Lipstick vs. Uppity

Isn't a Pitbull a dog?
Isn't a pitbull with lipstick, a dog with lipstick on?

How has the equivalence drawn by Palin between a dog and a hockey Mom gone without criticism?

Just so I get this straight, it's OK for Palin to refer to all of the hockey Moms out there as dogs with lipstick on, and it's ok for her to refer to herself as a dog, but Obama can not use an old saying without it being taken in by the GOP as an insult intended directly at Palin?

As the republicans rail against dems for their supposed hypocrisy in political correctness, did they not stop to think for a second about how tough they always claim to be?
Isn't it the GOP who has this "grow thicker skin, it's election time" mentality....or is the victimhood mentality that they have long railed against going to be the new identity of the GOP, now that they feel they have shattered the glass ceiling and all?

I'm sure there will be an equal, albeit, ex post facto, defense of Hillary Clinton mounted by the republicans who were so offended by the Obama statement.
Since we all heard the context within which Obama framed the statement "lipstick on a pig"--he was referring to the new change motto of the McCain campaign, not Palin--we can see that McCain does the exact same thing same in reference to Clinton's health care plan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM

.....but as a level headed, liberal adult, I can see that there was no veiled sexism involved in McCain's statement. After all, he was referring to a Health Care Plan, not Clinton herself.
As a level headed adult, I can also see that there was no veiled sexism involved in the Obama statement. After all he was referring to the new "change" philosophy touted by the McCain camp.

If a "health care plan" can't be a victim of sexism, I'm not so sure how "change" can be. If one is, so is the other, and vice versa.

Except she didn't. The joke went: What is the DIFFERENCE between a hockey mom and a pitbull? She did not refer to hockey moms as dogs.

Well, if the only difference is lipstick, doesn't that mean that both are dogs?

Lol

Cycloptichorn

Governor Palin said the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is you can put lipstick on a hockey mom.

More democrat desperation... how sad.

Candi is Confused.

It's not candi, and I don't think I'm all that confused.
Cyclo picked up what I was laying down...I'm just not surprised, judging by the tone and content of your many and rather laughable posts around here, that you'd be thinking I'm confused.

It's ok though, I'm sure you're just runing a high because of the Palin factor.
I would be too if I were a non-thinking, lock step, sycophantic republican apologist.

But whatve's....just don't let it cloud your wee skull too much.

You don't seem to understand a direct response.

He did NOT refer to her as a pig. What part of that don't you get?

He DID use a word she had used which is "lipstick". Using the same word doesn't mean he called her a pig. It doesn't even mean he called her one in some "veiled way." It means he used a word she used only he used it in a different way.

It's funny that you complain about my short posts after you complained about my long ones. Since you didn't understand a long explanation I figured I needed to keep my answers shorter.

No matter what you claim to know about the audience response, you don't know what they thought. You can only use your partisan lens to claim you know.

It appears that Candi is a wee bit more confused than I first thought...

You're obsessed with lipstick.

I acknowledged that Obama's lipstick comment was no big deal.

My comment about the Democratic Attack Machine (AKA Left-Wing Sleaze Machine) is that, contrary to the protestations of Liberals, it exists.

I provided several examples of its product.

Here are two more

On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll."

Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

You brought up my comments about lipstick.

Now you want to pretend your post wasn't about lipstick? Get real.

Sometimes a hackneyed expression, no matter how overused, is the perfect response. This is one of those times:

Whatever...

Answer me this, and please be honest:

Have you watched the tape?

It doesn't take a mind reader to figure out why the crowd was suddenly cracked up at Obaba's comments. Other Obama supporters here have acknowledged the reason for the crowd's response, which was Obama's play on words.

Once again, my point is this: Shouldn't have Obama's speechwriters have anticipated the response?

Or maybe this is why he is now using a teleprompter at his events, such as rodeos?

And before you begin to throw out the label 'partisan,' examine thyself a bit more closely.

Anyway, paradox, ...yawn.... you are beginning to sound like one of the wounded proletariat with a chip on your shoulder, which I get enough of when I am forced to visit Berkeley.

Please, please... come up with a new angle, new response, new chant, new mantra, anything. You are really beginning to bore me, and I don't have the time to deal with true believers... I'm beginning to think you are one of these AK2 posters who will run a thread to 60 pages just to get the last word in...

Oh man, another one...

OK. Before I invest the time with you, please go back and read some of the other posts in this thread.

Then come back and we'll play.

Simple question: Should Obama's speechwriter's have been more sensitive - or Obama himself have caught it - when HIS crowd responded like it did after his lipstick comment?

If you have nothing new to add, don't bother...

Nope. I'm glad Obama said it; it's about time people started calling Republicans pigs, for that is how they act. And the issue worked out great for him. Politically, it was a winner.

Cycloptichorn

Well, I guess before you get all up in my grill and condescending-like any more than you already have, as though you have this all figured out and that what you are saying is the only valid perspective, read some of my posts as well.

I doubt very much that Obama's writers had him say this. It was likely an ad-lib.

I don't think he needs to say anything (are you suggesting an apology) because he was referring to the new republican mantra of change that is being dressed up as something it's not.
Lipstick on a pig, old fish wrapped in paper, spitshine a turd....they are all the same. It's no different than McCain using it "against" Clinton earlier, and no different than the myriad of other times it has been uttered.

It is arrogant to think that Palin owns the exclusive rights to "Lipstick", and naive to think that an obvious referral to a platform of change was a subliminal or underhanded shot at Palin.

If he in fact meant it in an underhanded way, good on him.
Now it's Democrats 1, Republicans what....20?
(obama is a baby killer, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not an American citizen, Obama has terrorist connections, Obama's wife hates America, Obama is not a patriot, Obama this, Obama that, lie here, lie there).

Obama takesa stab at a platform change and he's dragged through the mud by the historically anti-PC crowd. Where were they to defend the out and out lies perpetuated by the American right? <crickets>

He might have, might not; but the crowd listening to him certainly thought he did.

(Didn't mean to be condescending; you're just jumping in a little late and I'm starting to get a little bored with the topic. Parados will do that do you. )

And that's my point. Libs/progressives are all about words and their meanings, being politically correct, etc (read my original post please...)

You say tit for tat; good for you, you are honest.

True believers here have denied any ill intent on Obama's part, as if any lib/progressive could never stoop to such actions. But of course they can. They, like the McCain camp, are playing for keeps.

Want to see what one of Canada's progressives passes off as journalism? Check this out:
http://able2know.org/topic/121961-42#post-3406236