Obama: ‘You Can Put Lipstick On a Pig…’
Barack Obama’s campaign has often accused its opponents of racism, while in fact there has been little to no reference from his opponents about his race. Opposition to him is mostly limited to policy and ideological differences.
Today, the roles are reversed. The Democratic nominee himself is now accused of discrimination.
In a campaign speech in Lebanon, Virginia, the Democratic nominee said that “you can put lipstick on a pig… it’s still a pig.” This seems to be a swipe at Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president.
It took the crowd a couple of seconds, but they after a short while they started applauding en masse, seemingly – like many analysts and others interested – interpreting it as an attack against her.
The McCain-Palin comment responded furious to, what it considers, Obama’s overtly sexist remark. Spokeswoman Maria Comella said, “Barack Obama’s comments today are offensive and disgraceful. He owes Gov. Palin an apology.”
Obama’s campaign denied the allegations, saying Obama used “a common expression.”
His situation is quite difficult, however, because other Democrats have also attacked Palin based on her gender in recent days. ‘As he was introducing Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan said Palin had “zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick.”’
The McCain campaign, meanwhile, wasted no time attacking Obama on his (alleged) sexism. The following ad was produced immediately:
The gloves, it seems, are off. Leaving little to no hope for those who hoped this campaign would be different.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Although I was going to delete that comment, I decided to let it stay up. The reason is that when I was preparing to delete it I realized it was not meant as a racist slur, but as a means to show how Obama’s comment can be interpreted (and, I find the interpretation to be reasonably fair, or at least defendable).
well, Obama does have big ears, so there is a non-racist angle you could take.
On the other hand, ‘lipstick on a pig’ IS a preexisting phrase, whereas the monkey one isn’t.
But then, ‘lipstick on a pig’ is most commonly used when talking about ugly women…. I’m sure it’s been generalized before, but it’s predominate use isn’t political.
But then again, he never mentions Palin anywhere in connection with those comments, so interpreting them as directed at her is a little outta left field.
You know, in rereading the post, I really don’t like the line "This seems to be a swipe at Sarah Palin" The video makes it pretty clear that this comment was intended for McCain. Some are interpreting this otherwise, but I really don’t think that reality backs them up.
I think it could very possibly be both; he talks about McCain and then takes a swipe at Palin. Watch the video again; pay special attention to the reaction of the crowd.
I’m not willing to say he did attack Palin, but I am willing to say it’s a reasonable interpretation.
It’s kind of Palin’s fault. She’s the one who started the whole lipstick thing at the convention. And mentioned putting it on a pitbull
No offense meant to pitbull owners, but I don’t consider them the world’s best looking dogs.
Fantasy reality maybe. Of course it was against Palin. McCain’s problem is he used it in reference to HRC once before.
this lipstick issue demonstrates yet again that McCain’s strategy for winning is based on personal attacks and distracting people from the main issues… i just hope people aren’t as gullible as the McCain administration makes them out to be