Come on, Jesse!  Don’t you understand?

You see, if the ticket has a woman on it, and the opposition candidate says a word that is gendered, in this case “lipstick”, therefore sexism.  Duh.

And they let you write for a feminist blog?

McCain used this phrase when referring to Hillary Clinton. I wonder if the Right Wing Outrage Machine cried foul then?

Exactly, Jesse.  Exactly.

That video was cut off before Obama got out another analogy. Trying to find a longer video, I ran acroos this one, which made me tear up (in a good way).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpniuotfpR8

Gawd. Conservatives Just. Don’t. Get. It. Oy vey. Yes, dumbshits, trying to make a hideous something (GOP) more palatable by putting a different face (dark horse candidate) on it = pig + lipstick. I’ve yet to hear any substantive accomplishments put forth by Palin’s own party as to why she is the ideal candidate. It’s all “mavericky” this and “changeyness” that.

McCain’s the pig, Palin’s the lipstick…It’s pretty apt to me.

Yes, dumbshits, trying to make a hideous something (GOP) more palatable by putting a different face (dark horse candidate) on it = pig + lipstick.

Hm.  You know, I think a pig with a horse’s head is kind of an apt metaphor for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Hey, if you’re going to run commercials implying that your opponent is a pedophile because he wanted sex education taught in public schools, you’d better have a fig leaf to pull over yourself so you can claim to be the injured party.

I guess that, because I’ve heard the “lipstick on a pig” analogy before (isn’t it a common figure of speech?) it didn’t strike me as sexist.  Especially because it seemed pretty clear he was talking about the McCain platform, not Palin.  He’s saying, you can call it whatever you want (“change”), but it’s going to be the same policies as the last eight years.

How dare he call John McCain a pig!

It wasn’t even that! It’s just an expression! McCain is just getting patheticly desperate now.

<small>Also, I was catching up on older post and there’s a porn-spam comment one the bottom of this post that someone might want to delete.</small>

Face it, Sarah Palin is in your figures of speech owning all your lipstick.

Any mentions of lipstick, pitbulls, Alaska, trigonometry and small towns are in fact references to Sarah Palin.

It’s going to be interesting seeing which left-wing bloggers buy into this.

Obama, FTW. The Rethugs spent the whole last week taking pot shots at his experience as a community organizer. He’s showing he can give the snark as good as he gets. Bring it on.

They’re playing this card way too early. Something tells me they’re rattled.

Just two trivial points of interest:

Torie Clarke, former McCain press secretary, wrote a book.

And the pit bull/lipstick comment had its genesis in a misogynistic whine campaign against Eric Lindros’ mom.

Neither fact does anything to counteract this stupidity, but it does prove to me how right we are. That and a quarter will get you half a phone call.

Ben D:Yup. They’re throwing everything but the kitchen sink out there now, and leaving nothing for later.

My guess is that their internals and focus groups are showing much worse results than the public polling is showing. And same for the Obama campaign, for what it’s worth…of course, except better for them.

My guess is that McCain is gaining votes in Alabama and Mississippi and South Dakota and losing votes in Ohio and Florida and Virginia.

“the most sexist comment in American political history”

::falls out of chair::

“the most sexist comment in American political history”

::falls out of chair::

It is a rather good joke, isn’t it?

Oh wait, they were serious. Let me laugh harder.

Republicans crying sexism is like the Roadrunner calling in a Consumer Product Safety Complaint to ACME.

That’s the most ridiculous interpretation of an “insult” since Michael Dukakis, speaking of the Reagan White House, quoted the proverb, “A fish rots from the head down,” and Bush the Elder immediately howled, “He compared the President of the United States TO A ROTTING FISH!!!!”

This just demonstrates conservatives’ utter failure to understand nuance, complexity, satire or metaphor.
Either that or they’re disingenuously hyperbolic slimeballs.

The absolute BEST part of the faux outrage—

THE WOMAN THEY’RE DEFENDING INTRODUCED HERSELF TO THE WORLD BY COMPRARING HERSELF TO A DOG WEARING LIPSTICK.

The GOP suddenly cares about sexism?!??! HILARIOUS. Is this their last ditch attempt to appeal to the very last of Hillary’s disgruntled supporters?

Damn. The Daily Show is in re-runs this week. They must be cursing that they’re missing a chance to mock this—although I’m not even sure it’s mockable, it’s pretty damn funny all on its own.

You know, I know the position here is that there are no disaffected Hillary supporters who think Obama ran a sexist campaign and aren’t enthusiastic about voting for him. 

