54 Comments

1. fred:

I don’t believe that Obama’s lipstick/pig comment was not intended as an attack on Palin in exactly the way his audience took it. What most convinces me are two primary videos of Obama, speaking on two different occasion, scratching his cheek in same “flipping the finger” manner when mentioning Hillary Clinton, using the same words — it was all part of the choreography. Once Palin used the hockey-mom/pitbull/lipstick difference line, she “owned” the word “lipstick” and, thus, changed the implications of the expression.

Sep 10, 2008 - 11:19 pm 2. John Moore:

Boredom?

Roger, this has been the most hilarious week in politics I can remember. I love it!.

Furthermore, Obama’s reaction to this illustrates character. IMHO character is one of the most important characteristics of a president. Who cares what his policies are if he doesn’t have good character?

Also, as a veteran right winger, I have a whole lot of schadenfreude on this one. Too many times, over the last 20 years, we have been subjected to this sort of pointless crap, but almost always aimd only at the right.

Remember how long the media was fascinated by the minutae of George Bush’s national guard records? Remember Dan Quayle’s “potatoe” and the dishonest narrative that resulted from it?

The only thing I don’t understand is how the MSM, which normally only goes after these gaffes if committed by the right, is going after Obama. I can only conclude they are suffering from Sarah Derangement Syndrome – they are so conflicted and confused over her that they have lost their bearings.

Sep 10, 2008 - 11:22 pm 3. Pops in Vienna:

Hi Roger,

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. It’s a time honored tradition for politicians to insult each other. I have no problem with Obama calling Palin a pig. I’m sure she’s used to being called much worse. I don’t think she’s crying in her pillow about it.

I think the flap is that Obama represented himself as being above politics as usual. It’s ironic in a way. The man who was going to be the “race healer” probably has divided the races more than they have been in the past 50 years. The man who was preaching change and no more politics as usual has turned out to be nothing more than a very human Chicago politician.

I think most people have pretty good “B.S.” detectors…especially women. Whether Obama actually directed his remarks to Palin and McCain will be decided by the public. They don’t need any help from David Letterman. As one of the posters has noted, these recent events reveal a lot about character. In the end, character will be more of a factor than experience.

We know quite a bit about John McCain. The years at the Hanoi Hilton revealed his true character. I’d like to hear more about Palin other than that she’s a book burning pig.

Sep 10, 2008 - 11:40 pm 4. Jim B:

I guess I’m confused by one part of the last comment: the only thing I’ve seen from the MSM is commentator after commentator saying “OF COURSE, he didn’t mean it…that would be stupid.” Well, yes..it certainly was, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

That being said: if you hadn’t already figured out that Obama is a misogynistic donkey’s behind from his prior behavior, then you were probably never going to figure it out anyway. It’s part and parcel of a pattern he’s shown over and over again.

It’s probably not going to sway any votes one way or the other because the women he offended were either: a) Hillary voters who already had decided not to vote for him because they already knew he was a misogynist, or b) women who were probably going to vote McCain/Palin because of Palin presence on the ticket. The women who weren’t offended are going to vote for him even if he slaps every woman’s behind and starts fondling breasts instead of shaking hands on the campaign trail: they don’t care about it any more than they cared about it when the serial philanderer Clinton was doing it in the White House.

McCan/Palin had their news cycle to play it up, now it’s time to move on. The Democrats can’t seem to stop handing them new sexist comments (today’s from the SC Democratic chair, for example), so why dwell on what happened yesterday? By the time November rolls around, they’ll pretty much have handed a landslide of white women to McCain/Palin without the Republicans having to lift another finger. Why get in their way?

Sep 10, 2008 - 11:48 pm 5. Godzilla:

Mad? That may not be the right word. I mean, just how should a person feel after being figuratively destroyed, after having his balloon-sized ego punctured, after having the very symbols of his perceived greatness be shown as nothing more than weightless props without substance, with the world watching, and, worst of all, to have it done by a woman. Whew. Watch her speech again a few times. There’s even a few implicit innuendos that I had missed the first time through. She killed him, pure and simple.

