Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Obama's Porcine Symbolism Backfires

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you reap what you sow, and what goes around comes around. Whatever cliché you want to use, it's a fitting phrase to describe the purported outrage expressed by Obama about the flap created by his recent lipstick comment:

“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” Obama said during a town-hall style event here Tuesday night.

While it is true that this an old saying (I heard my grandmother use it), there is some question of Obama's judgment in using this so soon after Palin's use of the word lipstick in one of her speeches. I am pretty sure his use of this phrase was not intended to be construed in this manner, AC from Fore Left thinks it was.

But, let's look at this from a more prudent perspective. Regardless of how he meant it, Obama had to know this would cause outrage and give the media something to talk about, other than what he wants to talk about. But he still chose to use it anyway. For someone that picks and chooses his words so carefully during tough interviews, he sure blew this one. My guess is, there will be a distinct pattern of this kind of thing developing soon, the lower he goes in the polls. He's used to the media not calling these kinds of things into question, but now it appears they are.

Even so, it calls back into remembrance every time Obama's campaign has characterized a comment they didn't like, as racist. Who can forget the outrage against Bill Clinton, the so-called first "black" president, for his comments made during the primary campaign? They were no more racist racist than the words of the nursery rhyme, "Mary Had A Little Lamb".

Still, they were treated by the Obama camp and the media like they were, and they were effectively used against Hillary, as a result. But I didn't hear Obama say "enough" back then, certainly not while he was riding a high wave. He didn't call out the dirty rotten race card players, when it was to his advantage. Did he?

And even today, he's not doing it.

As recently as this week, the New York Governor has attempted to play the race card against McCain's campaign.

"There are overtones of potential racial coding in the campaign," Paterson told Crain's Business Forum, when asked whether racism would hurt Obama's chances to become President. "

"The Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama 'black,'" said Paterson, the state's first black governor.

"But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican convention. A 'community organizer.' They kept saying it, they kept laughing, like what does this mean?"

If you ask me, this is one of the stupidest accusations anyone could make. I am outraged that he would think the masses are that stupid, even though some of them clearly are.

So the "outrage on the outrage" has become just one more tired tactic used by Obama and the Democrats to divide people. Where is Obama's outrage on this idiotic statement? Missing, as usual.

Watch closely folks, for I have said this little phrase several times in my blog career: The pendulum swings back harder and harder, every cycle. In the world of politics, this can only translate one way: If you are prepared to use divisive tactics, you must be prepared when they are used against you. It's only fair.


Always On Watch said...

I read on another blog that all the material Obama used in the speech was on the teleprompter. If that's true, such information adds more credence that he planned a personal attack on Palin -- and McCain, too, with the "old fish in new paper" portion.

Anonymous said...

Dennis Miller observes that it is clear to him that Sarah Palin is stuck in Obama's head. He could be right about that. It seems Obama cannot utter a single word without thinking about what he's going to say, and how it might reveal itself in media sound bites. This poses a problem because Obama isn't used to thinking. I understand he has a six month supply of Head-On with him at all times.

Miller also opined it is clear the Democrats picked the wrong guy as their presidential hopeful. He noted that if Hillary had been nominated, there is no doubt but that Hillary would have selected Obama as her running mate ... and you know what? I think Miller's right: Clinton might have been assured of the presidency. What is your view?

Semper Fi

LASunsett said...

//I read on another blog that all the material Obama used in the speech was on the teleprompter.//

I don't know for sure, but it didn't look like he was. It looked like too intimate of a setting, to me. But what do I know? As Mustang always points out to me, I am one of the 6-7 people that will admit to voting for Carter in 1976.

LASunsett said...

//What is your view?//

I think that it is a distinct possibility Hillary would have won. It actually made more sense than the way it played out, but the Deaniac wing of the Dem Party stacked the deck against Hillary in the caucus states.

I predict that if the Dems lose and as badly as it appears they may, Dean's tenure as Chairman and his future in politics will be over.

L'Amerloque said...

Hi LAS !

Ah, symbolism is everything, as Connie Francis would have it: (grin)

Lipstick on you collar, told a tale on you
Lipstick on you collar, said you were untrue
Bet your bottom dollar, you and I are through

Cause, lipstick on you collar told a tale on you, yeah


Greg said...

I predict that if the Dems lose and as badly as it appears they may, Dean's tenure as Chairman and his future in politics will be over.

What about the party itself? If the Democrats can't win now, when will they ever? The Republican party and its leader are deeply unpopular. Most Americans think America is on the wrong track after 7 years of Republican leadership. If not now, when? If the Democrats can't win now, then it means Americans just fundamentally disagree with them on the issues, and would prefer people they think have been doing a bad job. The Democrats have been working hard to make themselves the permanent opposition party.

Anonymous said...

Greg’s comment causes me to reflect upon something Zell Miller once said: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party … they left me.” It is true that we are no longer the country of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison … but it does seem to me that Democrats seek to redefine America (socialism, Marxism, moral relativism), while Republicans value our Nation’s hallowed traditions and seek to retain them. Maybe Democrats can’t win because they have stopped being Americans.

LASunsett said...


That's one of my favorite songs from the 50s. How appropriate. ;)

LASunsett said...

//What about the party itself? //

If they do not wake up, they will be in big trouble. Believe it or not, I used to be a Democrat when I was younger. Jimmy Carter broke me of that habit, real quick.

Since the time I became an independent, I have voted for Dems here and there. I have voted for Libertarians, and Republicans too. There was only one time I ever pulled a straight ticket and that was a protest vote against the GOP. That was in 1992.

LASunsett said...

//It is true that we are no longer the country of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison …//

I think this can be said on all fronts. The GOP failed us and now we are stuck with the biggest bunch of idiots running this country, led by Pelosi and Reid. A big sarcastic tip of the hat to all those GOP that didn't do what the people sent them to do.

LASunsett said...

//That's one of my favorite songs from the 50s.//

Or was it the 60s? Whichever, I liked it.