Obama: Lipstick on a Pig

[Undesired Walrus]

Brainster, how is this any different from truther videos that take phrases out of context? Why did they not include the first part of Obama's sentence? Why did the McCain campaign feel the need to lie?

 

[RandFan]

Why did the McCain campaign feel the need to lie?

Yep, another day at JREF. Just curious UW, why do you feel the need to beat your wife?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Eh?

 

[quarky]

nit-picking the metaphor:

I've known some pigs. You can't put lipstick on them. As soon as you get it near their lips, they'll eat it.

 

[RandFan]

Eh?

It was a question. Why do you feel the need to beat your wife? See the question assumes a premise not in evidence. But that's fine. Like I said, this is JREF. It's to be expected.

 

[Upchurch]

Yep, another day at JREF. Just curious UW, why do you feel the need to beat your wife?

RF, is that what you meant to say?

The whole point behind the "Are you still beating your wife?" argument is that it is damning whether you answer it "yes" or "no". The question you posed is not of that form. Further, UW's question was a valid one.

McCain's ad stating "Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin", which was followed by Obama talking about McCain, is factually incorrect. It is, by definition, a lie.

 

[mortimer]

Why can't the McCain-Palin campaign talk about the issues?

McCain and Palin are talking about the issues right this second. Are you just listening to soundbites?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The advert proclaims 'Obama on Palin' without a shred of evidence. That is a lie on their part. I don't see how I was asserting that without reason.

ETA: What Upchurch said.

This is the McCain campaign taking a famous metaphor and trying to make it appear literal. It is a Dylan Avery tactic.

 

[Upchurch]

See the question assumes a premise not in evidence.

Which part do you not find in evidence? Are you suggesting that Obama was referring Palin despite the fact that he was specifically referring to McCain?

 

[FaisonMars]

This is stupider than "McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns" and just about as stupid as "You're not rich unless you make $5 million." But the Dems made a lot of hay out of those, so, whatever.

I don't think "sexism" sticks to Obama-- he was too careful during the primary. Let's trot out the clip of McCain seriously answering the question, "How will you beat the b*tch?" without missing a beat.

 

[RandFan]

RF, is that what you meant to say?

Yes.

The whole point behind the "Are you still beating your wife?" argument is that it is damning whether you answer it "yes" or "no". The question you posed is not of that form. Further, UW's question was a valid one.

I can't for the life of me see how. Unless of course we are all capable of knowing for a fact another person's state of mind.

I'm curious though, why do you feel the need to lie? No, I'm not talking about this particular issue but the fact that we all lie.

I'm honestly not excusing McCain and his actions. It's just that I have little respect for gotcha politics especially when it comes to things we should know better about. People acted shocked (shocked I tell you) when they found out Clinton lied to a grand jury about a personal affair. BFD.

How do you know when a politician is lying? He's moving his lips. Assuming McCain did lie, is it really a big deal? If I were Obama I would absolutely make a point about the disengenous nature of McCain's behavior but I wouldn't spend much time on it.

McCain's ad stating "Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin", which was followed by Obama talking about McCain, is factually incorrect. It is, by definition, a lie.

If you can read the guys state of mind. You assume that there are no other possibilities. I think it likely McCain and crew know better but I don't know that as a fact and neither do you. And neither does UW. Further the question was meant for rhetorical purposes. You and I both know that. Assuming McCain sat down one day and rubbed his hands together thinking up ways to lie the answer to UW's question doesn't really tell us anything. John McCain wants to be president. Duh. And Clinton wanted to avoid embarrassment and protect his family. Is it ok to lie to a grand jury or lie about a person's motivation during a presidential campaign? No. Is it a.) really earth shattering and b.) Do we really know McCain's state of mind?

Had UW simply said, I think McCain knows that what he is saying about Obama is a lie I wouldn't have responded.

Did McCain lie? I honestly don't know. It's not the first and it won't be the last and it won't be the most egregious if it is true.