Amazingly, a writer for the Asian Times, had enough foresight to predict in Feb. that Obama would somehow self-destruct. This new article was written by him post Republican convention.

Sep 10, 2008 - 11:50 pm 6. Godzilla:

Here’s another good article: Sarah Palin: A feminist revolution without the feminists.

Sep 10, 2008 - 11:54 pm 7. Godzilla:

Just remember, he has no real friends to shore him up. Or a greater family that he could lean on for support. I don’t think the MSM realizes yet what Palin has done to Obama, and I have a feeling she’s only getting started. She is deadly.

Sep 10, 2008 - 11:58 pm 8. DougS:

Crazy? Of course it is, Roger. But I think what’s happening is the McCain campaign is falling over itself laughing at these unforced errors by Obama and his people. As long as O and his backers keep keep saying stuff like this, McCain will keep milking them for all they’re worth; they’d be fools not to. And one thing his campaign has shown over the last couple of months is that when they sense the kill, they hone in on it.

If/when things settle down, I suspect that the McCain campaign will deploy Palin for her other main purpose: speaking to energy policy. One of your columnists recently pointed out that she’s uniquely positioned to argue for increased energy production, and I agree. This is a winning issue for the Repubs, and McCain knows it.

But for now, it’s a matter of not getting in the way when your opponent is making mistakes. OTOH, things may never settle down in this regard, as Biden may well be a gift that keeps on giving.

Sep 11, 2008 - 12:18 am 9. Gary Rosen:

The most significant thing about Obama’s remark isn’t what he intended or how “offensive” anyone thinks it was, but the mere fact that he was taking on Palin directly instead of letting Biden do it for him. That is exactly the trap that McCain set but probably did not dream would work so well – equating the Republican *vice*-presidential candidate to the Democrat presidential candidate.

Sep 11, 2008 - 12:38 am 10. Godzilla:

The most significant thing about Obama’s remark isn’t what he intended or how “offensive” anyone thinks it was, but the mere fact that he was taking on Palin directly instead of letting Biden do it for him.

Gary, I don’t think Obama can help himself, psychologically. Every day she drills him relentlessly. If she ever mentions Biden at all, it’s only in passing, to redicule Obama’s platform of “change”. I don’t think Obama is put together well enough mentally to not keep taking jabs at Palin. I have no doubt that his pig comment didn’t even faze her. She’s iron-plated with two wonderful families to give her all the support she needs. I doubt if she needs any support, though. She is put together hard, but looks soft and cuddly on the outside. Just plain deadly.

Sep 11, 2008 - 12:59 am 11. dougf:

The ‘Lipstick’ thing is just a more brutal variant of the ‘Celebrity’ thing. A scene setter.

Of course McCain’s people are aware that Obama did not mean to say that Ms Palin was a pig. Obama is IMO a VERY poor campaigner but even Biden would never have gone where Obama is alleged to have journeyed. Simply not credible.

But unfair though the attack might have been, on its face, it was never designed to be ‘believable’ on that lelel. Just ‘possible’. It is merely shiny bait that Obama was compelled to take. Too dangerou to leave alon but essentially a booby trap. And once taken even if it is required to admit that perhaps it itself, was ‘over the top’, ALL the other instances of ’sexism’ and ‘hostility’ made by Democrats, are then fair game. So it all comes pouring out.

Geraldine Ferraro illustrated this situation in a discussion she had on Fox. Sure she gave a by rote denunciation the ‘exact content’ of the ad , but she also got mounted on the ’sexism’ horse and rode that beast to a lather. It was not an Obama friendly outing.

Obama is now more than ever trapped in the ’sexism’ swamp, and every attack made now against Palin now just makes the tar baby more gripping. Unfair ? Maybe. But Obama brought a knife to a gun fight. He meant to fight he just brought the wrong tool. He can hardly complain of the now bleeding bullet holes.

