(Boston Herald) No prettying up Barack Obama’s gaffe

Discussion in 'Congress' started by SolarEnergy1, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. SolarEnergy1
    Offline

    SolarEnergy1 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    305
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +25
    Let’s start with the obvious and inarguable: Of course Sen. Barack Obama’s comment about “lipstick on a pig” was a reference to Supergirl Sarah Palin.

    You know it, I know it and the partisan crowd that literally rose to their feet and cheered when they heard it know it.

    And it’s nothing new. Democrats shot the lipstick line at Gov. Palin on their official Web site last week with a posting entitled “McCain’s Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig” - accompanied by what I’m sure was intended to be a flattering photo of the Alaska outdoorswoman.

    And - coincidence or something more? - the same day Obama made his crack, a Democratic congressman introducing Joe Biden said of Sarah Palin, “There’s no way you can dress up her record, even with a lot of lipstick.”

    If there was anyone in the audience still too dense to get it - say, an employee of CNN, perhaps - Obama immediately followed up with a reference to the McCain/Palin campaign wrapping “an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change.’ ”

    A lipstick-wearing pig and an old fish? Gee, who could he possibly be talking about?

    So please, my Obama-supporting friends, let’s stop the nonsense about how Obama’s lipstick talk was, as he put it yesterday, an “innocent comment,” or that the reaction is “phony outrage.”

    You want phony outrage? Flashback to Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad. Remember it? The helpless children asleep in bed, the insistent ringing of the phone, etc., etc. And some Obama supporters immediately cried “racism” because, they claimed, the ad played on white fears of black home invaders.

    No prettying up Barack Obama’s gaffe - BostonHerald.com
     

Share This Page