Lipstick-Gate

Right out of the Rove playbook. Attack, and deflect.

The way they love their country really shows, doesn't it.

Yes, it was clear what Obama was actually saying, and I thought it was actually quite clever way of using Palin's own description of herself, but then I like plays on words and can appreciate cleverness like this, but most people won't actually listen or read to find the context of what Obama was saying.

Obama is making a mistake, however, alluding to Palin even indirectly- it is just feeding the attention that she has garnered from everyone, especially the media and even other Democrats. Keep the focus solely on McCain. Even Biden should ignore Palin completely. This entire news cycle today was Palin coast to coast.

I thought the most interesting news I saw today was Biden's comment about Hillary Clinton. I think there is at least a 50% chance of Biden withdrawing from the race in the next week or so, especially if McCain's bump in the polls doesn't reverse itself soon.

"You can put lipstick on a pig..."

Obama tends to be fairly precise and nuanced, unfortunately and all too often at the expense of clarity and brevity.

If Obama's remarks were directed at Palin, he surely would have said "You can put lipstick on a sow...". Palin has, after all, shown herself to be a queen porker.

Yes, it was clear what Obama was actually saying

Really? What exactly was he saying? I mean it seems pretty clear to me as well but you seem to believe it is something entirely different than what was obvious to me which as far as I could tell had absolutely nothing to do with Palin at all. So I would be interested in hearing exactly what you think he meant to express.

It was interesting to watch - and I think your description is very accurate - even Levin had come around, yes?

Pigs in mud. "I can't believe we're getting away with this!"

The people that parrot this rumor are just that, rumor mongers. What they 'think' is truth to them. Can they read peoples minds? Of course not. But they would have you think they can. Its why FOX, a tabloid of political persuasion, is so popular with these types.

Obama clearly wasnt talking about Palin, he was talking about the last 8 years of the Bush admin. If McCain and Palin are taking umbrage at the remark its because they are like the Bush admin.

Yancey, you really think there's a 50% chance of Biden withdrawing from the race? An event so rare there's only one example in living memory, an event summed up by a single word—Eagleton—that is widely seen to have doomed its campaign? 50%? Really?

Shorter Yancey:

"I'm going to say something so transparently ridiculous that all the readers can safely scroll past any of my future comments."

And to reinforce the uniformity of its noise machinations, NRO's The Corner does not post reader comments. Its crew selects comments that reinforce approved opinion. Groupthink at its best.

Speaking of lipstick on a pig, if you want fun, you can ">Nickname Gov. Palin, complete with poll.

Hey, I was on the right track two days ago...

from the "Expectations Game" post,

She described herself as a pit bull with lipstick

Oh, I misheard. I thought she was the lipstick on the pig that is McCain's platform.

Posted by: ckelly on 09/08/08 at 4:24 PM Respond

We could have had any Presidential candidate running on the Dem ticket. Whatever he/she said would meet the same kind of faux outrage. The Repubs know very well they don't have a record to run on and don't have ideas to offer. No matter what Obama says, they will find a way to take offense. Let them go to hell.

I think it was pretty clear from the way the audience reacted when Obama said "lipstick" that it struck a cord with them unrelated to the actual meaning of the phrase. But so what? For 200 years presidential candidates and their running mates have been poking fun at things there opponents say in speeches. Now all of a sudden he can't do that because his opponent is a woman? Give me a break.

...readers can safely scroll past any of my future comments."

Hell, I do that now with Yancey's comments.

I too, checked out NRO's Corner today and was stunned at the high density of "pig posts". Didn't count them (thanks for the info, Kevin!).

This is getting so crazy that I'm really beginning to wonder what the campaign will be like by early-mid October.

Judging by the almost instant reaction from McCain's campaign, Obama's statement hit home. Listen to them whine.

Obama should say it again, and again, and again. Make them drop their 'change' trope.

Obama is making a mistake, however, alluding to Palin even indirectly- it is just feeding the attention that she has garnered from everyone, especially the media and even other Democrats. Keep the focus solely on McCain. Even Biden should ignore Palin completely. This entire news cycle today was Palin coast to coast.

I don't know that I've ever agreed with anything Yancey Ward has said before. He's exactly right on this one.

I think it was pretty clear from the way the audience reacted when Obama said "lipstick" that it struck a cord with them unrelated to the actual meaning of the phrase.

The first question is what was clear? The second question is how did the audience clarify that? AS far as I could see the audience laughed at a fairly common joke. What does any of that have to do with Palin?

Look, McCain made the same joke about Clinton's health plan recently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c&feature=iv
Like Obama he said lipstick on a pig and the audience laughed before he said the punchline. Its a funny, folksy phrase that is designed to elicit exactly the reaction it did.

Its a would really take a pretty tenuous set of connections to think: "well he said lipstick and Sarah Palin once said lipstick in an entirely different context so he must have been making some sort of sideways reference to Sarah Palin. One that wouldn't make any sense in the context that he used it but somehow still funny." I have heard a lot of vague suggestions that, of course he was suggesting something about Palin but what exactly is that something? What exactly is he supposed to be suggesting here in this statement about Palin that doesn't even come close to directly referencing her?

I am extremely irritated and frustrated right now. However, I am going to try and make a reasoned argument.

I just don't get it at all. Senator Obama made a comment that at least the audience that was present, thought was a reference to Ms. Palin. Anybody here who wants to argue that the audience did not think that, should just watch the video and look at their reaction. They knew who he was referring to.

My first thought was shock followed by sadness. I though it was either a mistake, or a poorly chosen joke which sounded funny when written, but did not work in its context. It saddened me because, I know how the career of George Allen had been ruiined by a "macaca" throw away line at a rally. I want McCain to win this election because I believe he is the best for this country. I want the campaign to be above the cheap shot. I was saddened to see the election, which I thought would be over because of this stupid comment by Obama, to be decided in such a bizarre manner.

I immediately went perusing center, left, and right, blogs. A majority of the comments were in shock just as I was. Many of the commenters, who were obviously democrats, were disgusted with Obama, hoping it was a mistake.

I thought the McCain campaign should remain silent, however they felt that they needed to demand an apology. I expected that perhaps sanity could be back to the election race, if Obama offered a humble apology, and agreed with McCain to rise above this type of stupid rhetoric.

What a difference 24 hours makes. Obama doesn't apologize, instead he says that McCain's camp is attacking him. He says he is the victim, and claims that he is above this type of divisive politics. Driving home, I hear NPR which is usually quite balanced. It covers the story by first telling how Barack Obama is reacting to the attack of McCain. They don't put on any spokesman for McCain, all they play is Obama's statement about how divisive the Republicans are. This mantra which is not true, is repeated over and over. It becomes the truth. It did not start out as the truth, It was said enough that in 24 hours it has become the truth.