As was also said tonight, in so many words, — Live by Victimhood ; Die by victimhood.—
The McCain camp is now playing Democrat Politics WAY better than the Democrats themselves do, and it is absolutely killing Obama. Death of 1000 cuts. He can’t attack McCain without seeming ‘ungrateful’ and ‘disrespectful’ of a true hero, and he now can’t attack Palin without being sexist. But he also can’t get away from either of them. He can’t even ignore them. Especially her. She’s ‘inside the wire’ and blowing up every target of opportunity she happens to encounter.

He is trapped into an objective passivity, largely not because of his own actions but because of the acts of those who he has cultivated for years, and who are now merely behaving like the scorpion, according to their natures. They have poisoned his own well with their vileness. And the HITS just keep on coming from the enemy outside the wire. LOL.

If you lie down with dogs(Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Andrew Sullivan, and the WHOLE MSM) when it suits you, you must perforce expect to get up with fleas.

As a comment made elsewhere says — Obama is now inside his own OODA Loop, and is f****** it up.

He’s got a bad case of Palinphobia and at this point I don’t see a cure in sight. It looks to be a lingering and unpleasant, nagging,frustrating,and very debilitating affliction.

It also at this point looks to be a fatal one. What a way to go.

Sep 11, 2008 - 2:54 am 12. Michael Smith:

I must respectfully disagree with your editorial comment:

“Issues? We’ve all heard that stuff four hundred and fifty times before. From both sides!-ed. You want to sit through another discussion of health care?”

What we have NOT heard — and what is desperately needed — is for someone to challenge the moral premise that underlies all such issues as “health care”: the premise that one man’s “needs” trumps another man’s right to his own earnings — and that the government’s function is to seize whatever portion of the earnings of the “non-needy” or “less needy” are required to satisfy those alleged “needs”.

I want someone to stand up at a press conference and ask Obama this question:

“This nation fought s horrific civil war to destroy the idea that some individuals are entitled to the fruits of the labor of other individuals, who are by force of law required to surrender those fruits. Why, then, is the modern Democratic party dedicated to resurrecting this noxious idea, with the nation’s most competent, most productive and most rational citizens forced into the role of involuntary servitude to provide whatever earnings are required to pay for “public housing”, “public transportation”, “public education”, food stamps, health care, welfare benefits, etc — forced to provide an ever-expanding and endless list of unearned economic benefits, to be collected by the lazy, the stupid, the irrational, the shiftless, the good-for-nothing or anyone else who convinces the politicians that his or her “needs” justifies the seizure of his neighbor’s earnings?”

If it was evil to seize all the fruits of the labor of some men purely because the color of their skin was black, how can it possibly be moral to seize a portion of the labor of some men merely because they are more able, more competent, more rational and thus more productive than others?

There is a question that needs debating.

Sep 11, 2008 - 5:19 am 13. Webutante:

I have to disagree that there’s even the remotest possibility that we’ll be bored between now and November, with or without issues…

Win or lose, Palin may be our new Princess Di (ugh) and we’re only in the beginning phases of public media infatuation here….Biden may step aside to let Hilllary on the ticket, and all this election fanfare has left Angelina Jolie without any publicity for the last two weeks. How much more excitment can we take?

Sep 11, 2008 - 5:22 am 14. HardHeadedWoman:

This silly pig kerfuffle indicates, to me, that BO is in flop sweat fear right now and once again how incredibly thin skinned he is. And kind of stupid.

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:16 am 15. Larry J:

It’s really quite simple,

a) Obama meant to insult Palin, which would be stupid, or
b) Obama was too stupid to realize that millions of people would believe he insulted Palin.

Either way, he appears to be a dope. Just because someone went to Harvard, it doesn’t preclude them from being a dope.

On that linked article about Palin being a “feminist revolution without the feminists”, it’s really similar to how Jesse Jackson feels about Obama. If Obama succeeds, there’ll be little need for race hustlers and poverty pimps like Jackson. Likewise, as Palin succeeds, she shows that women can make it to the top without the likes of the radical feminists. And for that, she must be destroyed!