I sincerely want Obama to win. Even so, I wouldn't engage in such silly rhetoric and demand to know why a politician told a lie (eek) to achieve that goal. It's juvenile and pointless and assumes that our leaders aren't humans who are capable of making mistakes. I wouldn't even demand to know why Edwards felt the need to lie and I would be more than willing to vote for him knowing that he did lie.

 

[RandFan]

Which part do you not find in evidence? Are you suggesting that Obama was referring Palin despite the fact that he was specifically referring to McCain?

Knowing what I know at this moment do I think it more likely than not that Obama was referring to McCain and not Palin? Yes. Knowing what I know now do I think it likely that McCain is being disingenuous? Yes. Do I know for a fact that McCain is lying about Obama. No. And I'm sincerely surprised that you would even ask such a question.

 

[Vorticity]

Yes, it is just as out of context now as when chipmunk stew posted it.

This is such a bizarre take. The line was obviously aimed at McCain, not Palin.

It's not even aimed at McCain. Here it is in context:

Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too, except -- and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change; that's just calling some -- the same thing -- something different. But you know, you can -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg

He's actually referring to McCain's policies. This is absolutely crystal-clear in context.

This may sound grossly naive, but: Is it really possible that the McCain campaign could get away with such an obvious and easily-disprovable lie? Really?

 

[Upchurch]

This is stupider than "McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns" and just about as stupid as "You're not rich unless you make $5 million."

I'm with you on the $5 million comment. That was obviously meant as a joke. The houses question, however, McCain couldn't answer on the spot. I'm sure there are a dozen perfectly reasonable explanations why McCain did not have the answer in his head at that moment. I can think of a few right now without thinking about it too hard. But that wasn't actually a lie.

Let's trot out the clip of McCain seriously answering the question, "How will you beat the b*tch?" without missing a beat.

I saw one where McCain was asked that by an older woman and he laughed it off and changed the subject. What clip are you talking about?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

While undressing for bed one night, good ole Bill notices something like a red rash around his you know what.

Alarmed, he thinks, "I can't let Hillary see this!" He makes an appointment to see his doctor at Bethesda Naval Hospital, the very next day.

"Doc," he says, "I've got this red ring around my, you know. What is it and how do I get rid of it?"

The doctor says, "Well, I'm not exactly sure what it is, but take these pills for a week, and see if that takes care of it. If not, come back and we'll try something else."

Bill takes the pills for a week but unfortunately, the red ring is still there after 7 days. He goes back to the doctor and tells him the pills didn't help.

So the doctor prescribes another medication, capsules this time, and gives him the same instructions. Take them for a week, and come back if it's not improved.

He takes the capsules for a week, and damn, the red ring is still there! So he goes back to the doctor and asks,"What next?"

The doctor gives him a cream in a tube this time. "Rub this on every day for a week and let me know.

"Bill goes back in a week and says, "Great news Doc! The rash is gone! That stuff in the tube was wonderful! What was it?"

The doctor replied, "Lipstick remover."

 

[RandFan]

While undressing for bed one night, good ole Bill notices something like a red rash around his you know what.

Meh~ Jokes require an element of truth. I don't think anyone buys into the idea that Hillary would ever see Bill's "you know what".

 

[applecorped]

It's not even aimed at McCain. Here it is in context:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg

He's actually referring to McCain's policies. This is absolutely crystal-clear in context.

This may sound grossly naive, but: Is it really possible that the McCain campaign could get away with such an obvious and easily-disprovable lie? Really?

The crowd thought it was directed at Palin as they started chanting "No more pit bulls". How could the crowd get it so wrong?

 

[BPSCG]

When I first heard this, my reaction was, "Let's hear the context." Because that's exactly the kind of thing that can be taken out of context.

Obama's problem is that he didn't stop with the lipstick metaphor. He added, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

So, Obama says lipstick/pig and old fish/change.

"Huh? No, I didn't call McCain a stinking old fish. I didn't call Palin a pig."