Its just too bad George Allen did not have friends in the media who were in the tank for him. He might still be in politics.

Now, we see Kevin Drum, who did not post on it all yesterday even though it was all over the web, speaking about how he was only vaguely aware of it. And claiming that all reasonable people did not think it was a slur, but "talked themselves into it, if they could get a way with it". This is just an absurd statement. I know things look different in print, then they look when said. Go back, watch the video. People who were there at the time, definitely thought it was a slur. Compare the video of George Allen saying "macaca". (Where no one who was present reacted to it because it was just an unfortunate choice of words of the moment ), to the reaction to Obama's statement. If you are honest, you have to realize, that in one case ( George Allen ) the non-reaction of the crowd shows that it was no slur. In the other case ( Obama ) the people understood it right away to be a deliberate attack.

I am frustrated because Obama, ( with the help of the in the tank media ) is turning, his stupid macaca moment into something totally different. He makes it seem like an attack on him and then he pretends to take the high road.

One of the reasons I think Sarah Palin is good for this country is she truly is a reformer. Is she perfect, No. Has she allowed the Republican campaign machine to shade the truth on the BTNW so she can tell a good line. Yes. Has she had trouble in her family life, yes.

But did she as a Republican, take on corrupt people in the corrupt Republican party of Alaska and defeat them. Yes. Does Mike Gravel, a man who was too far left for the Democrats, and has virtually no agreement with Palin on any issue, defend her as a good, honest, person, yes. Was she able to defeat the corrupt former Govenor. Yes. Was she able to bring down the most corrupt man in the senate, Ted Stevens, not yet. But someone else has done that with an indictment. Lets all be agreed that the senate will be better off without that corrupt individual, even if it means one less vote for my side.

Point to me any time that Obama, a Democrat from Chicago, for heavens sake, ever stood up against the corruption in his own party.

Now we see why such little reform actually gets accomplished. People like many of the commenters here, go along with all the slime merchants on your side.. And, I;m said to say there have also been a lot of people on my side who went along with the slime merchants from the right.

Well, I think Sarah Palin still has a chance of pulling it off. There may just be enough people who like Republican policies and realize she is a real reformer, not just a talker, to help her win. Otherwise, we will just have the same old thing. What seems obvious to me is that Palin is the real deal, and Obama, is just another Chicago politician. It is sad.

After all the cries from the obamabots about Clinton's code words, about how she claimed Obama was a muslim, about Geraldine Ferraro being a rascist,

Well,

Obama and you deserve this frame, and frankly, it looks good on you.

If you want to claim the NRO and those other jackasses are doing something absurd, first look in the mirrors and at that huge heap of stones you were tossing around, because you're soaking in it.

Sorry Kewwy.

BBC columnist tells it like it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2008/vote_usa_2008/7609440.stm

Point to me any time that Obama, a Democrat from Chicago, for heavens sake, ever stood up against the corruption in his own party.

Obama's party hasn't had its hands on the levers of power for the last eight years in order to flout ethics for their own benefit, and what leverage they've gained since the 2006 elections has been stymied by do-nothing, filibustering Republicans. But, seriously, go ahead & identify the Democratic corruption out there that takes priority over the lies spewed in order to fabricate a case for war against Iraq, the Scooter Libby affair, the US Attorney firings, the torture at Abu Ghraib, the entire Jack Abramoff affair, Halliburton's no-bid contracts, the $100,000 bribe to pass the 2003 Medicare bill, or the latest "drilling" going on at the Department of the Interior. Aside from Abramoff & some grumbling that he failed to back up wrt Abu Ghraib, McCain has sat silent for every last one of those scandals. So what have you got on Democrats? A LA congressman stuffing cash in his freezer & Charlie Rangel getting below-market rent for a vacation spot.

This is precisely why it's impossible to take you & your "frustrations" seriously. You're nothing but a tendentious hack who can't even mount the case for what allegedly "irritates" him. You're absolutely pathetic.

Anybody here who wants to argue that the audience did not think that, should just watch the video and look at their reaction. They knew who he was referring to.

And you know this because of your special mind reading powers? Or because the only thing that elicits mild laughter from an audience when commenting on lipstick and pigs are hilarious unspecified thoughts of Sarah Palin? Your entire argument rests on a strained interpretation for which you can provide not even the thinnest of justifications. It rests, in fact, entirely on the notion that you can somehow traverse the incredibly complex pathways between what he said and some mysterious thing that he obviously meant, which you haven't clarified, based upon your assessment of the audience reaction on a videotape.

As has been pointed out in many places by now, this is a phrase that McCain himself often uses. There is video of him using it in almost precisely the same way and also receiving laughter in his usage. Note that he never actually gets to the punchline: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c&feature=iv

Now it is pretty clear to me that he is not talking about Clinton or Palin in that statement. He is talking about policy. That is clear to me because that is in the plain meaning of his words and because I don't pretend to be able to read the minds of the audience in interpreting those words. To attempt to make the argument that he was making some nebulous reference to Clinton would be both dishonest and somewhat laughable in its own right.

But whatever. Here is my unsolicited advice to you. Make this argument far and wide. Please tie all of your credibility and your deeply wounded sensibilities to your tortured interpretation of this entirely unremarkable and common phrase. Unfortunately, I can already see that Republican spokespeople are starting to back off from this particular bit of foolishness but I hope they change their minds and keep trying to push it as hard as they can. I believe that they, and you, have chosen a bridge too far on this one but good luck.

Yeah, it really is rich that OBAMA, of all people, is now complaining that some throwaway remark didn't mean what people thought it meant.

This is the same Obama whose campaign called Bill Clinton a racist because he mentioned that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina? Bill Clinton - a racist! Because he said Jesse Jackson won South Carolina!

What a bunch of pathetic whiners these Obama people are. They can dish it out by claiming some remark like Clinton's was racist, but then whine like stuck pigs when McCain pulls the same sh*t on them.

What goes around, comes around, people.

McCain was a POW. Now he has a POW (Palin Of Wasilla).

This is the same Obama whose campaign called Bill Clinton a racist because he mentioned that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina? Bill Clinton - a racist! Because he said Jesse Jackson won South Carolina!

No. It isn't the same campaign that did that because that campaign exists entirely within your imagination. Obama's campaing never addressed the issue at all. The press did. Kevin did. James Clyburn, who deliberately remained neutral did. The Obama campaign pointedly did not.

