It would seem to be so obvious as to not need saying that the best advocate for the Barack Obama campaign is Barack Obama. Ditto for John McCain. That being the case, it seems a no brainer that there would be controversy surrounding things a candidate says. That particular sword, however, cuts both ways. If the candidate is saying good things, newsworthy things, appropriate things – the candidate gets good press. On the other hand, if the candidate says ignorant things, stupid things, ill advised things – the candidate is going to get lots of press, likely of an undesireable variety.
Which brings us to the case of recent comments by Barack Obama. A few days ago, speaking to George Stephonopolous on matters of faith, Obama referred to his own faith as “my Muslim faith”. Yesterday, Obama made a reference to the old saw about “lipstick on a pig”. Both comments drew immediate fire from the Right and the national debate was joined.
Let me say at the outset that there is politics happening on both sides of the comment controversies. Discussion on the Right is that Obama has finally admitted that he is a Muslim and not a Christian and that he also has insulted Sarah Palin by calling her a pig. The Left has countered that the comments were taken out of context and that the other side is making mountains out of molehills.
For the record, I think the Left has a strong case when they argue the comments are being taken out of context. When the entire section of video is viewed for both comments as opposed to just the 5 second soundbites, it is clear that the Muslim remark was a mere slip of the tongue of the variety we’ve all made. The terms “Muslim” and “Christian” were both in the discussion and the wrong one came out connected to his faith. The lipstick comment was a wrap up of a discussion of Obama’s spin on McCain’s views and seems to be an appropriate use of the phrase. In this context, the Obama campaign should get a pass on the Muslim comment at least. The lipstick comment is more problematic.
Because the real problem for Obama isn’t what he said, it’s that he said it at all! The biggest complaint coming out of the Obama campaign over the last couple of days apart from the comment dustup is that Sarah Palin has not been interviewed by the media or let loose to speak freely. What Obama understands is that speaking publicly like that can be a very treacherous undertaking. They want Palin out and on tape so they can do to her what the Right is doing to Obama. Be it on policy or a verbal misstep, the Obama campaign wants the same exposure for Palin that Obama has been subject to. The problem, of course, is there is no guarantee Palin will be accomodating and provide the desired ammunition for her own political assassination at the hands of a cruel and amoral Left.
During the time frame in which Obama made the remarks for which he is being pilloried, Biden, McCain and Palin have all been on the stump. Owing to his proven history over decades, smart money was on Biden as the guy most likely to say stupid things in front of a camera. So far he has not although there’s a storm gathering around his comments on stem cell research and special needs children. Nor have McCain or Palin provided any verbal gaffes. But Obama has and that’s a problem. There maybe an explanation for what he actually meant. But there is no denying that he said what he said. It’s a problem for him now and these two comments may follow him for a long while. If he continues to add to them it is not going to get any better, regardless of the spin and explanation that come out of Obama’s campaign. One need only look at the consequences of one word, “Macaca”, to understand the import of Obama’s mistakes.
Obama is squandering his reputation as a good speaker while tightly scripted and living down to his reputation as a poor spontaneous speaker. The occasional slip of the tongue as evidenced by the “my Muslim faith” comment will tend to be less damaging. Everyone has done that and we understand. However, while Obama can legitimately claim his remarks about pigs and lipstick concerned John McCain, if he expects that anyone with a scintilla of intelligence will not make the connection between his comments and Palin’s comments then he’s not as sharp a knife as he would have us believe.
For whatever reason, Obama chose that phrase as opposed to any one of several others that would have illustrated the same point. Thus he can try and explain his meaning but he cannot realistically say he didn’t understand his comments would be taken as a swipe at Palin. Not personal – he wasn’t calling her a pig. But it strains credulity to the breaking point to ask me to believe he wasn’t trying to connect the popularity of Palin and her lipstick comment and take away some of the power and popularity of Palin’s words.
I don’t fault him for doing that. It’s smart politics. But such efforts don’t always work. This one didn’t. Obama and his campaign need to look for better attacks or just give up the practice if they cannot stop doing it so badly. Obama has enough negative baggage on his record and the issues without adding to the ammunition his opponents will use against him by handing them bullets and helping them load the gun. Obama can try to explain away his missteps but it’s clearly a losing fight. As Obama has famously said, you can put lipstick on a pig – but it’s still a pig!