But really, with that undercurrent going around in the press and McCain surging among white women since the RNC, it was at the very least, pretty dumb to throw references to pigs in lipstick and stinking fish into a speech.  Even if the references were innocent this doesn’t gel with the idea of the Obama campaign as a well-oiled machine.

In a campaign environment with a 24 hour news hole and blogs with unlimited column inches, this stuff is going to get played.  It’s a gaffe Obama should not have made.

Anyway, this blog has seized on so many “dog whistles” in McCain comments that are much more obscure or obtuse than this.  You can’t really assume the other guy is subliminally courting bigots while your guy should get the benefit of the doubt.

Mitchforth, the pig-in-lipstick metaphor has nothing to do with gender.  It is simply not a gender-based insult.  In fact, I think it’s a pretty clever way to use Palin’s own words against her, in order to critique the McCain/Palin ticket.

Karmakin-

Virginia is now actually running BEHIND McCain’s national numbers. I thought I’d never live to see the day where Virginia is running bluer than the nation as a whole.

I don’t know. I guess it could be a sexist dog whistle, because talking about putting lipstick on an ugly animal is now related to Sarah Palin via that pitbull comment.

But it is a common phrase that doesn’t strike me as particularly sexist in and of itself.

And according to this comment thread, he said the same thing about Clinton, which means he used the phrase in the same political context way before it could possibly be associated with the pitbull comment.

And he was clearly going after McCain, not Palin, in the speech leading up to it.

So it’s probably not a sexist dog whistle.

Now, that bit about the “old fish” being a slam on McCain’s age is unquestionably absurd. Obama’s entire campaign is based on change and hope, a distinction from an *old* political system. If he’s insulting McCain every time he talks about the *old* way of doing things, he’s been going after McCain specifically since long before McCain was the Republican nominee.

Oh god I hope VA will pull for Obama.  I’m trying to find a volunteer opportunity as we speak.  And maybe it’s just wishful thinking but it’d be awesome if Biden could pull PA a bit more towards the blue.  Lawd knows Scrantonians are a proud bunch of (mostly) Catholics.

The whole women-flocking-to-McCain equation doesn’t add up when you look at this, from CNN today:

A majority of females polled, 55 percent, said that Palin is not qualified to serve as president.

While the fact that some republican women who weren’t fully behind McCain before are now because of Palin that DOES NOT mean that suddenly Obama has a problem with women voters. He doesn’t.

And can we talk about this comment: Lipstick and fish, and they’ll try to convince us it wasn’t aimed at Palin.

Does that commenter seriously believe that Obama was trying to invoke the (weird) idea that vaginas smell like fish to insult Sarah Palin? That would be some really goddamn blunt speechwriting.

Sarah, if there’s going to be a recount this year that decides the election it will be in Richmond. It’s been that consistently close.

Without Virginia it is very, very hard for McCain to get to 270.

“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.” “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”

Does anyone actually believe this wasn’t planned in advanced?  He called her a pig… it’s obvious…. Obama’s passive aggressiveness is nauseating…

Yarrrrr confirms my suspicions about conservatives’ ability to comprehend metaphors.

I KNEW they were going to do this, but I thought they would wait for the VP debate. Instead they did it in under two weeks.

I am aware that “lipstick on a pig” is not necessarily a gendered insult.  But with the whole “A hockey mom is a pit bull in lipstick” thing, any reference to lipstick is a shot at Palin. 

A lot of major polls are showing a big McCain bounce among white women coming out of the Palin nomination.  I was definitely among those who was disappointed to see a hardcore social conservative get the VP nod from McCain, and I thought the pick was pretty ill-considered, but she has really energized the McCain campaign. 

I think the McCain campaign is looking less desperate right now than they have been all summer, and this is a pretty ill-timed gaffe from Obama when he’s looking to neutralize the Palin bounce that is showing up in all the major polls.

Your concern is heartwarming, mitch.

The Democratic coalition is an insect?

So basically the only information we’re getting from conservatives over this is that dog > pig. Score one for me in farm animal poker!

Now, is moose the trump card or the low card?

You know, when I heard the complaints about Obama saying “periodically, when she’s feeling down,” I eventually gave Clinton supporters the benefit of the doubt that that was a sexist thing to say.

He’d better not say it again—because now not only would the “periodically” part be an attack on Palin, the “down” part would be a covert reference to Trig Palin’s Down’s Syndrome!  How dare he hypothetically do that!

mitch, I see your point. On the other hand, can political figures lay claim to words—dictionary words—simply by using them first? Does Hillary Clinton own everything that happens at 3 AM to a phone? So while I see that this might have been constructed that way, I don’t think it was. And I don’t think Obama is best served by tiptoeing around the edge of any idea Palin lays some claim to.