But what the hell? I'll play. What do you think tthe relevance of Jesse Jackson was to the question of Obama's prospects in the primaries and caucuses? Why would Clinton bring up Jesse Jackson in that context?

They can dish it out by claiming some remark like Clinton's was racist, but then whine like stuck pigs when McCain pulls the same sh*t on them.

Aside from the fact that they didn't dish it out as I have already noted, I am curious as to what would constitute them "taking it" in your estimation. The reality is that quite contrary to the stuck pig you have only imagined, Obama's response was to state in a rather subdued fashion that the accusations were simply and flatly false. Now that sort of response apparently is not the right way to "take it" in your estimation so how should Obama have reacted in order to meet your approval?

John Hansen -- Obama made a statement using the same phrasing McCain has used many times. The McCain campaign then chose to elevate it to a national issue. Where was your outrage when McCain used the same phrase, or worse? On that score, your appeal "reasoned argument" is demonstrably bullshit.

As to your argument that Palin is a "true reformer"... Her tenure as mayor of Wasilla certainly doesn't support that assertion. Her primary claim to fame as a reformer is her tenure on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and her subsequent election as a governor on a "clean government" stance.

Yet, Palin subsequently supported Stevens and Young, and still does AFAIK. Her call for "reform" of earmarks came only after it was obvious the political tides had turned; she was demonstrably for them before she was against them.

It's clear that as Palin has become more invested in the process, and has more to lose, her claim to being a reformer has paled. By any other description, a pol, and far from the "good, honest, person" you suggest--at least on the political stage. No, she's not a pig in lipstick, just a very opportunistic pit bull.

As to Obama, if you bothered to read the history of his involvement in Illinois politics, you'd know he pissed off more than a few of the entrenched power brokers. Moreover, that the best the McCain campaign can dig up is a tenuous Ayers connection--and that Obama has otherwise managed to stay clean in the cesspool of Illinois politics--speaks volumes. And of course he pissed of many in his own party with his last FISA vote.

You think Palin is the great hope? Fine; vote for her. But spare us the appeal to "reasoned argument" when you offer no more than recycled pig shit.

But what the hell? I'll play. What do you think tthe relevance of Jesse Jackson was to the question of Obama's prospects in the primaries and caucuses? Why would Clinton bring up Jesse Jackson in that context?

To point out that it wasn't very surprising that Obama won, given that 90% of the black voters would vote for the black candidate and black voters were a large percentage of the overall vote in SC? That's not racism, that's arithmatic.

And it's not like it's the first time the Obama campaign was calling another Democrat racist for some offhand remark. They called Bill a racist earlier when he referred to Obama as a "kid". And they called Geraldine Ferraro a racist for whatever it was that she said.

And give it a rest that it wasn't the Obama campaign that called Bill a racist. Of course they didn't do it directly. They had their surrogates do it. But you'd have to be a moron to believe that it didn't come directly or indirectly from the campaign itself.

I'm glad that Bill is going to swallow his pride and campaign for the Democratic ticket, but that doesn't mean that Clinton supporter like me have to forget the dirty campaign that Obama pulled on us. I'm just wondering why all the Obama people are doing is whining instead of playing the same dirty tactics against McCain that they played against Hillary.

And give it a rest that it wasn't the Obama campaign that called Bill a racist. Of course they didn't do it directly. They had their surrogates do it.

Name one.

Josh Marshall.

And that, my friends, is how it's done in the big leagues. It's the noise machine at work...

TRUE YES but they need the MSM to go along with it - the good thing was many of the headlines today (gone now) quoted Obama as calling it "phony outrage"

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Old McDonald Had an Earmark
This whole little phony uproar over Obama's use of a fine old cliche to suggest -- generically; broad brush -- that an effort to disguise the true nature of something is like "putting lipstick on a pig" did make me wonder what other pungent barnyard metaphors might be useful in unpacking the defects of McCain and the Republicans.

As it turns out, something called rootsweb.ancestry.com is a veritable cornucopia of figurative truth, to wit:

When it comes to energy independence, John McCain ain't got the sense that God gave a goose

When it comes to stimulating the American economy, John McCain's plans to cut the taxes of the super-rich are as useful as a milk bucket under a bull

When it comes to choosing between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, better a good plow mule than a lame horse!

When McCain criticizes Obama about his lack of experience, McCain may well discover that he bit a fat hog in the ass.

As the number of lies and distortions McCain utters continues to mount, his efforts to keep track of them will make him busier than a one- eyed cat watching nine rat holes

The number of lies issuing forth from the McCain campaign is so intense and unrelenting that one might say those lies are comin' down like a cow pissin' on a flat rock.

Sometimes McCain's serial dishonesties make me wonder if he fell off'n the tater wagon .

Expecting McCain's marcoeconomic theories to persuade or enlighten is like going to a goat's house for wool.

McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC fell flatter than a duck's footprint

McCain may be concerned about how others will judge him when the debate format requires him to share the stage with Obama because he is so short, he'd hafta stand on a brick to kick a duck in the ass!

Perhaps on might say of Gov. Sarah Palin that if you put her brains in a thimble they'd rattle like road apples in a bushel basket.

Don't you think it likely that Obama supporters will say to McCain that I'm going to beat you like a rented mule!

Of his daring plans for resolving world tensions, McCain might well say I'm off like a herd of turtles.

Of the basic flaw in McCain's analysis of world affairs, dare we might say It's as plain as a pig on a sofa.

One might say that McCain's heart is dark, like the inside of a cow's belly.

Don't you think that McCain is concerned that Obama's masterful speaking skills would make a rabbit hug a hound.

Not to disparage McCain's native intelligence, but his record at the Naval academy makes the scarecrow look like a genius!

The discrepancies between what Palin's record in Alaska and what she claims in her speeches makes me think something in the milk ain't clean!

Those who think McCain's ideas about Iraq will result in a satisfactory solution, should take an old cold 'tater an' wait.

McCain heard the Obama speech and thought, that was so good it'd make a bull dog break his chain!

Where was McCain during many of the senate votes where he was not present? He went to the outhouse to do his business and the hogs ate him.

The McCain advisor told him the simple truth. You look like sheep shit on a shallow pond!

And perhaps most telling, one might well say of John McCain that if bullshit were music, he'd have a brass band!
Posted by ....J.Michael Robertson at 6:30 PM 0 comments Links to this post

To point out that it wasn't very surprising that Obama won, given that 90% of the black voters would vote for the black candidate and black voters were a large percentage of the overall vote in SC? That's not racism, that's arithmatic.