Sep 11, 2008 - 6:53 am 16. Mareyel:

This is one of the most unusual presidential campaigns in our history, isn’t it? And I don’t think the surprises are over yet. I think Biden will be stepping down as the Democrats VP candidate. They have no bench strength other than Hillary. If they succumb to temptation and put her in Biden’s place, THAT will be insulting to women. Saying, in effect, we know you really wanted her but we made a big mistake and so here she is. I don’t put ANYTHING past the Clintons. Remember, Obama has his audience with the Don this morning….

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:00 am 17. Lightnin' Hopkins:

If I didn’t know better I would think the Dems are trying to throw this election. Of course they’re not, but you’ve got Obama in a back-and-forth with Palin (the Veep pick) in which he can only lose, and then there’s Biden, invisible until he puts his foot in its natural resting place by commanding a man in a wheelchair to stand up so everyone can see him. If *I* cringed in horror, what do you think Axelrod’s reaction was like?

I’d say, “give ‘em enough rope,” but they seem to be experts at fashioning their own. Instead, I would suggest *smoking* some of that hemp and relaxing for a day or two so that the news cycle doesn’t expose any more gaffes for 48 hours. It would also force them to smile for a change.

Change! D-u-u-u-d-e!

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:21 am 18. Markus:

Oh, c’mon. The idea that he intended to call Palin a pig is absurd. What’s next — we’re putting a missle defense system in Poland to defend against Iran?

His point was that picking her was an attempt to make a presidential candidate spouting unpopular ideas more attractive. Which it was and which it has. I don’t think that’s debatable, even if you support McCain’s unpopular ideas. (Not necessarily McCain himself.) Dems win big on generic ballot and on the issues, though the race is much closer and probably favors McCain on personal qualities and fitness for office.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:22 am 19. A. Randolph:

“Oh, c’mon. The idea that he intended to call Palin a pig is absurd. What’s next — we’re putting a missle defense system in Poland to defend against Iran?”

I think we all know that. THe point is how Obama behaves for the first time in a real rough and tumble. He seems out of his depth…. worrying about a vice presidential candidate.

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:36 am 20. Palimpsest:

The thing about the “lipstick/pig” comment is that many people aren’t aware of its lineage. I used to be in sales, and our company would joke about competitors who would put “lipstick on a pig” with their own shabby products in order to get a sale. When I heard the Obama comment I shrugged it off as just a rehashing of an old standard line.

But my wife was unaware of the lipstick/pig comment. She’s quite smart, an Oracle DBA, but without the prior knowledge of the phrase she was livid. After a day of reading about it she now understands what he meant, and regardless of whether it was a clever turn of phrase or a boring use of a hackneyed phrase, she knows that it wasn’t specifically directed at Palin.

But the problem was that first reaction she had. With the resonance and humor of Palin’s “hockey mom” comment still in the air it was not unreasonable to believe that this was a veiled remark about her. Even though she now knows it wasn’t, that initial reaction lingers still. She thinks Obama wasn’t talking about Palin, but there was a certain tone-deafness to the remark that didn’t sit well.

Like when he said that Hillary “periodically, when she feels down, launches attacks” he probably wasn’t referring to menstruation, he does seem to make these slips of the tongue that might not sit well with women.

(And I wish Obama hadn’t tried to explain it on Letterman: McCain is the pig, Palin is the lipstick? That just brings the reference back to the GOP VP selection.)

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:41 am 21. Roger L Simon:

Webutante, I bow to your greater wisdom. THis is indeed a fun spectacle. (I was, of course, kidding around.)

Sep 11, 2008 - 7:48 am 22. Promoguy:

His delivery of the line with the pause to allow applause from the peanut gallery was an indication that he knew what he was doing. If he really meant what he says, that pause would never have been there. One would think he’d have had more sense, NOT.