More importantly: this isn’t big. This is small. This is ludicrously small. So hakuna matata

Shorter mitchforth: When Palin uses a metaphor, it’s like when Neil Armstrong stuck the flag on the moon.

(Moon! Menstruation! I’m sexist!)

That stink isn’t old fish.  It’s desperation.  And the trolls rolled in it before they dragged their asses over here.

Shorter mitchforth: When Palin uses a metaphor, it’s like when Neil Armstrong stuck the flag on the moon.

Shorter thread:  Barack Obama and his campaign never say anything stupid.  People who think Barack Obama could ever say something stupid must be stupid.

any reference to lipstick is a shot at Palin.

Did Palin trademark lipstick? Is mascara still available? How about lip gloss?

Good speaker or no, Obama is apt to misspeak. Examples are “57 states” and “I am a Muslim.” So a subconscious slip is excusable. It’s like a pitcher who hits a batter. If he showed pinpoint control up to that point, it was probably deliberate. if he was pitching all over the place, and walked the previous batter, then it was consistent with lack of control and probably unintentional.

Should I be sorry that the name that I’ve seen that I really like for Palin is “Caribou Barbie”?

Should I be sorry that the name that I’ve seen that I really like for Palin is “Caribou Barbie”?

My personal fave is “Mooselini”.

Oh come on! Context; people! Didn’t you listen to the clip? Do I have to explain something so simple?

Here’s what Obama said:

McCain policies=Bush policies=A pig
Lipstick=McCain’s claim of “change”

Lipstick on a pig, is a well known figure of speech. The audience got it and cheered. Simple effective communication using a well known metaphor.

Part II:

Old fish=McCain policies
Piece of paper called “change”=McCain’s recient claim he is the candidate of change

Less familiar analogy, but amounts to same things as the pig thing.

Concern trolls: If you are not actually trolls, but genuine concerned commenters, sleep in peace as I have explained things to you. Otherwise, begone.

This is 100% manufactured wingnut garbage, but that doesn’t mean it won’t play. Anybody remember Lynne Cheney convincing America that John Kerry was a baaaaad man for telling America what they already knew about her openly gay daughter?

McCain’s campaign has taken a gleeful leap into the sewer ever since the convention. They’re playing so dirty even some of our comatose press corps have started to notice. But Obama is still reacting, not taking charge. He’s letting McCain set the tone and responding defensively. He’s got to get control of the campaign narrative again.

Upon further reflection, I do think it refers to Palin, but Palin is the lipstick and McCain is the pig.  She’s the way to fancy up some old, bad plans. 

I think that’s actually pretty clever.  And not sexist, unless any discussion of how Palin is meant to add energy and appeal to the McCain candidacy is somehow “sexist” because it doesn’t take her seriously.

+1 to McCain for steering yet another potential conversation about issues into one about his hurt feelings. 

Maybe we should get a purple heart band aid for him.

I agree this isn’t sexist, but I hope everyone knows that calling a spade a spade means calling digging implements by their proper name (the alternate phrase is “calling a spade a fucking shovel”), and thus calling anything what it is in clear language. I’ve heard people claim it’s racist because they aren’t really abreast of traditional idiom.

Samantha, there’s absolutely no question that the people I’ve personally in person heard say “call a spade a spade” did not mean correct designations for digging implements. Not every use of the phrase is meant that way, but when the subject of the analogy is Obama, a person should rightly have some splainin to do.

“As we say in Wyoming, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” quipped Vice President Dick Cheney in a stump speech yesterday, with reference to John Kerry’s claims he would be a credible war president.

God, I wish someone would start floating the meme that McCain/Palin are whiners. Because they are. They’re the biggest damn crybabies I’ve ever seen run for office. Every little thing is an occasion to run crying and bleating about how everyone’s mean to them. Wah, wah, wah.

Ya know, there have been a lot of racist stuff said towards Barack Obama in the last year or so, to which the offending parties (usually, but not always, Republicans) claimed total ignorance regarding the racist origins of the expressions in question.

Could someone please explain to me how and when “lipstick on a pig”’ has been historically used as a sexist idiom?

I turned on the news AFTER I had watched the clip here, and they’re doing a poll in my town of whether or not this was aimed at Palin.  77% say yes, it was.  Which, you can’t blame them.  THEY’RE ONLY PLAYING THE PART WHERE HE MENTIONS PUTTING LIPSTICK ON THE PIG.  They’re leaving out the entire runner-up to the actual statement.  So anybody who missed the speech and doesn’t look it up themselves is going to make bad assumptions.  Just saying.