I won't bother addressing your blithe and entirely inaccurate assumption that black candidates are somehow guaranteed 90% of the black vote as a matter of "arithmetic." The more important issue is that with what seems to be a habitual lack of precision on your part, you've managed to get the entire story confused.

My suggestion would be to go back and reread the context and sequence of Clinton's remarks. The question was not why Obama won SC. The question was why Obama was such a tough opponent: Why did it take both Clinton's to beat him? Clinton's answer was: well he won SC but so after all, so did Jesse Jackson.

Now I have no particular interest in arguing about whether or not that statement was definitively racist and neither did the Obama campaign. I doubt you and I have anything like a shared vocabulary on the issue of race and its quite far OT anyway. But the point is that the broader outline of what Clinton was saying is really pretty clear and it pretty directly addressed Obama's race. I doubt even Clinton would try to pretend otherwise.

Josh Marshall.

I assume that this was meant as a reply to my request for you to name a surrogate who addressed Clinton invocation of Jesse Jackson. If that is your answer than there are only two possibilities:

1. You have no idea of what a surrogate actually is

2. You actually believe that Josh Marshall has some official connection to the Obama campaign such that he can be dispatched by said campaign to make arguments on its behalf.

In either case, you lack the fundamental knowledge to even be able to discuss this issue intelligently. If you were invoking the name of Josh Marshall for some other reason than I take it all back.

Obviously Obama's remark referred to McCain's campaign dressing up old policies in new wrappings, and not to Palin at all....

... but the point could be made that Palin is the lipstick, the cosmetic, applied to make McCain's tired old campaign look better.

There are too many things we don`t know about this Sarah`Cheerleader`Palin...yet.

However,we`re becoming more and more aware of her character and what kind of a person she really is thanks to this website info.

VP-Material you may ask,or perhaps..President ?
One scary thought!
(Sorry,even Lipstick won`t help)

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/295464.html

John Hansen said, "And give it a rest that it wasn't the Obama campaign that called Bill a racist. Of course they didn't do it directly. They had their surrogates do it. But you'd have to be a moron to believe that it didn't come directly or indirectly from the campaign itself."

Then when challenged to name one he stated "Josh Marshal".

Just to be extremely clear to John Hansen or any other idiots that might like to parrot this line, by this standard John McCain is responsible for every piece of idiocy and racist filth to come from NRO, LGF, Redstate.org or other rightwing blogs. You really, really, really don't want to start down that path.

This is the stupidest controversy the Republicans have ever dreamed up. I can't believe that Yancey Ward is participating in this charade.

John Hansen writes: Anybody here who wants to argue that the audience did not think that, should just watch the video and look at their reaction.

You can tell by their reaction that they were thinking about Sarah Palin? You're kidding!

Listen to what Obama said. He was saying that McCain's claim to be an agent of change was putting lipstick on a pig. The "pig" was McCain's record. How does it make any sense to interpret it as about Sarah Palin?

Republicans have done something amazing in recent years. People normally think that stupidity is a disadvantage, but the Republicans have made it into a very effective tool at winning elections and favorable news coverage. So much so that conservatives are falling all over themselves to pretend to be stupider than they actually are.

"conservatives are falling all over themselves to pretend to be stupider than they actually are." - Daryl mc

They know their base. One of them really liked my 'Bush Cheney 1984' sticker. He said he wants to peel off Obama stickers whenever he sees one.

No one is stupider than this group. In the future no one will ever loose an election by underestimating the intelligence of the average American.
Red Rover- 'roger that'.

slanted tom,

Actually, I don't agree that the stupids are their base. Modern Republicans serve one master, and that is rich corporations. Everything else that they go on about--God, patriotism, homophobia, gun rights, antiabortion--are just ploys to get a working majority for election time. They have to engage in those things because, unfortunately for them, corporations don't vote. But all the traditional values folks are being played.

I see John Hansen had a big fat breakfast at Drum's this morning.

Meanwile I bet Yancey Ward a gazillion dollars that Obama will not swap Biden out for Clinton for VP. Shake?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/10/joe-biden-questions-obamas-judgment/#comments

Joe Biden questions Obama’s judgment
By Michelle Malkin • September 10, 2008 05:58 PM He means it. “Frankly” and “sincerely.” We believe you, Joe:

Transcript:

[MSNBC's] SEN. JOE BIDEN: Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. She is say close personal friend and qualified to be president of the United States of America. She is easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate. I mean that sincerely.

Yes, Joe Biden is questioning Barack Obama’s judgment out loud.

The Palin effect. Savor it.

***

Eagleton?

Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]

#101On September 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm, travlinman said:
If Biden is found shot 27 times in the head with a single shot, .44 Mag pistol in his ‘weak’ hand, sitting with a clean suicide note pinned to his back, in Ft. Marcy Park on a park bench with no blood on or around him, I think that Obama needs to “one-up” McCain and put a lesbian on the ticket. It might just be time for Oprah to “come out dat closet, girl”! Gayle could become the 1st, First Butch, since Eleanor Roosevelt.

No matter what happens, I just can’t see Hillary on the ticket with Obama. I mean, Barack would be afraid to eat or drink anything on the campaign trail or at the White House if they won, and might succomb to his sudden onset of anorexia. His disorder would most likely be rooted in a fear of poisoning, not a fear of looking fat.

Obama's remark "Lipstick on a Pig", gaff or calculated?

Only if you believe Barrack Obama is a gifted orator who knows how to play to an audience, would you be offended by a remark that seemingly jabs Sarah Palin?

You would also have to know the street use of this term, analogous to putting a paper bag over a woman's head before sexual intercourse.

John H--You're an idiot. No one sincerely believe Obama was referring to Palin. Not even you.

There are a lot of lies on this website for the real deal on the truth abouth palin go here this is a fact check on Palin by newsweek it exposes the half truths and lies
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

As Obama drops in the polls notice how he will say more things without actually saying it. Can you say buyers remorse. The Dems have it. Hillary voter voting for McCain

In Denver two weeks ago, Mr. Obama said, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." That's what he's trying to do, only the object of his painting is Sarah Palin, not John McCain.

In Mrs. Palin, Mr. Obama faces a political phenomenon who has altered the election's dynamics. Americans have rarely seen someone who immediately connects with large numbers of voters at such a visceral level. Mrs. Palin may be the first vice presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson to change an election's outcome. If Mr. Obama keeps attacking her, the odds of Gov. Palin becoming Vice President Palin increase significantly

Obama was obviously trying to be cute and was clearly referencing Palin with his lipstick comment. So what! Politics is a tough business and I suspect, to use one Obama's previous statements ... Palin has probably been called much worse when she was playing basketball ... especially since she was a first stringer and he was a bench warmer.