Great analysis!
I agree. I would even go so far as to say that he dropped this little gem fully expecting – even counting on – the torrid reaction he got. He wanted it to come. It gives him the opportunity to call McCain a ’swiftboat politician’ and somehow attempt to cozen us into believing that MCCAIN is the one who doesn’t want to discuss the issues. I don’t think it worked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w
McCain using “Lipstick on a pig” in regards to Hillary Clinton’s health care plan last October 11.
At a press conference on Iraq war strategy on February 1, 2007, McCain said:
“It gets down to whether you support what’s being done in this new strategy or you don’t. You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig in my view.”
And according to National Public Radio, McCain said the phrase again that same day in a similar context :
“It’s all about withdrawal or not withdrawal, okay? I mean that’s what it’s all about. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”
It wasn’t sexist then. It isn’t now.
Nimrod:
I don’t think it was calculated; rather, Sarah Palin is bouncing around his subconscious, always present, like a thorn in his foot. It may have been Freudian.
Eric
Haha. I like that even better.
Lyle -
I’m not buying the circumstantial defense garbage for a second. The fact that McCain used the phrase two years ago only proves that it is an oft-used phrase. The point is that Obama used it within the context of this election. Palin’s reference to lipstick has been well-documented over the last week, and to assume that anyone who is not recklessly defending his every move will give him the benefit of the doubt here is asking way too much. How dare he play dumb – nay – how dare he GET INDIGNANT over it when the entire nation (you included, Lyle) let out a collective “Ooooooooh…” the first time they heard his comments. We all knew what it was when we heard it, and any denial of its intent must be tongue-in-cheek at best. It was intentional and it was a filthy, ugly move. He did it to rouse a Republican reaction that he could turn into an attack of his own. The word shameful keeps floating through my head.
Having said that, while I think that both the statements and his denial of intent are disgraceful (he very easily could have phrased his point by using his favorite line: ‘More of the same;’ and he also could have found a savvy way to apologize IF INDEED it was an innocent mistake), I think the whole thing is pretty much a non-issue. I think he’s a scumbag for saying it, but then again I didn’t think too much of him to begin with. In the end it won’t affect the election, and in a week we’ll be back here debating something just as trivial.
I can’t believe because the “Crowd Laughed” you think that what he said was directed to Palin as a “Sexist” remark.
Oh horrors!! he used the same word that Palin did so obviously its an attack.. Maybe it was… who cares.
Get over it.
Next we are going to start arguing that Palins attack on an “Organizer” is somehow a racist comment.
Hash out who has the best plans.. Stop looking at youtube, MSNBC, and fox news (clearly edited content).. Read their speeches word for word (not blips) you weak americans with blinders on.. don’t have other people do it for you.
I don’t care who your choice is, as long as you actually look at the candidates records and how they voted.. not how they want you to think they voted. Use that big blob between your eyes called a brain.
Nimrod, you are truly well named.
Give me a break, and listen to Pig lips..he/she speaks the truth.
@Lyle -
Nimrod made the point quite well. It’s not that the phrase is not common. I myself have a post up from last December titled ‘A Pig in Lipstick’ (which is getting GREAT traffic) which is about the subprime bailout. It’s about the world into which the comment was made. Following Palin’s remarks in her acceptance speech, Obama should have (and I believe he did) known how his remarks would be seen. Not that he was calling Palin a pig, but that his response was clearly a reference to her remarks. He came, he tried, he lost … next move.
@Pig Lips -
You’re reading too much into the response on the Right. Those who believe the remarks were personal against Palin don’t believe so due to the crowd laughing. They believe so because the remarks were clearly tied to Palin via the lipstick reference. How do we know they were? Because of the crowd laughing. There’s not a person who, when they heard Obama’s comment did not immediately think of Palin’s widely reported joke from her acceptance speech. If Obama truly didn’t know his comments would be received as such, again I say he isn’t then as bright as he would have us believe.
