Notice that when Obama made the lipstick comment, the audience laughed. If they understood Obama to be referring to "McCain's continued policies of Bush" with no innuendo or double-meaning, the audience would have applauded. But the audience did not applaud, they laughed.
Why did they laugh? Because they found something funny in Obama's lipstick comment. Obama was making a double-meaning, innuendo that compared Palin to a pig, in light of her own self-depricating humor lipstick comment during her speech. It was an inside joke. Why else did the crowd laugh? They knew what was going on.
Do I have any evidence of this? Yes. On the official Democratic Party website, there is a post entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig. It is dated August 30, 2008, which if after Palin's speech but before Obama's comments. This post compares Governor Palin to a pig.
The post is entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig, located here.
The post was written in such a way as to try to claim the lipstick on the pig is the "continuation of Bush's failed strategies," yet leave the clear innuendo that they are referring to Gov. Palin as a pig in light of her "lipstick" comment during her RNC Convention speech.
This is why the crowd laughed when Obama madehis lipstick on a pig comment. They all knew what he was referring to, the inside joke as you will. Otherwise, why would they laugh at a "non-joke"?
The text of what they said is below. I am adding emphasis to highlight what I mean.
Did the post directly call Palin a pig? No. It created a lot of plausible deniability, yet left the strong innuendo that they were referring to her as a pig.Palin does not change one single thing of what the Republicans are offering which is four more years of George Bush. All that McCain did was to put lipstick on the Pig (the Bush Administration whose failed strategies have wrecked our nation). Nothing has changed except for an exciting and sexy dash of lipstick to freshen up their tired old face of more of the same.
The same people who do not like the Bush Administration for what it has done to this nation are not going to be fooled by the lipstick on the pig. And it they think that the American public are so stupid that they will rush over now and kiss their pig of a platform because it is wearing a fresh touch of lipstick, well I think they will be surprised.
Economically, the majority of Americans are at the breaking point. Most American families literally cannot stand another four more years of the same.
That is exactly why we had so many Republicans giving testimony at our convention as to why they were crossing over. The message was the same: They simply could no longer afford to vote Republican. Palin does not change that message. She is more of the same. Judging from McCains choice, he seems to think that our Democratic Campaign is built on the purpose of electing the first black man as President. That is not, nor has it ever been the purpose of the Barack Obama campaign.
The purpose and message of Barack Obama's campaign has always been CHANGE and it remains so--to change this country before conservatives totally destroy it with their tax breaks for the wealthy and for coporate America; to rebuild this nation by creating new jobs and restoring worldwide respect for our nation; to unite our country in a common purpose; to end our reliance on fossil fuel in the next 10 years--not to drill for more.
Palin changes nothing in terms of what the Republicans are offering. They are still offering a ticket of more of the same: more tax breaks for the weathy, more disdain for global warming, more war, more disregard for rebuilding our educational system in America, more continued privatization of our nation.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER AND NOT BE THROWN OFF OUR MESSAGE. THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SUCH SWELLING SUPPORT IS BECAUSE OF ECONOMICS AND THE WAR IN IRAQ--Palin represent more of the same. She changes nothing.
In a way a Palin is a good thing because now we can focus on the real issues. The REAL issues for Americans do not include whether we elect the first black president of our nation or whether we elect the first woman vice president .
AMERICANS HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE: CHANGE OR MORE OF THE SAME.
Democrats offer change. Republicans offer more of the same.
Palin is a red herring, lipstick on the Republican pig to distract Americans from the real issue that under the leadership of the Republicans the last 8 years, our country is falling apart.
Both Palin and McCain think that Americans are whiners. What do you think? Are you a whiner? Do you want more of the same? If you don't, then get out and register at least 5 people and tell them why they should vote a straight Democratic ticket this year.
This was the setup, the background understood by the crowd, for Obama's comments.