Obama knew exactly what he was doing with his comments, they were scripted. The most interesting thing about this is the words he said before he got to the "Lipstick on a Pig" line. Obama PLAGIARIZED the Washington Post Cartoon of Tom Toles, from his Cartoon of Sept 5, 2008. I saw this at a Blog called "Stuck on Stupid", they had the Video of the Obama Speech and the Sept 5 Cartoon, it was almost word-for-word, Obama left out the line about Energy Policy. I know this happened to Joe Biden when he PLAGIARIZED the words of a British Statesman, I think had to go into hiding for a few years, maybe Obama could do the same.

Barack Obama is attacking John McCain's complicity in the travesty that has been Republican rule these past 8 years, and the McCain campaign will do or say anything to deflect attention away from McCain's actual polcies, which are the very same Bush administration policies that he claims to be running against.

What little record Sarah Palin has to run on completely belies the fiction McCain/Palin are pushing on the campaign trail.

Word is getting out: McCain has no honor and the Pork Queen has no clothes.

If you think it's stupid to call people names (definitely a first-grade mentality), you'd better watch out. It may come back to bite you.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp

Funny!

It was Obama that made the comment first, idiot.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp

Enjoy!

usr105 says: Obama was obviously trying to be cute and was clearly referencing Palin with his lipstick comment.

If you mean that he was calling Palin a pig with lipstick, that's nonsense. The quote doesn't make any sense as a reference to Palin.

Jim Aaron wrote: Obama knew exactly what he was doing with his comments, they were scripted.

I'm sure that's right. What he was doing was portraying John McCain as more of the same, pretending be a reformer.

Calling Sarah Palin a pig?

Now there's something I can buy into.

Who's next??? Jump right in; the water's fine.

Hansen, you dithering idiot. You have no reading, writing, or listening comprehension whatsoever do you? "Putting lipstick on a pig" is the perfect assessment of the McCain campaign. I'm sorry that you are too stupid and dishonest to understand the phrase.

Hansen:I just don't get it at all.

Yes, we know you don't.

John H--You're an idiot. No one sincerely believe Obama was referring to Palin. Not even you.

I would ignore John Hansen. He's already been outed as a pedophile sympathizer over at Political Animal. Really, really sick individual.

Obama’s line was a deliberate jab. He and his crew can come with any explanation, yet the record is very clear - he delivered the line, then grinningly waited for the approval which rapidly came.
So - what can I do but to join his level of wits? Bellow is a poem inspired by this situation:

Reverie - induced by Hussein Soetoro’s line about Gov. Palin’s lipstick

Have you see the little piggies
Groh, groh, groh, groh
Malia, Michelle and Sasha trotting to the trough
No lipstick, but aragula their much loved swill
Piano lessons, prime-time close-ups
Auntie Oprah keeps the ratings for the fair ONE

Hope’n change from Rezko’s pockets
Monday one thing, Tuesday other
All the polls show dive
Groh, groh, groh, groh, groh
There, there! “My Muslim faith” goes high
Putin, Chavez, Brown and Laden
Those who’d love us hang up dry,
Keep supplying swill -

Thank you for your applauses.

I think that someone should point out to our national politicians that using the Hockey Mom vs. Pit-bull analogy is falsely perpetuating a negative and aggressive image of the pit-bull which is a beautiful, intelligent dog. This type of stereotyping has had a very negative impact on this breed. It is irresponsible and immature to perpetuate this type of harmful image for the sake of political gain. If anyone deserves an apology for the lipstick remark….it is the pit-bull! That is where the real harm was done.

misanthropicus writes: Obama’s line was a deliberate jab.

Yes, of course it was a deliberate jab...at McCain for pretending to be a reformer!

Quite interesting this 'lipstick " comment especially when last nights news showed "video clips" of Cheny and McCain using the same remark. I guess only one party is allowed to use this remark no matter where it's aimed at

Fact: Obama did not intentionally diss Palin. However, he committed a gaff and knew it. Why else would he have started praising her shortly thereafter. (Yes, you need to watch the whole speech, not just a clip.)

In this environment context is everything and a significant number of people were genuinely pleased (Obama's audience) and offended (Palin supporters). To put this in perspective, what would happen if McCain said that his criticism of Obama's earmarks was "just calling a spade a spade?" Would the fact that it is a time honored expression excuse it? No.

Last two points: 1) Obama is phenomenally bad when he is off of his prepared stump speech or off of his teleprompter; and 2) He seems incapable of just saying, "Hey folks, I made an unintentional gaff and that had nothing to do with Sarah. I apologize if any of you took it that way." Is it just me or is anyone else sick and tired of politicians who think too much of themselves to admit it when they make a mistake. Bush couldn't do it about how badly Rummy was messing up Iraq and Obama keeps blowing smoke whenever he is called on an issue (a/k/a Wright, Ayers, flag lapel pins, respect during the National Anthem, etc.)

I'm only posting here to point out that all of the "facts" refuted by the Newsweek article are those which have little impact on her possible future role in our Federal Government. Why don't we see them refuting the facts that she brought in lobbyists to gain Alaska more than 10 times the average per-capita "pork money" from Congress? Or that she has not only lied about her position on the "Bridge to Nowhere" but has repeated the lie on several occasions even after being confronted with her own previous statements on the matter? Or that she has zero legislative experience as someone with the potential to be come President Pro Tempore of the Senate? Or that her own state Legislature is so disaffected by her time as Governor that they voted to spend $100,000 on a private investigator to look into Troopergate (which regardless of the outcome of the investigation, speaks leagues to the opinion of the Legislature about Mrs. Palin)?

Why not refute these claims? Because they're factual. Sadly, for whatever reason, the Democrats still feel that winning the White House is something that should be done with "fairness" and "honor."

Those that think we have eight more years to try again are drastically overestimating the resiliency of our economy. I, for one, have already ordered my Rosetta Stone course in Mandarin. I figure if I am going to have to live in a country with no social freedoms, I should at least have the chance to have a middle class life, right?

Because Sarah Palin isn't on the top of the ticket. I know that her very existence on the planet is irksome to some, but that doesn't change the fact that it is beneath the dignity of the #1 on any ticket to become obsessed with the #2 on the opposition ticket.

Obama and his supporters are just wasting their time trying to take out Sarah Palin because the American public has already been innoculated to these types of attacks. The firestorm of baseless attacks for the last two weeks have convinced most of us mid-westerners that we should just tune out the noise.

