So Obama makes a remark to the effect that adding Sarah Palin to the Republican party ticket may 'pretty up' the ticket, but that you can put lipstick on a pig and you'll still have a pig. Now the McCain camp is up in arms, accusing Obama of calling Palin a pig.
Without debating the accuracy of that particular denigration, can we please GROW UP now? No one with a modicum of sense believes he was referring to Palin with that remark, and McCain himself used the same cliché to describe one of Hilary Clinton's proposals earlier in the campaign. So we should all be aware of what the phrase means.
Obviously, this is just a chance to get a little political mileage out of this non-issue, but doesn't it seem a bit disingenuous for a campaign that's been milking Palin's potshot at community organizers at every campaign stop to have a fit over this? (I guess it's OK to take those cheap shots, since that whole "community organizer" thing smacks of hippie-liberalism anyway.)
Without debating the accuracy of that particular denigration, can we please GROW UP now? No one with a modicum of sense believes he was referring to Palin with that remark, and McCain himself used the same cliché to describe one of Hilary Clinton's proposals earlier in the campaign. So we should all be aware of what the phrase means.
Obviously, this is just a chance to get a little political mileage out of this non-issue, but doesn't it seem a bit disingenuous for a campaign that's been milking Palin's potshot at community organizers at every campaign stop to have a fit over this? (I guess it's OK to take those cheap shots, since that whole "community organizer" thing smacks of hippie-liberalism anyway.)
Comments
This is politics today. Frankly, I can't believe Obama was dumb enough to say it. The crowd he was talking to 'got it'.
If you and I know politics today is about sound bytes and cheap political mileage, then I hope he knows. It was a dumb move, and he's paying the price.
They've both thrown plenty of scary mud at one another. I love when Dems try to frame anything the Repubs say as 'racial coding'. That's a good one too.
If you're gonna play the game, play it smart and play it the way everyone else is playing.
The bummer is, beneath all these sound bytes the CEO's of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are walking away with $23 million of OUR money instead of going to jail where they belong. REAL news is so tough to find anymore...
As for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, welcome to our CEO-centric corporate culture. Push the company to the verge of bankruptcy and you can take 'em completely into the red thanks to the golden parachute they handed you when they brought your ass on board in the first place. I wish I could say I was surprised these guys are walking, but I'm not in the least.
This is what pisses me off. You see, you and I are able to have an even-keel debate and a laugh about the nonsense of this pig-news.
But, here is a columnist/pundit who, I think it is safe to say, is in Obama's bag. Now, that's good and fine. We're all pulling for one or the other I suppose. But, I truly despise ANY pundit on ANY side who is so blind as to not see the big picture.
Is this guy for real? McCain's character is of such an anti-Christian, dishonorable, mean-spirited, and evil makeup because he has not spoken out against pig-gate, that he would ruin our country if he wins??
This is where the "Obama-messiah" jokes come from. Do guys like this not see the crap flung from both sides of the fence? Does he not hear the campaigners and statesmen (most recently, the Gov. of NY) making claims of racism? Did he not see Obama himself accuse McCain of trying to denounce him as a muslim even as George Stephonopolus told him McCain's camp had made no such claims?
It's called popular politics, and yes, your guy does it too.
PLEASE - will all the one-sided Keith Olbermann's of the world just SHUT UP!!
I think that's about as likely as my "Oh, grow up." Sound bite politics and knee-jerk decision making lead to this kind of crap.
I subscribe to FactCheck.org, and they've been calling 'em both on their exaggerations and fabrications. At this point, I think McCain's camp has the lead in outright lies, but Obama's no saint. I guess you can argue that you can't be and be a successful politician.
But what's missing is the critical analysis. Everyone's taking things at face value. Sarah Palin mocks Obama's community organizer work with, apparently, no real understanding of what a community organizer does. Obama plays fast and loose with quotes about McCain's education spending. None of it matters if people take the time to read up on it, but we all just accept what comes out of our preferred candidate's camp as gospel and run with it. The irony here is that it's never been easier to source this crap and get the real story (or at least closer to it, I suppose). But no one cares to make the effort.
