So Obama used the phrase “lipstick on a pig.” He’s used it before and so has McCain, according to this morning’s NPR news report. In fact, they both used it long before Palin was on the scene.
It’s old and tired and clichéd, and Obama can do better. But if McCain’s people think this is an attack on Sarah Palin, let it be noted that this infers that McCain’s people, and not Obama, are the ones who think Palin is a pig.
Yet the same camp that wants to pretend Obama called Palin a pig has no shame about a really horrible distortion in a McCain-approved ad–that tries to paint Obama as teaching sex to kindergarteners because he supported a measure to help children distinguish between proper and improper touching–a measure that can actually reduce pederasty and help bring pedophiles to justice.
And that is truly vile. Oh yeah, wasn’t McCain the “maverick” who stood for ethics?
Karl Rove may be proud. But I am disgusted.
The right-wing talking heads are up to their old tricks of distortion and distraction by playing the self-righteous victim over Barack Obama’s ‘lipstick on a pig’ reference to the McCain campaign’s claim to be change agents.
As usual, the news media is all over this little manufactured spat. However, I have not heard anyone mention another way of looking at this thing. Could it be argued that the G.O.Pig represents a continuation of the past eight years of bankrupt policies, and Sarah Palin is the young attractive lipstick that has been applied to this pig to make it more appealing?
QuestionItNow
I love it, REB,that’s brilliant!
Good points, Shel. I have a humorous take on this at http://dfischman.blogspot.com.
Dennis, thanks for sharing that. I did find it amusing. And especially, thanks for digging up a link to McCain’s much earlier use of the same cliché–which I wasn’t able to locate. I’ve added that to my post.