"The firestorm of baseless attacks" is an invention of the McCain campaign and the GOP to obscure the fact that Sarah Palin's stump speech is a litany of lies and distortions, and the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket represents a continuation of the same Bush administration policies that have wreaked incalculable damage on the United States these past 8 years.

Spare me the smoke.

Lucy:

Do you get your talking points from the Obama campaign by e-mail or what?

McCain was being courted by the Democrats to switch over to their party not too long ago. Now he is a lock-step Bushie? He and Lieberman have both always been at odds with their own parties.

Keep drinking the coolaid.

Regarless of whether you think Barak Obama meant to call Palin a pig, intentionally made an comment that could be interpreted in different ways, or was clueless as to what it's impact might be, one thing is clear. It was a stupid thing to say that is costing him dearly.

Do we really want that in a President?

Willie Horton, Swiftboats, and now LIPSTICK. The deciding issues in presidential elections. Is this a great country or what?

In 2004 John McCain captitulated to the Bush administration and the radical right when he decided to run for president again and began supporting the administrations's policies no matter how unpalatable they may have been to him formerly (see "Military Commissions Act", for starters).

I've observed John McCain since his 2000 run and was flabbergasted by his ignominious surrender to Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. I lost any respect I had for him at that time, when it became obvious that McCain was as cynical an opportunist as they come. His pick of Sarah Palin for VP is simply the most egregious example.

But keep slinging tired ripostes about "kool-aid" and "talking poiints". You got nothing.

one thing is clear. It was a stupid thing to say that is costing him dearly.

None of that is at all clear to me. It is not at all clear that he said a stupid thing and further, it is not clear that it will cost him anything at all, let alone dearly.

Indeed my sincere hope is that Republicans keep trying to push this issue. Keep trying to drum up outrage over a completely innocuous phrase that we have all heard thousands of times. Please, please, please, tie this nonsense as tightly as possible to John McCain and tie their own credibility to the precisely expressed opinion that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig and the audience in a library thought such a deliberate insult was funny. I would dearly love to see them spend their energies trying as hard as they can to sell this stupidity. Unfortunately it is pretty clear that Republican operatives are already backing off this bit of drummed up absurdity but I am sure they are working on a new one for next week.

Do we really want that in a President?

Do we really want what in a President? What exactly is the objectionable quality you are trying to specify here?

Chuck writes: one thing is clear. It was a stupid thing to say that is costing him dearly.

No, that's complete baloney. Any statement can be spun as something stupid to say, if the spinners are creative and dishonest enough. Actually, strike the "creative"; dishonesty is enough by itself.

My favorite is, "A monkey in silk is still a monkey."

Was it sexism, inexperience, or just poor judgment on the part of
Obama?

Was Obama referring to Sarah Palin when he said:
“You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig”?

According to news reports, Obama's audience clearly believed his
comment was directed at Sarah Palin:

" ...Many in the Obama crowd leaped to their feet in delight -
apparently taking the 'pig' comment as a direct slam at Palin." (New
York Post)

" ...The audience, which had a particularly strong reaction whenever
Obama mentioned Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin,
appeared to enjoy the 'lipstick' comment the most." (Reuters)

" ...Many in the audience in Lebanon laughed uproariously when Mr
Obama made his lipstick remark, clearly taking it to be a reference to
the first female Republican on a presidential
ticket..." (Telegraph.co.uk)

Obama said nothing to his audience to change their perceptions,
obviously happy with their reaction.

Obama now wants to "change" his story, saying he didn't mean what he
said, or say what he meant.

Perhaps Obama just failed to comprehend and understand the meaning of
his statements.

Perhaps Obama's thoughts were clouded by the vision of "pork and
earmarks" dancing through his head... while dreaming of spending your
tax dollars on all his pet Liberal programs and projects... thinking of paybacks to
all his Liberal supporters... and imposing his Liberal agenda on all
Americans!

Uh, uh, um, uh ahhh, uh, um, ah, er... As much as Obama would like to
"change" the facts, one thing we do know is that Obama called someone
a pig!

Perhaps it's just another case of Obama's BAD JUDGMENT... from one who wants to be president!!!

Come now.
Obama's gift to God did not have the foresight to see that people would connect his lipstick comment to Palin's own lipstick joke?

It's a cheap shot, made all the more smarmy by the thick, but trasparent coating of "plausible deniability." It says much of the man's character, and is further evidence that he can't be trusted to run a lemonade stand, let alone a nation.

Mr. Hanson: Read your lengthy comment above and was intrigued by your stated position that "You believe that John McCain is BEST for this Country". As I am so prone to do, I'm now asking all those individuals I meet who think as you do-WHY? Lipstick aside, please tell me and others what strengths McCain has that make him rise to your level of support. I've lived with the Republican control of politics in the US for the last 8 yrs. I'm wondering what it takes for people like you to stop and reconsider that your Party stinks. Corruption. perversion, lying,
abuse of power and on ad infinitum. Just give us your reasoned thought on McCain.

At first I thought that it was just a dumb remark- a smart politician should have been aware that this could happen since Palin had introduced "lipstick" to the national vocabulary. When I heard the audience reaction and the "old fish" line it seemed much more possible that this was a too cute by half remark made with a wink and a nod.

Snark. Snark. Snark. You could hear it in the way he worked the crowd. If I were Todd I'd be demanding he apologize to my wife. He has a pattern of these difficult to catch petty digs, like the flip-off scratch. He probably got double-joy that in pre-modern times calling a girl a pig was the equivalent of calling her a c-nt, even if it went over most of the heads, and even it costs him the election. He also like calling McCain an old fish again. I once counted 62 referrences to tired and old in one speech.

Obama made a statement using the same phrasing McCain has used many times. The McCain campaign then chose to elevate it to a national issue. Where was your outrage when McCain used the same phrase, or worse?

You know, I hate the type of ignorance in this comment. It thinks words are static things. Don't you understand that in communication, context matters.

You can not compare a statement made with regard to "lipstick" during any other campaign, to this campaign.

No one complained when Joe Biden said of Sarah Palin's record "“There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick,”. It was a clever line. It was snarky, but not sophomoric.

In the current context, when the word "lipstick" automatically hearkens back to the speech of Sarah Palin.

Obama, if he really wanted to get back to the high road, would have immediately apologized and moved on to the issues.

Instead, Obama has chosen to try and make this whole thing appear as if he is the victim of an unfair attack. He has taken his blunder, and pretended to be above the fray. Only the "yes we can" kool-aid drinkers should really believe him. The rest of us should just tell him to stop it and apologize, and lets get on with the real issues.

fillphil -

Thanks for your reasoned question. I will give three reasons why I really want McCain for this time.