Was Obama referring to Palin directly as a pig? No, he left plausible deniability. Did he refer to her as a pig in a not too subtle, innuendo, "wink wink, nod nod" sort of way? Yes, he clearly did.
That is why the crowd laughed.
Here are the screenshots from the official DNC website:
14 comments:
I disagree with you. The phrase "lipstick on a pig" is common politicalese, used, for example, by Dick Cheney in criticism of John Kerry's proposed policies during the 2004 campaign, and even in this election season by McCain multiple times to describe Hillary Clinton's health plan, and long before Palin was named to the ticket. The phrase indicates when things are illogical or a ruse, or, in the case of McCain's economic policies, nothing new though they're being called 'new'. I agree the crowd laughed because they heard 'lipstick' and thought Obama was taking a swipe at Palin. My assessment is that the crowd haven't been following all coverage of every single town hall appearance by the candidates this season, and that, therefore, they hadn't heard the phrase before. They heard 'lipstick' and thought 'Palin' because of her own use of the word in her speech, which is a shame. I come to this conclusion because the crowd's laughter became confused and uncertain in the full clip from that town hall as he continues to explain the the metaphor by talking about McCain's proposed economic policies, and they realize they've misunderstood.
The post you linked to while living on the DNC's site is part of the community blogs, ie. anyone can set up a blog there and post. And from what I can find, the author is a common, every day user, not someone officially representing the views of the Democratic party. For the town hall crowd to be 'in the know' with the blogger's post, it would have needed to have been widely proliferated and have received more than the scant 17 replies it did. If you check the post tag, 'lipstick on a pig', you'll also see this is the only post with that tag on the DNC's community blogs. Do you honestly think that the entire crowd in Lebanon, VA had read a community blog post that went under the radar and were part of the 'in crowd'? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this conspiracy theory.
Enough with the inane distractions. The national debt is out of control, the economy is spiraling, and people are using their jobs and homes. Can we really afford to get distracted by the sideshow pseudo-outrage of the McCain campaign?
*losing their jobs and homes, obviously. Typos, urgh.
Sandra:
Yes, it is a common political phrase ... that Obama used to make the innuendo.
His comment was calculated, being lifted verbatim from Tom Toles Sept. 5 political cartoon. This was not an off the cuff remark. He knew what he was doing, and the audience clearly understood it too.
Earlier Congressman Russ Carnahan (D) introduced Joe Biden at a campaign event wherein, in referring to Sarah Palin’s record, Carnahan commented: “There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick.”
While on the same day, just oh-so coincidentially, Obama makes his lipstick on a pig comment.
No, that wasn't choreographed at all, No, No.
BTW, that fact that the audience clearly understood thin thinly veiled insult, and then became "confused" later as Obama tried to "explain" merely means he designed the comment to give himself plausible deniability.
For the town hall crowd to be 'in the know' with the blogger's post, it would have needed to have been widely proliferated and have received more than the scant 17 replies it did.
Apparantly the crowd was in-the-know about the reference, just as Sen. Biden, Congressman Carnahan, the crowd listening to Carnahan introduce Biden that day, etc. ... as well as Obama, despite his feigned "that's not what I meant."
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. However, as Stitching Strumpet pointed out, for the Republicans to feign insult when they've used the same phrase to reference, in this campaign, another woman's position is ludicrous. The leftists in the Democratic party have been irate wanting the Obama campaign to "get dirty." If this lipstick non-controversy is dirty, then why the uproar? I say again, this is an inane distraction. There are more important issues in this campaign than theorizing about whether or not Obama meant to insult Gov. Palin after she'd basically denigrated herself by equating herself to a dog with lipstick. Really. I'm more worried about the fact that she has not a clue about foreign policy and couldn't even explain to Charlie Gibson what the Bush Doctrine is--basic Bush Administration foreign policy and she completely flailed! Lipstick? Pig? So not an issue.