These things periodically happen.

THEY’RE ONLY PLAYING THE PART WHERE HE MENTIONS PUTTING LIPSTICK ON THE PIG.  They’re leaving out the entire runner-up to the actual statement.

Oh, my local news did one better.  They opened the story with “Did Senator Obama mean to insult Sarah Palin with his use of the metaphor ‘lipstick on a pig’ in a speech today?”, and then played footage of the speech with the sound turned down, so that you couldn’t hear anything he actually said.  Then they flooded the piece out with “Some say…” weasel words.  An unsavvy viewer would be able to take it on fact that Obama had used sexist insults against Palin without ever coming in contact with the source material.

If I were Obama I’d be hoping Palin DID demand an apology.

To which I’d reply, “There they go, whining and crying again. Do we need a couple of big babies running the country in these difficult times?”

Toughen up, Barack.

So basically the only information we’re getting from conservatives over this is that dog > pig.

Anyone else hearing John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson right about now?

No offense, but if anyone is utterly moronic enough to think that he was referring to Palin, please remove yourself from the gene pool now.  There is no excuse.  It is simply idiotic.

Well, that may be the case, but some of the people who think this refers to Palin are voters Barack Obama needs if he wants to be president.

My opinion is that, you can refer to health care plans and recycled policies as pigs in lipstick, but you probably drop that one, as well as the stinking fish metaphor, from the repertoire when you are running against a candidate who is a woman.

but you probably drop that one, as well as the stinking fish metaphor, from the repertoire when you are running against a candidate who is a woman.

Because the “little wimmyns” can’t handle commonly-used metaphors?

Treating someone differently because of their gender is sexist.

Should they no longer serve fatty foods on the campaign trail because all women are on diets? Should they put up pink and red streamers everywhere because all women like the color pink? Should Obama never, ever be able to reference common metaphors involving cosmetics, child-rearing/bearing, or family because those are the exclusive domain of women?

I would also like to point out the HUGE bias here - women are not the only people who wear lipstick. I realize that Rudy is no longer in the race (joke) so maybe it’s a non-issue, but there are transgendered and cross-dressing citizens among us, FYI. So, let’s be real, saying you can’t mention lipstick because 1) only women use it and 2) women (politicians OR voters) are too fragile to handle metaphors is wrong on both counts.

David Brooks* wears lipstick every night on The News Hour. 

Maybe Obama was talking about him?

*Actually all men appearing on TV do, but for some reason David Brooks always has the most luscious pouty lipstick mouth, way more dramatic than the other pundits.  Or maybe it’s just the fact that I watch TV with bunny ears.  Either way, another day, another opportunity to mock David Brooks.

Maybe he should have said “polish a turd,” although someone would be bound to object to the fact that “polishing” is code for wimmin’s work (unless it’s a car, or the man’s “bayonet”).

Because the “little wimmyns” can’t handle commonly-used metaphors?

No.  Because appearing to call a woman a pig makes you look like an asshole.

Less familiar analogy, but amounts to same things as the pig thing.

“Less familiar”?

For the love of Ghu, it’s an obvious riff on “it stinks like a week old fish”.

Shorter thread:  Barack Obama and his campaign never say anything stupid.  People who think Barack Obama could ever say something stupid must be stupid.

In other news, “hola” is Spanish for “yellow.”

Or at least it is if you’re not quite listening.  Try: Shorter thread: We do not believe this is one of the sexist things Barrack Obama occasionally says.

Close but no cigar.  (Ooooh, lookit that! I just insulted Bill Clinton!)

This reminds me of the Obama is flipping off Hillary! kerfuffle.  Unfortunately, it’s not just Republicans who are dumbasses.  Although, since they don’t give a rat’s ass about sexism, they are mendacious dumbasses.

Because appearing to call a woman a pig makes you look like an asshole.

So Obama can never use ANY word involving an animal, ever again, because it would seem to be calling Palin that animal?

How did Obama appear to call Palin a pig? She wasn’t even mentioned in the sentence! And how - precisely - did he call her a rotting fish, while we’re on the subject.

Yeesh.

I also object to your “women are special” stance - Obama can use pig metaphors when his opponent is a MAN, but not when his opponent is a WOMAN? Woman are just too fragile to handle politics, apparently, and we need special treatment. Fuck off.

I also object to your “women are special” stance - Obama can use pig metaphors when his opponent is a MAN, but not when his opponent is a WOMAN?