1. He hates war, but is not afraid to use it, and understands all the consequences of it.

These are very difficult times. We have seen the effects of someone who never hit back at jihadist evil except with cruise missiles ( Bill Clinton ). Evil just continues to grow and becomes confident it can make an attack without serious retribution.

We have seen the effects of ignorant men ( Donald Rumsfeld ) who think you can do regime change and nation building on the cheap. They commit war, without suitable plan for the peace.

Then there is John McCain. He was through the hell of war. He was for the winning strategy in Iraq when others were afraid. He has demonstrated that he has toughness of character to negotiate tough diplomacy with a real threat behind it. I believe he is the best hope for national security.

2. He is his own man. He is against pork again earmarks. He does not just talk about working with men of the other party, he works with them and earns their respect. Heck with the nominee being John McCain, a democrat (now independent since Ned Lamont ) gave the keynote at the Republican convention. Congress' aproval rating is in the tank below 20%. He is the best hope for creating a bipartisan effort for forging real progress and breaking the partisanship which demeans our great legislative bodies.

3. He knows the limitations of government and where it can be used. He is not a frothing at the mouth no government allowed ideologue. He recognizes that although the private solution is usually the best, there are places where government, must intervene. I believe he is the best hope for sorting out the right level of private enterprise vs. government regulation and government support that can bring good solutions to the problems of health care, education, immigration, and the economy.

Any more questions?

Are you people aware of the situation regarding Barack Obama and his lipstick? www.barackobamaslipstick.com is up!!!! It is Barack "Maybelline" Obama!!!!

"This is what they want to spend two out of the last 55 days talking about."

That's the line that won me over. They've been at this for well over a year, and as the oh-so-precious news cycles - which are micro-managed by each campaign - slowly dwindle away, one side is thrilled to talk about how an idiomatic phrase commonly used by both sides was secretly intended. And the other side wants to talk about the economy and taxes and climate change.

I'm a left-leaning indie who wants to hear Obama pressed on how he intends to protect jobs while attacking corporations. And I want to know in what way, if any, McCain's fiscal, social or foreign policies actually differ from Bush/Cheney. And I resent that, with so little time left, this is the conversation we're subjected to.

I truly believe that the John McCain I perceived in 2000 would be mortified by the last month or so of John '08.

It was Obama who said "words do matter". Just because you have plausible or even credible denial doesn't mean you are allowed to express any idea any way.

We all remember the guy in DC who was fired from his job for ineligantly, but probably innocently, using the word "niggardly" in its correct usage meaning stingey. Nevertheless, a black woman expressed outrage, whether because she didn't know what the word meant or out of spite (we don't know), and the man was fired from his job.

The moral: Words do matter. Clumsy use of words that can be misinterpreted will land you in hot water. Obama is becoming clumsier by the moment.

Whether he meant to call her a pig or not, only Obama knows, but how can he be so stupid to use the lipstick line after Palin used the line at her convention speech.

dumb, dumb, dumb

He needs to stick to his teleprompter.

What do you think would happen if someone tried to call Obama "stingy" but instead used the synonym "niggardly"? Do you think resort to the dictionary would immediately settle the matter?

In fact, not only do ideas matter, but choice of words given the circumstances.

No one cares what he really meant. That's not how politics works. Get a clue everyone who is trying to defend Barry O. The fact is he tried to play on lipstick just after Sarah Palin used it to be a little self-deprecating, and Barry O. was just a lug for trying to use it some idiom with lipstick involved so soon. What did he think was going to happen? You have to choose your words carefully. You can't cry foul that people are dumping on you. It goes both ways. Look if Barry O. thinks he can get away with poor choice of words, what is going to be with foreign leaders?

This guy has hardly spent any time in elected office much less sucessfully won enough election and re-election battles to be seasoned here. The only reason he has gotten so far is the field has sucked. It's like national champion team playing against some small podunk school. Finally, some one comes on the scene that people are really liking, and he can't handle the real competition. Mind you he hasn't really competed before in last 2 elections for State and US Senate. Hillary at least would have understood it somewhat better seeing first hand numerous election campaigns that her husband and she went through. He's total bush league. Excuse the pun.

Barack Obama took a chance to be cute and got caught with his "lipstick" comment. That should be clear to even an idiot. What should also be clear is that his prior work as a "commmunity organizer" was devoted to organizing communities to vote for Barack Obama in the future for whatever office(s) he chose to run for.

Barack Obama took a chance to be cute and got caught with his "lipstick" comment. That should be clear to even an idiot.

Yes, any idiot would come to that conclusion, but I'm not convinced that anyone else would.

I have no idea what Obama meant but it certainly sounded like combined with the old fish statement, he was referring to Pailen/Mc Cain. I think he thought he was clever with imagery that had deniability -which is stupid. The Republicans' aren't holding a gun to his head and forcing him to say dumb stuff - just like McCain and the houses. These guys are both pretty lame with Obama and his 57 states and McCain's geography problems. They both should watch, Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader?
I am sure the media will pounce upon anything Sarah Palin says. Is anybody ever going to talk about issues in a concrete way? George Bush is starting to make these guys look bad, at least he makes mistakes and takes responsibity for them. I see extreme childishness in both parties.

Dear John Hanson: As you might expect I take issue with the 3 points you've attempted to make about John McCain. "He hates war"! I have to laugh at that one. he was one of the earliest( even before Bush & Co.) to go into Iraq (next stop Bagdad). Where was the "plan" he so eagerly supporting? Remember "bomb'bomb'bomb Iran". That doesn't sound like really diplomacy to me. As to being his own man, most of what I read and see is that he has only 2 visible supporters and comrades-Liberman and Graham. Both seem to be salivating for a Cabinate position. And by the way, Liberman did speak at the Repub Convention but he is an Independent, having lost the Demo primary in CT. His fellow Senators have often and vocally mentioned his intemperate disposition and numerous instances of temper loss. Remember Thad Cochran. The low approval rating Congress has more to do with Republican corruption and obstruction than expectations. John McCain knows so well the limitations of govt that he limited his response to the American People as to what his policies will be for their common good. When you suggest that he knows the limitations, I think you mean he , hisself. He has no vision. Perhaps the best reason to vote against him this Nov. He made a pact with the Devil (Bush) in '04 and did so because he had finally arrived at the point of realizing that his message as a "maverick" wasn't selling. He now in the clutches of Rove and Co. and his campaign is proving that. No issues just character assassination. Finally, how can you speak so highly of McCain when he chooses someone like Ms. Palin for VP. That choice is absurd and a slap in the face of all Americans. It's the last gasp of a desperate man who will never measure up to his Father and Grandfather. God help our Country when McCain and Palin can even be considered. This is for the President and Vice president of the US. Not people to be selected from a resume in People Magazine.

