@old europe,
Not similar scenarios. Sarah Palin had used the lipstick on a pittbull metaphor in her now famous speech at the GOP convention. The newspapers were filled with political cartoons of lipstick on this or that, mostly pittbulls, and Sarah was characterized and lampooned as a pittbull over and over again.
If Barack Obama had been referred to as a chimpanzee or characterized that way over and over again in the newspapers prior to this dead chimpanzee incident, then I would agree 100% that the cartoonist could not have meant anything other than the same kind of lampoon. That was not the case, however.
Also Obama completed the line about lipstick on a pig with the metaphor of the eight-year-old fish which, however he did or did not intend that, made it worse. Had the cartoonist referenced ANYTHING that had been inferred, joked about, or characterized re Barack Obama in that cartoon, then all of your accusations could have merit.
But he didn't. And they don't.
The cartoonist has made it clear since all the bruhaha started that the cartoon was not directed at the President. Barack Obama refused to apologize or explain the lipstick on the pig other than to say that John McCain had also used the metaphor one time in a speech.
It is a common metaphor and would have meant nothing without all the lipstick on a pitbull bruhaha and without the audience's obvious delight when they picked up on that during Obama's speech. He should have stopped right there and made it perfectly clear that he was not casting any aspersion on the vice-presidential nominee. He didn't
HOWEVER. . . .
If you insist on making these scenarios the same, please post your and Kicky's scathing criticism of Barack Obama for his disrespectful remarks at that time. Otherwise, how can you be so critical of a cartoonist for a far less provocative offense?