That’s the fun thing about this—apparently Obama can’t use pig metaphors when referring to McCain either because McCain’s running mate is a woman, so even if Obama is referring to McCain, everyone “knows” that he was really referring to Palin.  So McCain is also off-limits for animal metaphors.

So Obama can never use ANY word involving an animal, ever again, because it would seem to be calling Palin that animal?
How did Obama appear to call Palin a pig? She wasn’t even mentioned in the sentence! And how - precisely - did he call her a rotting fish, while we’re on the subject.
Yeesh.
I also object to your “women are special” stance - Obama can use pig metaphors when his opponent is a MAN, but not when his opponent is a WOMAN? Woman are just too fragile to handle politics, apparently, and we need special treatment. Fuck off.

It’s more an application of the general rule of trying not to look like an asshole.  You don’t want to refer to a pig with lipstick in regard to the Palin candidacy for the same reason you don’t want to refer to Barack Obama as “clean and articulate,” or, to be fair, “uppity.”

mitchforth:

You don’t want to refer to a pig with lipstick in regard to the Palin candidacy for the same reason you don’t want to refer to Barack Obama as “clean and articulate,” or, to be fair, “uppity.”

You do know that in order for the “lipstick on a pig” metaphor to work properly, the words “pig” and “lipstick” must refer to two different people or things, right? The analogy requires two distinct subjects. So by definition, Obama can’t have been referring to Palin with both of them.

You know, I expect the younger elementary school kids to have trouble properly parsing even simple metaphorical language like this, but if you’re allegedly an adult and still can’t get it? That’s just fucking sad.

for the same reason you don’t want to refer to Barack Obama as “clean and articulate”

Actually, I didn’t mind him being described as such - he is, and should be proud of it (many people aren’t). What I objected to was the surrounding text that implied that it was some kind of fairy tale miracle that a BLACK person could be those things.

or, to be fair, “uppity.”

So you are contrasting:

“Obama is <adjective traditionally used in a racist manner>” with “McCain’s policies are <common non-sexist metaphor involving an animal which is usually used to describe MEN>”.

I can see how the first is an attack on Obama. I can KIND OF see how the second is an attack on McCain. I CANNOT see how the second is an attack on Palin.

(I have NEVER heard a woman called a “pig”. I have many times heard a man called a “pig”. Why isn’t this an insult on McCain - pig - with a ridiculous slur that he enjoys wearing makeup, huh?)

You do know that in order for the “lipstick on a pig” metaphor to work properly, the words “pig” and “lipstick” must refer to two different people or things, right? The analogy requires two distinct subjects. So by definition, Obama can’t have been referring to Palin with both of them.
You know, I expect the younger elementary school kids to have trouble properly parsing even simple metaphorical language like this, but if you’re allegedly an adult and still can’t get it? That’s just fucking sad.

To put “lipstick on a pig” means to dress up something that is inherently coarse; the underlying quality of the thing has not changed.

So, when McCain describes Clinton’s health policy as “lipstick on a pig” he’s saying that it’s the same policy that failed in the 90’s, ergo the pig, and the lipstick is just a repackaging.

Obama was saying that either McCain, Palin, or both were the pigs and their rhetoric of representing change is the lipstick.  This usage is different than other political references to the pig in lipstick, because the pig in this case is the candidates, rather than a bill or a policy package, as was the context of McCain’s usage. 

This is definitely one of those situations where a party is claiming offense because the opportunity has been presented.  The Obama campaign had the same opportunity recently when Lynn Westmoreland didn’t know the difference between “snooty” or “elitist” and “uppity,” and made a giant ass of himself. 

I’m not going to argue that Barack Obama is a secret sexist who is trying to slide fish-stink jokes about vaginas into his stump speech.  But this is a big foot-in-mouth gaffe.  He’s going to have to take his medicine for a couple of days, and then maybe the next time, it will be McCain who says something embarrassing.

Obama was saying that either McCain, Palin, or both were the pigs and their rhetoric of representing change is the lipstick.  This usage is different than other political references to the pig in lipstick, because the pig in this case is the candidates, rather than a bill or a policy package, as was the context of McCain’s usage.

mitchforth, I don’t think you should discuss this any further until you actually watch the video, because you don’t seem to realize what a gigantic ass you’re making of yourself with speculation about what Obama said without actually seeing what he said.

I’ve given you a small hint up above just in case you have trouble understanding spoken English, too.

Again, mitchforth, I no longer have the patience or the willpower to take you seriously. But you should know that being so fucking stupid that people eventually get frustrated and leave you alone is not the same thing as being right.