On the intent of Obama's reference to lipstick and pigs
The Obama campaign has been claiming that there was no intent to imply anything about Palin when he mentioned lipstick and that he is amazed that anyone could draw that conclusion.
Well, the Politico mentioned this yesterday.
I think that this gets to intent. But as if that wasn't enough, Obama's audience laughed and started chanting "No More Pitbulls, No More Pitbulls." If Obama's audience and staff see the link, Obama has a hard road to claim that it wasn't obvious to him also. Note also that the laughter starts as soon as Obama says "lipstick" even before he got to the punch line. From the AP:
Given the crowd's reaction to Obama's comment, it is hard to see why Obama claims that it is amazing that people can think that he was talking about Palin. Why didn't Obama offer a correction when the audience reacted to the word "lipstick" if there was no connection? Possibly he wasn't listening to the audience. That is surely possible, but it is harder to square with the comments of his staff mentioned above.
One additional thought is needed here. Obama has continually found racial discrimination where nothing was involved -- just ask Bill Clinton (unless you think that Clinton is a racist, which I don't).
UPDATE: I was listening to ABC Radio news at 3:30 PM, and it showed amazing bias. The entire news report was how Republicans have used the "lipstick on a pig" comment, and suggested that Obama was simply using a common phrase. Common phrase, fine, but the notion that Obama didn't use this on purpose for Palin seems weak.
UPDATE 2: Dennis Prager noted on his show today that "lipstick" had been mentioned earlier in the same presentation by Obama. Why would the Obama people want the term "lipstick" raised twice in the same presentation? (Note: Prager doesn't think that Obama deliberately used "lipstick" to go after Palin, though Prager does say that Obama should have realized that was the way that it was taken as soon as the audience reacted.)
UPDATE 3: Not surprisingly, most people now regard the media as biased.
"A top Obama aide e-mailed Politico to say it was "crazy" to insinuate that Obama was talking about Palin. "That expression is older than your grandfather and has nothing to do with her," the aide said."
Well, the Politico mentioned this yesterday.
"Though on a day when Obama's surrogates were joking that Palin's record can't be concealed with lipstick, it was hard for those following the campaign not to hear the echo."
I think that this gets to intent. But as if that wasn't enough, Obama's audience laughed and started chanting "No More Pitbulls, No More Pitbulls." If Obama's audience and staff see the link, Obama has a hard road to claim that it wasn't obvious to him also. Note also that the laughter starts as soon as Obama says "lipstick" even before he got to the punch line. From the AP:
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."
Given the crowd's reaction to Obama's comment, it is hard to see why Obama claims that it is amazing that people can think that he was talking about Palin. Why didn't Obama offer a correction when the audience reacted to the word "lipstick" if there was no connection? Possibly he wasn't listening to the audience. That is surely possible, but it is harder to square with the comments of his staff mentioned above.
One additional thought is needed here. Obama has continually found racial discrimination where nothing was involved -- just ask Bill Clinton (unless you think that Clinton is a racist, which I don't).
UPDATE: I was listening to ABC Radio news at 3:30 PM, and it showed amazing bias. The entire news report was how Republicans have used the "lipstick on a pig" comment, and suggested that Obama was simply using a common phrase. Common phrase, fine, but the notion that Obama didn't use this on purpose for Palin seems weak.
UPDATE 2: Dennis Prager noted on his show today that "lipstick" had been mentioned earlier in the same presentation by Obama. Why would the Obama people want the term "lipstick" raised twice in the same presentation? (Note: Prager doesn't think that Obama deliberately used "lipstick" to go after Palin, though Prager does say that Obama should have realized that was the way that it was taken as soon as the audience reacted.)
UPDATE 3: Not surprisingly, most people now regard the media as biased.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11% who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain.
posted by John Lott at 1:29 PM
4 Comments:
"Seven out of 10 voters (69%) remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama."
Bias? What bias? When even those on the left see bias, its difficult to maintain the talking point that "The media doesn't lean left, it's just shallow and sensationalst."
David
I think every report I've seen in the MSM, fails to mention the old fish part that followed. Considering that McCain has been called old so often it's very difficult to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I've yet to see an Obama supporter address this point as well.
McCain 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 he seems to think they are
More dishonesty from Charles Gibson (well known to be left of center):
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
Here is what Palin actually said:
PALIN: Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan.
Where exactly are those "exact words"?
Can someone point out an interview where Obama or Biden has been asked to comment on specific things they have said where the interviewer is simply incorrect with resoect to the quoted statement?
How about such an instance where the interviewer in known to be right of center?
Finally, does anyone really believe that Charlie Gibson's preparation could have be so sloppy as to get the exact words wrong? Oris it possible that he just got caught up his biased task of trying to scope hits on Palin?
Post a Comment
<< Home