And Biden’s performance yesterday was deserving of some kind of award. So who is going to step aside for Hillary, Obama or Biden. My guess is that Biden comes down with chronic stomach cramps and has to leave the ticket. I would have to think Hill would be a fool to join the ticket. I’m no political genius but would have to think she would be better off becoming the leader of your ‘what’s left of the party’ after November.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:00 am 23. tim maguire:

Since I’m not registered with a party and couldn’t vote in the primaries, I didn’t pay close attention to the contest until recently. I knew early on that Obama was a fraud and Clinton was the better choice for the Democrats and I waited to see how it played out.

So my first time seeing Obama give a speech was at the Democratic convention and he gave a good speech, I was impressed. But now I’m starting to see him talk without a teleprompter and what’s coming to mind each and every time I see him scratch his cheek with his middle finger as he says Hillary Clinton’s name or pausing after lipstick on a pig to make siure the audience got his reference, totally enamored of his own cleverness and golly who wouldn’t be? the inescapable image, the only thing that comes to mind, is high school.

That’s what Obama is, it’s all Obama is. He’s the coolest guy in high school.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:09 am 24. Aureliano:

If she ever mentions Biden at all, it’s only in passing, to redicule [sic] Obama’s platform of “change”.

The McCain campaign is set up well. Their strategy should be to continue completely ignoring Joe Biden. Don’t talk about the Democrat ‘ticket’, talk only of Obama. “Biden Who?” should be their refrain whenever his name comes up, followed by a dismissive flick of the wrist. It’s a nasty ridicule without being nasty (the MSM can’t play it up, it just isn’t a ‘controversial’, TV-genic comment they can spin), it will infuriate Biden and fire up his internal gabby gaffe-engine, and it’s a damned effective, accurate description of what Biden brings to their ticket — nothing — and it will cost them no state or demographic they haven’t already lost.

No, the strategy should be McCain/Palin versus Obama only. McCain and Palin balance each other out quite well, and as a unit they crush Obama thoroughly. (Actually, each of them alone beats out Obama in terms of qualifications.) I think the electorate is now already thinking of McCain/Palin as a unit — the GOP needs to foster this association until election day.

Meanwhile, leave Obama to flail in the choppy waters all on his own.

Simultaneously, the McCain campaign, and the GOP party as a whole, needs more vigorously to associate Obama with the media. GOP surrogates (not McCain and Palin directly) need to begin interviewing the interviewers, asking them “when are you going to actually do some vetting of Obama”, “why don’t you explain to the audience what Black Liberation Theology means, and tell them why you never did an expose on it”, etc., etc., etc. They need to weave these kinds of questions into EVERY SINGLE interview they ‘give’, and every statement they make. If you can solidify the biased media in the electorate’s minds with Obama — and the some polling suggests that is already the case — it will insulate them from the continuous cheerleading for the next 50+ days and the inevitable hit jobs that are sure to come a week or two before the election. Once lost, trust is extremely difficult to regain, and the benefit can accrue to future elections, as well (and to Pajamas Media! .

The Democrat ticket is actually Obama/Media, not Obama/Biden. Just as the Democrats are trying to tie McCain to an unpopular president, the Republicans need to tie Obama to a despised profession — MSM/TV reporters, whose institution is hated and distrusted nearly as much as the U.S. Congress.

There is a shrinking window of opportunity to turn this into not just Obama/Media versus McCain/Palin, but Obama/Media versus everybody else. People hate MANIPULATIVE media types almost as much as they despise politicians, and Obama is a politician of their creation.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:13 am 25. jedrury:

I agree with Palimpset and Aureliano. Smart insights.

On Palimpset’s, it’s the immediate reaction which counts. Making OB the issue, the whole and only issue, is even what the MSM contends in the aim of McPalin.

If Sarah comes off well in these ABC interviews with Charlie then it will be a weekend story all over the media and the net and there is little that NBC and Keith can do to “rain” on her parade. But I was not heartened be the slice and dice editing ABC will do on the interview.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:39 am 26. Aureliano:

But I was not heartened be [sic] the slice and dice editing ABC will do on the interview.

