Why does Obama hate America’s pigs?

This lipstick on a pig thing is just so laughably ridiculous, I almost can’t believe the media is running with it. Last night CNN was running in the background and I overheard a discussion — lead by the supremely disappointing Campbell Brown — all about the subtle sexism of this remark by Obama. (I’d like to know where CNN’s concern for sexism was when Hillary Clinton was on the campaign trail ….)

An editorial in this morning’s Washington Post has the best take on this topic:

IT’S HARD to think of a presidential campaign with a wider chasm between the seriousness of the issues confronting the country and the triviality, so far anyway, of the political discourse. On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Sen. John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Sen. Barack Obama for using the phrase “lipstick on a pig” and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.

Mr. Obama’s supposedly offending remark was not only not offensive — it also was not directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. “The other side, suddenly, they’re saying ‘we’re for change too,’ ” Mr. Obama said. “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.” With a woman on the ticket, apparently all references to cosmetics — or pork of the non-bridge variety, for that matter — are forbidden. “Sen. Obama owes Gov. Palin an apology,” sniffed former Massachusetts governor Jane Swift. “Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a pig is not exactly what we want to see.” No matter that Mr. McCain used the lipstick-on-a-pig phrase himself, referring to (female) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s health-care plan, or that (female) former McCain aide Torie Clarke wrote a book with that title. In the heat of a campaign, operatives will pounce on any misstep and play to the referees over any arguable foul. We understand that, and certainly the Obama campaign has not been above such tactics. But this cynical use of the gender card is unusually silly.

And I just love the outrageous nerve of the Republicans in all of this. Page one of Torie Clarke’s book, Lipstick on a Pig talks about none other than … Charles Keating! You remember Charles Keating, don’t you? Even though John McCain would like you to forget that McCain is one of the Keating Five — 5 senators who were involved in helping Keating during the savings and loans scandal of the 1980s?

Read the rest of the editorial here.



  1. McCain has become quite the politician since he got his party’s nomination; he has proven time and again that his strategy for winning depends on personal attacks and distracting people from the main issues… i just hope people aren’t as gullible as McCain seems to think they are

  2. i just hope people aren’t as gullible as McCain seems to think they are

    I hope so, too, but the polls are too close for comfort.

  3. The unbelievably crazy thing about all this, is that by talking about it at all, even dirisively, the media does exactly what McCain wants, and avoids talking about the issues. SInce the cynicism of the McFoolish campaign is simply to bank on the stupidity of the electorate, they hope that the constant refrain of their charges will not be investigated by the average voter. So they will win another vote. It’s so dispicable as to be almost criminal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s