I'm getting real tired of the "offended card" on both sides of the argument. Obama promises a new type of politics and then misquotes McCain about "the hundred year war," his houses, etc. Okay. That's cool. But then don't go crying that you are being "swift-boated" when McCain decides to reciprocate. You can't engage in kickboxing and then demand that the other side fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules.

While I don't expect any Obamicons to admit it, as a McCain supporter I am disappointed at the level of discourse (on both sides), but I am not surprised by it.

One of the lessons of Vietnam is that you often need to adapt the enemies methods to survive.

Wow!

I didn't think Obama was calling Palin a pig, but he was clearly alluding to her "pitbull with lipstick" remark she made at the convention. To deny this is the case is foolish. Most of the audience, I am sure, thought he was calling her a pig, but the entire context doesn't support this- partisans usually hear what they want to hear, and Democratic partisans clearly want to believe the worst of Sarah Palin- I certainly have read far nastier remarks about her from the commenters on this site.

I am guessing that Obama and his staff try to come up with clever remarks every day that might make it into the news cycle for free publicity, and I think they came up with this one and thought it pretty clever in the way it borrows a bit from the now famous Palin remark, and I have to agree that it is clever, but one has to realize that listeners and readers will only hear what they want to hear, and in this case partisans on both sides wanted to hear "Palin is a pig". Once the McCain campaign seized on the outrage (a mistake in my opinion), Democratic partisans are now claiming that the remark didn't even have Palin in mind at all.

All in all, even with the faux outrage, the McCain camp won this one- we are still talking about Palin today. No campaign in my memory, going back to 1976, has ever had the two lead candidates outshone by one of the VP candidates. I am beginning to think that, come Election Day, more voters are going to go into the booths looking for Palin's name rather than Obama or McCain.

Dave in MO writes: But then don't go crying that you are being "swift-boated" when McCain decides to reciprocate.

Right. If Obama tells the truth about McCain, it justifies McCain telling lies about Obama.

One of the lessons of Vietnam is that you often need to adapt the enemies methods to survive.

I'm confused. Is Karl Rove an enemy of John McCain, or an ally?

Here, here, Dave in MO! Well put!

Even during the Paris Hilton dust-up, it still felt like a campaign about important ideas. Experience vs. Judgment? What role should gov't play in our society? Pragmatism vs. Conviction? Timetable vs open-ended? Deficits and tax cuts and corporate loop holes.

But man, the whole thing just smells badly now. While this particular style of politics is justifiably attributed to people like Rove and his disciples, from 7 houses to pig lipstick both sides are a tremendous disappointment.

Okay, Daryl. You are telling me that Obama was truthful in the advertisements about McCain calling for Iraq to be a "100 year war?" Really. Have you ever listened to the interview? McCain made it clear that he was speaking about advisers being in Iraq similar to how we had them in Germany and Japan for the past 60 years. He wasn't talking about combat operations. I know you can't accept the fact that your ONE is fallible, but he is.

How about McCain's houses? He didn't say he didn't know. He said he would get back to the reporter on that. You know what? His wife is phenomenally wealthy. Among Republicans and Independents, that isn't considered a bad thing. He didn't know off the top of his head whether his wife had investment properties or not. So what?

How about the 5 million dollars before you are wealthy claim? Did you watch the Saddleback forum? He stated it in jest and actually cracked that he had little doubt that the joke would be used by Obama.

Don't go get all holier than thou on this stuff. Both sides do it and it is only a totally blind partisan that can't see and admit it.

In case you haven't noticed, Karl isn't in this campaign. To quote a great Missourian, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"

But stop the endless whining!!!

Does anyone else remember when debates really meant something? I mean real topics were discussed rather than just carefully orchestrated mini-campaign speeches?

I want to know a couple of damn things from both candidates?

1. Economy. What do you mean by tax cuts? With over 40 million American's not paying any income taxes now, isn't this really just a disguised form of welfare? If we raise corporate income tax rates higher, won't a lot of companies vote with their feet and simply leave the US? What impact will your economic plans have on family owned businesses like Subchapter-S corporations and small businesses which actually provide most of the new jobs?

Energy. Exactly what are your plans? Is the issue of off-shore drilling/ANWR really a proposal or just a bargaining chip? Nuclear? What about the waste? Solar? What about the cost? Wind? Same question. Bio-fuels? What does that do to food prices?

National Security. Do you support the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and if so on who? Do you believe that terrorism is a law enforcement issue or a matter of national defense? What about Israel? The Palestinians? What effect does a foreign nation's history on civil rights factor into who is and isn't our ally. Is America the world's policeman.

Get the point? No one is talking about these or a gazillion other issues.

Awww, Dave in MO. You had me on your side there. I was on board with the let's-all-be-honest-with-ourselves stuff. And then you had to go with the condescending "ONE" crack. As if there isn't idolatry among the fans of McCain, Palin, Hillary or even Bill. It rather undercuts your point.

Sem:

Let's be serious. Didn't you think the speech where he said "this is the day the oceans stopped rising and the earth began to heal" was a little over the top? I admit it. I like to watch egos get deflated.

What I want to see is less rhetoric and --- dare I say it? Humility? If you've change a position, just say you've changed your position and why. The hubris really makes me ill when the candidates (on both sides) can't simply say, "Hey, I'm human. I make mistakes." The American people will forgive just about any offense except hypocrisy and hubris.

Oh, and by the way I don't idealize either McCain, Palin, Hillary or Bill. However, for the true Palin supporters out there, She isn't a heartbeat away from the presidency. She is a HEARTTHROB away from the presidency. LOL.

Everybody lighten up.

What I want to see is less rhetoric and --- dare I say it? Humility?

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Lucy:

Do you really believe that Obama is humble? Seriously? "I'm so proud of my humility." LOL. Thanks for proving my point.

For many of us, our faith isn't based in the "capacity of the American people." It is based in something that transcends that. Simply put, most of us already have a messiah and find the offer of a secular one a little disconcerting. But thanks for asking!

You want humility, Dave in MO? How do you like the sound of this:

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink. So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

I believe that Sarah Palin self-described herself as a hockey mom during her acceptance speech. I believe that she went on to say that the only difference between a "hockey mom and a pit bull was lipstick." Question: What was Ms. Palin calling herself in making that statement?