"You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig."
Barrack Obama - sexist "pig"?
Perhaps not the best analogy to use Mr Obama.
Is the change train about to fall off the rails?
How Not to Appeal to 'Working People'
3 days ago
Thursday 11 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
in a word, no
Obamas reaction to this using his trademark comic timing("One minute im talking about mccains economics, then im being sexist towards the alaskan govenor") should hopefully ensure this is another nothing story
Why not? John McCain said it about Hillary. Didn't hear any charges of sexism there. Is it possible the Republicans are attacking a Presidential candidate? Shocking behaviour, would never have thought it of them. Maybe that nice Karl Rove can persuade them to focus on issues like the threat of climate change, the worrying trend towards teaching creationism in schools, the need for America to improve its global relations. After all he's a fair & balanced guy.
I don't make the rules here guys. But Hillary isn't a candidate any more and Sarah Palin is. That doesn't make it any less sexist - it does make it less mainstream. But, Sam, I'm pretty sure John McCain didn't liken Hillary to a pig with lipstick on.
Anyway, polls are swinging McCain's way. Some, still inside the margin of error at 49-47. Others - of registered voters - at 49-44 to McCain. So I would argue don't quite be so sure to say no Mr Patter...
Obama didn't say that. McCain did. McCain is sexist whether his opponent is in the race or not. McCain & Palin lie routinely. So if McCain didn't liken Hillary to a pig with lipstick on, neither did Obama. Has someone been pig wrestling, Malc?
I'd still suggest that in the NYT article you point to Sam, McCain is referring to the policy being rehashed.... but I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this.
My point I think is this... Clinton hadn't said anything about lipstick the week before McCain said it wheras Palin had - and Obama knew it. I think you know that too...
and I said it didn't make it less sexist. Just that it was more high profile. At the end of the day, you can read it as referring to policy or Ms Palin - depending on your side of the fence. I think it was probably an unwise thing to say - how's that?
Obama was talking about policy too. Did you read the quote? "That's not change... You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,' it's still gonna stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing! It's time to bring about real change to Washington. And that's the choice you've got in this election."
Doesn't matter in the slightest that Palin had chosen to refer to herself as a lipstick-wearing bulldog a week before. Obama, McCain, and half of America have used that phrase before. Torie Clarke, McCain's former press secretary, wrote a book with that title. You're right that McCain was referring to policy. So, obviously is everyone else. So why is there one rule for McCain & the Republican attack machine & one rule for Obama?
Micheal Tomasky says, "The media treats it all as entertainment, a matter of which side has seized the offensive. The McCain team knows all this. So they consciously promote lies, knowing that no real mechanism exists to stop them from doing so".
That's the reality of what you call "more high profile". The question is, why is this kind of mudslinging, a deliberate distortion of a triviality, getting more attention than the issues of leadership & candidates policies?
*comment removed. No swearing here - this is a family show!
She must have been a Republican.
Post a Comment