I had to delete your friend's comment due to her repeated use of foul language in my blog. This is a family blog and represent me.
Sandra -- I have NO PROBLEM with the Obama campaign referring to Palin as a pig. But at least admit it. Actually, I wish they would do more of that sort of thing. Their campaign is unwravelling, Obama is an empty suit, understands foreign policy worse than Palin (he didn't even know Russia had a veto on the UN Security Council), and has been wrong on numerous issues from the Iraq war, to abortion, to the 2nd amendment, to whom he picks for friends.
If he were smart, he would fire Biden, take on Hillary as President and step himself down to VP (if it were possible) ... that would be the first bit of good judgement he has shown.
BTW, I read excerpts of Palin's interviews. I agree with her.
I read Palin's comments about the Bush doctrine. I cannot see how she failed, unless one is trying to jump on her asking for clarification of what in what respect Gibson meant it as complete ignorance. It was not.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Obama's profound understanding of the origins, causes, and aims of islamic terrorism is truly astonishing and belies his ignorance and how to deal with it.
Well, it's a good thing you're a Democrat.
They're apparently trickling the full interview out and will air it in its entirety on Friday on 20/20. It deserves to be seen, not simply read. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say you agree with her since she did more BS-ing there than I've seen some of my students do. I firmly believe McCain made an irresponsible choice in picking Palin. For a state governor, she's woefully ill-informed on our national policies and the importance of our position in the world. Without her scripts and coaching, she was lost.
Your objections to Obama are, of course, within your rights. I disagree with you, that's all, on the necessity of making more out of the comment, and on his positions on the issues, judgment on them, and his choice of running mate. And I voted for Hillary in the primaries.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. This is getting redundant.
We were replying simultaneously so I've just seen your clarification on the Palin interview.
Come now, the words 'Bush doctrine' are standard in US politics today. It was a straightforward question and she didn't know the answer. Watch the interview. Watch her body language and you'll see what I mean. She squirmed. Badly.
I think I would rather have a leader who would take the time to think before they speak or act. Our society in general and especially politicians think that if someone takes the time to think about what they want to say then they are somehow not qualified to be a leader. I think that is complete BS. Look at the Savior as an example when he was being questioned what did he do. He paused and wrote in the sand with a stick and took the time to think about the question and reflect upon how to answer it. If more politicians did this and was not forced to have to answer every question the very second it was answered then we would not have all this questioning everything they said.
And on another topic. I find it comical how Obama supports can sit here and say that Palin does not have enough experience to be VP. When Obama has absolutely no experience what so ever. 180 days in the senate and most of that has been on the campaign trail. Give me a break, she is way more qualified than he is in every respect.
And the whole ideal that if we just sit back and do nothing as a foreign policy is ridiculous as well. Look at our own society as an example, who do criminals prey on? Those who do not and cannot defend themselves. People who are capable of defending themselves and make that known, the criminals avoid. The will prove to be the exact same with terrorists. Clinton decimated our military and made our country week and vulnerable and the terrorists took advantage of that and attacked. If our country is strong and it is known we will defend ourselves and fight back terrorists will think twice before they attack.
Come now, the words 'Bush doctrine' are standard in US politics today. It was a straightforward question and she didn't know the answer.
From what I have read, she did not do particularly well on that question. I don't believe it was mainly she did not know what the Bush Doctrine is (check it on wikipedia, there is more than one correct answer), but got side-swiped and did not know exactly what he was asking. She should ave handled that better, and will do better in the future. However, once Gibson clarified what he was asking, I found her answer right on target.
Given your criticism of her "not knowing" the Bush Doctrine, I assume you are equally critical of Obama's gaffs on foreign policy and he even greater lack of experience? (Not t mention his bad ideas.)
BTW, you are aware that Gibson misquoted her on the fighting a holy war idea. I heard the actual audio of what she said. She did not claim we doing God's will in fighting, or however Gibson misquoted her. She said that "we must pray we are doing God's will." Quite a different animal all together.