So, again for the record. There’s no need to assume Obama meant anything personal in his reference to Palin’s remarks. But to say there was no reference to Palin in that remark is silly. I actually hope the Left continues to deny that. The longer they operate in denial of reality, the better it will be for McCain/Palin.
Thanks to all who commented. Keep the comments coming. This is a great forum for talking about items, great and small, which impact our lives.
McCain has become quite the politician since he got his party’s nomination… he has proven time and again that his strategy for winning is based on personal attacks and distracting people from the main issues
@Kingdom -
Perhaps you haven’t been following the thread.
The idea here, while acknowledging that McCain’s campaign did run the internet video on the Lipstick comment, is that Obama is the person driving the discussion – both before and after.
Obama didn’t have to make the comment originally and he could have handled the aftermath much better – MUCH better.
Thus, if you have some outrage, perhaps it would be better directed to the Senator from IL rather than the one from IL.
Blue Collar:
You’re blaming Obama for using a common idiomatic turn of phrase? He wasn’t even referring to Palin. Ridiculous. It’s like blaming a victim for a rape because she wore slutty clothes.
Just because Palin decided to reference lipstick in her speech doesn’t give the McCain campaign ownership of this word? It’s not like Obama created an original word construct based on her ‘original’ quip, or was he even referring to her.
Silly political bullshit that is just noise to the average american. This is fun for us, but worthless in advancing the issues.
Eric
@Eric -
I appreciate your efforts at taking me to school. It was a good effort. You may want to give it another try, though.
First up – I don’t “blame” Obama for anything. He made a choice and is getting smacked around for it. I’m merely assigning responsibility for a consequence to the proper cause.
Second, you’ve got problems with your metaphor. If he wasn’t referring to Palin, there’s no rape to blame on clothing. If he was referring to Palin, he’s guilty. Which is it?
Finally, the McCain campaign doesn’t own the phrase “lipstick on a pig” any more than Dr. King’s family owns the phrase “I have a dream”. That doesn’t change the fact that anyone who uses the phrase “I have a dream” is conjuring the memory of King’s use of it.
For the last time, I’ll offer the advice to Obama and his supporters – you can continue to deny the plain reality of the event. Just understand you’re helping the McCain campaign by doing so.
And that’s OK with me.
Haha. Fair enough, Blue…very weak on my part. I meant for the slutty clothes to be the idiom, and…well, it was late and as you pointed out, it all falls apart.
However, this issue is dead now that Sarah “In what respect, Charlie?” Palin has shown how vapid her knowledge on wordly issues really is. I think independents will view this performance, and ask themselves, “Do I REALLY want this woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?”
Hannity is scheduled to rescue her next week with a ‘fair and balanced’ interview, I’m sure. First question….”So, Sarah..why do Democrats hate Jesus so much?”
The pendulum is shifting back.
Finally, Blue, I do appreciate your writing (per my first comment).
@Eric -
I haven’t seen the entire interview yet as I’m in Phoenix for a conference. I’ll be interested to see the quote you reference. As I mentioned, the Left will be going over her remarks with a fine tooth comb hoping to find some payback.
Vapid is not likely a word I would use for Palin. It’s unlikely that anyone accomplished enough to be considered for a VP slot would be vapid.
The question needs to be comparative. How does Sarah Palin compare to the others in the race? I think she compares rather favorably to either Biden or Obama. None of the three are as qualified or as accomplished as McCain. I’m seeing a lot more “I don’t like her views” reported as “Sarah is a lightweight”. The same is being done to Obama.
Better we talk about the issues and the consequences of adopting them. From there we move to who is more likely to champion the issues important to you.
Thanks for the kind words. I really enjoy give-and-take with readers and other bloggers. Keep asking me questions and don’t let me get away with anything. I’m human enough to try now and then or at least not see that I’m doing so in that moment.
Blue:
I was referring to her world affairs knowledge. It was flat and dull. She obviously has the necessary skills to be selected by the people to be mayor and governor.
The Palin media bubble will soon burst, and we’ll be back to issues. This isn’t to say she will collapse, nor her popularity, but rather, other issues come up and she fades into the background, as should a VP candidate.
It’s amazing how much occurs in these last 60 days. Campaign season is nuts. I enjoy the back and forth.