That is why GOP politicians need to bring their own camera crews to these interviews.

Interview the interviewers. Tape the ENTIRE interview, with a camera trained onto Charles Gibson’s expressions the entire time (in fact I’d tape him from the moment he steps out of his limousine), then make the interview available via the campaign’s Web site, YouTube, or Pajamas TV, Fox News, and any other venue you can find. Do this with EVERY interview you give. Make it a requirement when you submit to an interview that you can bring your own crew, albeit a small one.

It is Obama/Media versus everybody else.

Media types with large audiences are political players in that they have much power (defined as the ability to influence). It’s time that they are treated like the unelected political players they are, and that they submit to serious questioning and interviews*, aka ‘accountability’.

* This should be one strategy of outlets like Pajamas TV, by the way — a niche service to an electorate that would absolutely LOVE to see the snooty TV elitists put in their place. Follow the media players (including the behind-the-scenes producers) around and make them submit to interviews where they answer questions about their associations, how their new organizations are run, their hiring practices, political donations, the politics of their spouses, etc., etc., etc.

Then watch any remaining trust in ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, New York Times, et all collapse, following shortly by the collapse of postmodern liberalism.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:10 am 27. The Audacity of Taupe « docweaselblog:

[...] O. The Audacity of Taupe. Inspired by a true story from AOSHQ and Ed Driscoll plus Roger Simon has Lipstick On His Collar BarryO Taupe Foundation An ultimate eye color for striking effect Combines lightness of powder [...]

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:14 am 28. Godzilla:

To use Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as a metaphor, Sarah Palin is Dagny Taggart and Obama is Wesley Mouch.

Sep 11, 2008 - 10:05 am 29. AlanC:

Palimpset , I think you are wrong on two counts here.

1) as has been pointed out it is obvious on the tape that Obama knew exactly what he was saying. The body language, the tone of voice, the pause for applause before the follow-up line about stinking fish, everything screams deliberate insult.

2) Even if he didn’t mean it (see 1) then this person whose sole claim to fame is that he is a “gifted” speaker with all the skills and rhetorical savvy of a Harvard Lawyer is too obtuse to understand how this will be taken. Remember in the words of Obama himself, “Words matter”.

What words will he say to our enemies and friends if he is so oblivious?

Sep 11, 2008 - 10:11 am 30. Lem:

Obama swiftboats himself and then says McCain is swiftboating him.

Hillary has to be wondering how did I get beat by this guy?

Maam, there is a dead pig in my voting booth

Sep 11, 2008 - 11:57 am 31. BillyR:

Re: Carol Fowler’s (Democratic Chairwoman of South Carolina) comment. It appears that her husband and former Chairman of the national Democratic Party, Don Fowler, didn’t teach her very well, did he? Just shows to go you, nepotism is usually not a good idea!

Sep 11, 2008 - 11:58 am 32. Palimpsest:

AlanC, I understand. I hope you detected the slightest bit of ironic understatement in my post, especially after I brought up Obama’s use of the word “Periodically” to describe Hillary’s mood swings. It’s a particularly awkward use of the word, and coupled with his lipstick comment it’s easy to see how he damn well knew exactly what he was saying.

But a point I was trying to make is – even if he is just tone deaf (you use the word “oblivious” and in this sense they’re pretty much synoymous) his “lipstick” comment ticked off a lot of people. And legitimately, as I noted. Whether he intended it or not (I’m on the “intended” side) a lot of people he can’t afford to annoy were annoyed.

It might be more interesting at this point to try and figure out exactly why he thinks he can say these things (or make certain gestures) and suffer no consequences. Is it arrogance? Over-confidence? Obliviousness? THis stuff might be red meat to the audiences in front of him, but there are now millions of other people who are taking the measure of him and the other candidates. He’s doing himself no favors right now.

Not that I mind.

