should own it. He made a fair point, even a strong point. This should, and so easily could, be a day in which Obama was putting McCain on the defensive for this unethical ad.
Why Both Sides are Wrong About "Lipstick" Debate
By Eric Pfeiffer | September 10, 2008 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain
CQ Politics Blog Network
- Bringing together unique voices from across the political spectrum.
- Poll Tracker
- SpyTalk
- David Corn
- Craig Crawford
- Taegan Goddard
- Politics (Un)Seriously
- David Nather
- Web Picks
- Report Card
Recent Posts
Posts by month
Search this blog
Links: Left
Links: Right
Links: Institutional
- Andrew Sullivan
- Swampland
- Huffington Post
- Washington Monthly
- Reason
- The Corner
- Campaign Standard
- Townhall
- Ben Smith
- Jonathan Martin
Comments
Each election year, it is my hope that the candidates will rise above petty verbal lashing and focus on their goals and beliefs...mostly appropriately, in a positive manner. Unfortunately another great opportunity for politics to rise above the negative connotations it infers in the minds of most American’s, has passed.
Both candidates and their VP counterparts spend more time smearing one another than building their own platform. In doing so, their quick retorts have made them backpedal and ‘explain’ themselves on pointless arguments. “Lipstick on a pig…” This is what matters in voting for the leaders of this nation? Of course, because it could be interpreted as sexist, just as “community organizer” could be interpreted as racist.
No Child Left Behind…not exactly…I count four already.
Posted by: Today's Rant
| September 11, 2008 5:09 PM
Post A Comment