And he didn't, not explicitly. But his audience got the message. This is what's called "post-partisan politics."

My $0.02 (hey, whatever happened to the keyboard's cents symbol?):

1) This is not the kind of comment that is going to win over undecided women for Obama - probably the opposite.
2) The Repubs should not play the victim card on this. They should laugh it off - literally - make a little self-deprecating joke about it that lets Obama off. Make them look gracious, and Obama look small.

 

[boloboffin]

while undressing for bed one night, good ole bill notices something like a red rash around his you know what.

Alarmed, he thinks, "i can't let hillary see this!" he makes an appointment to see his doctor at bethesda naval hospital, the very next day.

"doc," he says, "i've got this red ring around my, you know. What is it and how do i get rid of it?"

the doctor says, "well, i'm not exactly sure what it is, but take these pills for a week, and see if that takes care of it. If not, come back and we'll try something else."

bill takes the pills for a week but unfortunately, the red ring is still there after 7 days. He goes back to the doctor and tells him the pills didn't help.

So the doctor prescribes another medication, capsules this time, and gives him the same instructions. Take them for a week, and come back if it's not improved.

He takes the capsules for a week, and damn, the red ring is still there! So he goes back to the doctor and asks,"what next?"

the doctor gives him a cream in a tube this time. "rub this on every day for a week and let me know.

"bill goes back in a week and says, "great news doc! The rash is gone! That stuff in the tube was wonderful! What was it?"

the doctor replied, "lipstick remover."

how dare you imply that sarah palin performed a sexual act on bill clinton???/111/1/1/11!!!!!!11111ka;lkjf!~~~~~!~!!!!!!!

ETA: Hey, nice all-cap filter there, JREF!

Plus:



Enough.

 

[Upchurch]

It's not even aimed at McCain.

{snip}

He's actually referring to McCain's policies. This is absolutely crystal-clear in context.

Well, yes. We can be even more specific and point out that it isn't aimed at McCain's policies. He's actually referring to McCain's policies on a few specific topics.

The point is that it wasn't even about Palin.

Knowing what I know at this moment do I think it more likely than not that Obama was referring to McCain and not Palin? Yes. Knowing what I know now do I think it likely that McCain is being disingenuous? Yes. Do I know for a fact that McCain is lying about Obama. No. And I'm sincerely surprised that you would even ask such a question.

I'm surprised you are playing this hedge game. Can we never call a lie a "lie" because we can never truly see into the soul of the man who speaks the lie?

Thankfully, we don't have to look into McCain's head on this question because it didn't come from McCain. It came from McCain's campaign. One of them had to edit that video so that it was out of context and write the title on the screen.

What is a lie? "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive" (Webster)

So, yes, we can know for a fact that the McCain campaign made an assertion of something known or believed by the McCain campaign to be untrue with intent to deceive the public about Obama.

I'm curious though, why do you feel the need to lie? No, I'm not talking about this particular issue but the fact that we all lie. I'm not excusing McCain and his actions.

It's just that I have little respect for gotcha politics especially when it comes to things we should know better about.

Who do you think is playing the Gotcha! politics here?

And I still don't understand what is wrong with UW's question. That the campaign lied is clear. The question is why they felt the need to make the lie. Why is that not a legitimate question?

If you can read the guys state of mind. You assume that there are no other possibilities. I think it likely McCain and crew know better but I don't know that as a fact and neither do you. And neither does UW.

I think you need to review what Obama actually said:

Further the question was meant for rhetorical purposes. You and I both know that.

You are taking a "we can't know anything for a fact" stance which is way more rhetorical than anything UW or I have said in this thread.

And you're wrong. The question has a legitimate inquisitive point. The campaign took the comment completely out of context and purposefully re-framed it from it's original subject matter to mean something else entirely.

Why?

Was their goal simply to malign Obama? Were they attempting to drive women further from Obama towards McCain? Was it a part of an overall strategy or an act of desperation? Does this speak to the condition of the campaign?