Sep 11, 2008 - 12:08 pm 33. Larry J:

Markus:

Oh, c’mon. The idea that he intended to call Palin a pig is absurd. What’s next — we’re putting a missle defense system in Poland to defend against Iran?

First, either he meant it as an insult or he was too stupid to understand that millions of people would hear it as an insult. Either way, it was stupid thing to say.

Second, you obviously don’t understand missile trajectories. It appears you’re using 2D thinking. The Earth isn’t flat and the closest distance between any two points on the Earth isn’t a “straight line” but a great circle. That’s why when an airliner takes off from San Francisco and flies to Tokyo, its route actually takes it up near Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.

Take a 3-D view of the world such as Google Earth or a globe. A missile follows a great circle route just like an airliner. A great circle route between Iran and the US (say New York City) goes either directly over or very near Poland. It’s a good place to put a missile warning system for threats from the Middle East.

Sep 11, 2008 - 12:48 pm 34. Godzilla:

Hillary has to be wondering how did I get beat by this guy?

Hillary has got to be loving this. She’s set up for 2012 now, and Obama is just corn husk now. How naive of Obama to ask Clinton (Bill) for help. I’d hate to be any of the Clintons’ former friends that turned disloyal and went over to Obama. Richardson? Dog meat. Another big loser is Pelosi.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:04 pm 35. Godzilla:

And Dean? Ouch!!!

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:06 pm 36. Godzilla:

This is just a hunch, but seeing that we didn’t hear much from Sharpton and Jackson during the primary season, except for some obligitory lip service, I’d say those two are real high up on the Friends of Clintons’ list.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:11 pm 37. jedrury:

Aureliano:
Three (3) points:
Bush wholly ignored Peter Jennings (ABC) when it came to interviews because he was biased against the president. So ABC can be liberal when it wants.
These agreements for much wanted interviews surely contain some provision/clause that the full tape will be given up to the candidate’s staff. The staff can not advise on the editing but the existence and access to the full tape offers some rebuttal.
Lastly, the de-legitimization of MSM as the sole opinion forming mechanism for the American voter is happening by the advent of internet resulting in the decline of revenues of the newspapers.
The dissent and dislike by the various wings of the parties is clear.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:33 pm 38. Sandy P:

too bad the Pubbies couldn’t come up w/a cling for my car:

woman’s well-manicured hand holding a lipstick punching thru a glass ceiling.

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:00 pm 39. kaba:

Did Karl Rove have an affair in high school resulting in an illegitimate child we now know as Obama?

One last Rovian trick before he retires perhaps?

(Hey, if the leftist can have their fantasies so can I!)

Sep 11, 2008 - 3:31 pm 40. Godzilla:

OT:

Well, I’m on Pacific time, so there’s another hour to wait for the Gibson interview to come on. Monitoring all the nervous posts at Hot Air from the people watching the interview and posting their reactions was a hoot. The nervousness was palpable. From what I gather, Sarah Palin did fine, Gibson looked bad, and the editing sucked big time.

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:28 pm 41. Victor Erimita:

I, for one, am very impressed by Obama’s urbane condescension to McPalin. And the sly Bill Maher comedy stylings he now employs to “strike back.” I’m sure Vladimir Putin, Ahmadinejad and other world leaders will be equally impressed if he is elected.

The truth is, Palin’s humor is effective because her zingers expose Obam’s very real weaknesses, or rather his very unreal claims. Obama’s zingers appear weak and whiny because there is no truth behind them.

Sep 11, 2008 - 4:42 pm 42. Godzilla:

There is something interesting going on throughout the country. It’s these PUMAs. They are still rooting for Clinton, and are actively working to get McCain elected. This can’t be reflected in the polls, because what are the odds that a PUMA is polled? Slim. So the supposed larger representative that the poll is supposed to represent is very skewed. I didn’t realize how much. There is well organized PUMA group in every state, and they are serious. They cannot stand Obama. I had no idea this was going on so strongly. They are also actively working to support the democrats that stayed loyal to Hillary, and working against the ones that went to Obama. The PUMAs and the McCain campaign are actually working together. And they found the lipstick/pig quip disgusting, very strongly supporting Sarah Palin. Also, Obama’s people are pouring money into candidates that are trying to unseat Hillary’s people in congress. And the PUMAs are countering with help to keep Hillary’s people in congress. There is a real internal battle going on inside the Democratic Party, but it’s not being reported. That’s fine with me. Go PUMAs go!