However, this is working to her advantage.
Here is what Rassmussen said:
Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) also believe the GOP vice presidential nominee has better experience to be president of the United States than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
[...]
Since McCain announced Palin as his running mate on Friday, she has been subjected to an unprecedented wave of negative media stories, many focused on her personal life and especially the pregnancy of her unmarried 17-year-old daughter. The focus of the coverage, especially in the blogosphere, has even prompted Obama to distance himself from it.
Republicans have responded angrily, and the media was the target of numerous negative comments over the first two nights of the GOP convention. Several aides to Hillary Clinton, who Obama defeated for the Democratic presidential nomination, also have criticized the media coverage for its sexist tone.
[...]
Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.
Voters are more ambivalent about whether the media coverage of Palin and her family reflects a double standard that treats women worse than men. Forty-six percent (46%) say it does, but 35% disagree. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the stories show the media’s double standard against women, but a majority of Democrats disagree.
The findings, nevertheless, are troublesome for the embattled news industry and parallel what voters said in surveys earlier this summer. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters now believe most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 49% believe reporters are trying to help Obama this year. Only 14% think they are trying to help McCain. In another survey, 55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations.
Obviously, be sure to read the entire thing as I ommitted material about Obama.
No, she didn't handle the foreign policy questions well. Ultimately, I'm reserving final judgment until the debates, but I've seen and researched enough that has me worried right now. And while Palin's executive experience is valid and important, her experience is with small numbers (5-9K as mayor; 670K as governor). As state senator, Obama represented a district of 780K, and the population of Illinois is 12.8 million. But it's the US Senate experience, though just as young as Palin's gubernatorial experience, that gives me pause because while representing his state, he's also helping legislate for the entire country. And, yes, I think this is an important plus for McCain and Biden as well.
Gibson did misquote her on God's will in fighting; I've seen the full clip also and disagree with the negative criticism she's gotten on it. There, I felt she was on more familiar ground and handled herself well. As we both know, it's difficult for non-believers to understand faith and the expressions of faith.
The vetting Palin is getting in the media is really the same vetting they've given other candidates. It feels imbalanced because she's new to the campaign trail so the media is trying to report on as much as it can in a much shorter period of time. The poll numbers also showed voters saying Obama was getting negative media, and alternately that McCain was getting negative coverage, before the conventions. Of course, the sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign is well-documented. However, I believe it's our responsibility as voters to be informed, research, and educate ourselves on the candidates, by reviewing information from multiple sources with multiple points of view. Bias is found everyone and we must be diligent in identifying it, and dealing with it intelligently and thoughtfully when found. This is what I've been doing this campaign season, which is really an extension of how I follow local, national, and world news.
I agree with the anonymous comment that I'd like our leaders to be thoughtful. I don't know if you saw the presidential forum on service, but I was impressed with the thoughtfulness of both candidates, and in particular with Obama on his ideas for augmenting service and volunteerism, as well as his ideas on foreign policy. If we want to reclaim our position in the world as 'the city on the hill,' I believe we need to start showing more willingness to work with and really listen to our allies. We need to change the negative image of America as a blustery, tyrannical nation, ready to strike at anything, because the reality is that this is how our allies perceive us. I said it before we invaded Iraq; the invasion without full support of the UN (who, yes, should not have let 12 years of sanctions accumulate unchecked) was going to set a dangerous precedent. So now, when Republicans talk about diplomacy first (and I focus on them because they've controlled the White House for the past 8 years and have held the majority in Congress for almost as long), no one believes us. This is problematic. We had such a unique opportunity after 9/11 and it was squandered. We cannot police the entire world; our military is too stretched as it is (and I speak as the sister of a sailor here).
Anyway, I've gotten off track. Suffice it to say, yes, I am paying attention and my analysis and thoughts are not dashed off on the fly.
Post a Comment