And the bloggers and 'pundits' out there aren't helping. Journalism, with it's notions of fact-checking and responsibility, is getting buried under the onslaught of the 'get it out fast before someone else does' nature of the Internet. No one cares about accurate, since they know it'll be pushed aside by the next big thing to come down the pipeline in days/hours/minutes.
So McCain lies about Obama's record on sex ed while Obama does the same to McCain's record on education. And if you haven't already made up your mind, then you're going to be swayed by which lie makes you angrier, and to hell with the truth.
I am not a McCain supporter either. Don't much like him at all. However, I have two mindsets: one is the anti-Obama voter who will vote for someone else and the other is a political junkie who is fascinated by the strategies and manipulation of modern politics.
I am curious that you find McCain to be pandering, sexist, AND insulting just in picking Palin as his running mate. But, I'm not surprised. This is the Dems stance from the beginning. But, when I hear your outrage or I see Jason Bourne on youtube saying the pick is absurd, I have to laugh. How is it more absurd than nominating Barack Obama? The guy is at least as minimally qualified to lead this country as Sarah Palin. It's one of the reasons she is a 'teflon' pick. Everytime Obama tries to hit her with the inexperience card it can and will be thrown back in his face. The 'community organizer' jokes were just the beginning.
FACT: He is minimally qualified. FACT: We live in America - where the only qualification is age and citizenry.
So, yeah...I knew about Palin back in February and looked into her. I dismissed her due to experience. Obviously, when running against Barack Obama that is not as much of a problem. Add to that, that historically, campaigning on a negative experience strategy has never worked. Truman was ridiculously inexperienced. So was Clinton. So was the idiot in the White House now!
As for sexist? Yeah, you and I are looking through different glasses. Let me see...she's a woman, she's a mother, she's well-spoken, she takes care of her family and seems happy with them, she is a good person, and she may be the first woman VP in history. That is sexist how?? Seriously, what is the Dems problem? Because she’s pro-life she can’t be a feminist?? WTF? Because she goes to church and has a family she is a throwback to a 1950’s mom?? Are you kidding me? That sounds sexist to me. I think she’s a great pick for two reasons: 1, she’s a woman! A successful, driven one at that. But, I also think the move was politically smart for McCain and the polls are proving that out.
As for defending her as a lady and making accusations of sexism against the Obama camp…how is this new? Hillary did it time and again. In fact, I’m surprised any time anyone says they haven’t heard or noticed the race baiting Obama uses in his campaign. McCain isn’t the first person he targeted with it – he also used it against Hillary. Dems were up in arms during the primaries over the dirty politics being played by both sides. Panic about a divided party was all over the lefty blogs. And, Hillary supporters clobbered Obama on using race and silly accusations.
And now it’s Dems vs. Repubs and suddenly no one remembers that Obama can get nasty too. How did you all forget?? I know how…the Dems have all slipped into their rants about evil Rovian politics and their guys is lily white. It’s laughable and biased. Which is why I like my side that tries to watch it all happen. I see both sides act surprises or innocent and neither has a claim to either. Which is why I laughed at that Sullivan blog. He’s railing against the ‘evil’ politician McCain. It sounds just like the ranting he did about the ‘evil’ politician Hillary Clinton a few months ago. But, absolutely no recognition of Obama as a politician or a dirty player.
As for his accusations of picking Palin without vetting her, he can keep drinking the kool-aid if he wants. But, when will the Dems face the music? She was a brilliant pick, she was well vetted, no matter how many attacks the Dems try they cannot take away from her popularity. And, to dismiss her popularity as ‘just’ the Christian base is either naïve or in denial. To say it is a ‘gamble’ to trust an ‘unknown’ with the security of this country is an hilarious, hypocritical joke coming from any Obama supporter.
Did the polls show she would be a good choice? They must have or they wouldn’t have done it. Does she fill McCain’s public weaknesses? Yes – she’s young, female, driven, and conservative. And, she’s a Washington ‘outsider’. Didn’t Obama do the same thing? Biden is old, has foreign relations experience, is an ‘insider’. He fills out the card. This is how they choose VP’s.
Instead of hopping on the Dem bandwagon and railing against Palin, try asking yourself two questions: Why do the Dems hate her so much? And, why does America love her so much? And, the polls show they love her and have embraced her. She has higher polling numbers than any of the candidates.