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:00 pm 43. Godzilla:

Get a load of this:

Deposition about Obama

In PUMA circles this is the talk of the hour. Not a thing from the media. Check out required deposition by date of Sep 31. This guy Berg is only waiting for it to be signed. This is wild! I don’t know if this is BS or what.

Sep 11, 2008 - 8:53 pm 44. Godzilla:

Getting better for McCain/Palin all the time: Real Clear Politics Electoral Map

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:05 pm 45. Godzilla:

By the way, that was pretty stupid of Michelle Obama not to show up at ground zero.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:35 pm 46. Gary Rosen:

Godzilla, I scanned the deposition and it does actually say “September 31″. Is that right before the 12th of Never?

Sep 11, 2008 - 11:40 pm 47. Godzilla:

Gary, from what I understand, the petition is a legal one, and the wording reflects what the plaintif wants as an outcome. The judge will determine its merit. Apparently, there is a question as to whether Obama’s citizen ship has been properly vetted. The plaintif is asking to be shown the appropriate documents. This may be a standard procedural thing. If Dean has vetted Obama properly, then he should have no problem producing Obama’s certification. More interestingly is that there is a huge network of PUMA people who quite vocally hate Obama and will still vote McCain even if Biden is thrown under the bus and Hillary inserted as Obama’s VP. The PUMAs see Hillary making another presidential bid in 2012, and these people are gung ho. Reading their live blogging of Sarah Palin’s convention speech, you’d think they were Republicans. The hatred they have for Obama is real, and the hate the MSM as much as we do! These PUMAs are big players, fundraisers and such that seem to have to inside knowledge of cheating going on by the Obama people during the caucauses, and in “stealing” away Hillary’s pledged super delagates. Supposedly this Berg guy (the plaintif) has been making the rounds of some talk shows (but not the big ones). I have a feeling that we’ll start hearing about these PUMAs before long.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:20 am 48. Godzilla:

Regarding Michelle Obama not going to ground zero. That might be a trap, and it may be better if a big stink isn’t raised about it. Supposedly she was home with her children…perhaps a symbolic statement that Sarah Palin belongs home with her children? Anyone watching the event knows that she wasn’t there, and attention doesn’t need to be made of it. Safer that way.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:25 am 49. Godzilla:

I’ll tell you, I’m just glued to this PUMA Site

Real interesting reading. Another interesting thing about the coordination between the PUMAs and the McCain campaign: The official color of the PUMAs is orange. The Alaskan delegation at the convention were waving oranges scarves. McCain came out after Palin’s speech wearing an orange tie. Coincidence? One thing I’ve found out from reading this blog is that not all democratics are communists or socialists. Quite a few are very patriotic, and feel very very let down by their party.

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:05 am 50. Godzilla:

One thing I’ve found out from reading this blog is that not all democratics are communists or socialists. Quite a few are very patriotic, and feel very very let down by their party.

Which explains why the PUMAs are supporting McCain/Palin this time around

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:08 am 51. Godzilla:

Hmmm…Does Obama hang with ANYONE who’s not an asshole?

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:27 am 52. Godzilla:

Obama and Ayers

Sep 12, 2008 - 2:18 am 53. Godzilla:

Another thought, if you’ve been following the polls, you’ll have noticed that there are more democrats then republicans in the samples. This might be how they are accounting for the PUMAs, by assuming that some of the democrats have switched.

Sep 12, 2008 - 8:42 am 54. Sandy P:

Hunters wear orange.

Sep 12, 2008 - 11:21 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: