September 9, 2008, 6:23 pm Obama Puts Different Twist on Lipstick Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race from Lebanon, Virginia. What’s the difference between a more hopeful kind of politics and old-fashioned attacks? Lipstick. Barack Obama says the John McCain-Sarah Palin policies don’t represent change, they’re “just calling the same thing something different.” “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” Obama said during a town-hall style event here Tuesday night. The comment was widely interpreted as a play on Republican vice presidential candidate Palin’s joke during the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom was lipstick, though the campaign said Obama wasn’t referencing Palin’s comments. Obama has been hammering the Republican ticket for adopting his change mantra. “This is a guy who supported George Bush 90% of the time. What does that say about somebody’s judgment that they agree with George Bush 90% of the time?” he said. “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’ it’s still going to stink,” Obama said. “After eight years, we’ve had enough of the same old thing. It’s time to bring about real change to Washington and that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.” This isn’t the first time in a 24-hour period that lipstick has become an issue. As he was introducing Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan said Palin had “zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick.” Republicans struck back, calling the attacks on Palin old-style Washington attacks that run counter to Obama’s promise of change. “Sarah Palin’s maverick record of reform doesn’t need any ‘dressing up,’ but the Obama campaign’s condescending commentary deserves some dressing down,” says RNC spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson. Hogs were a theme of Obama’s town hall. Later in the event, while discussing the No Child Left Behind policy that puts stress on teachers to test students, he made another swine reference. “There’s a saying in Southern Illinois that you don’t fatten a hog by weighing it. You can weigh it everyday, that’s not how you fatten it up,” Obama said. UPDATE: The McCain campaign quickly struck back convening a conference call with reporters and former Mass. Gov. Jane Swift to paint the common expression as a sexist jab at Palin. “As far as I know there is only one candidate in this contest who wears lipstick,” Swift said. The reaction set off a frenzied dive into the opposition research vault. Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton sent reporters a Chicago Tribune article published in 2007 during the Democratic primaries that cites McCain criticizing Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” McCain is quoted as saying about Clinton’s proposal. Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/09/obama-attacks-gop-tickets-mantra-of-change/trackback/ Link
Obama is right in this case. McCain was talking about health care. Obama was talking about McCain's "Bush-like" policies. He shouldn't have said it though, a lack of judgment on his part. Doesn't really make a difference to me anyway, considering I would never vote for him.
Considering there's a controversy over this it deserves to be talked about. And I defended Obama. It was a stupid comment on the basis that he should have some common sense, but it's been blown out of proportion.
This one is a stretch. I prefer 'silk hat on a pig.' References a cool movie to boot. Seems like McCain's camp is begging for the Chelsey Clinton joke to be dragged up again.
This is why I can't stand all this political coverage. The media seems to spend 20 times more time on stuff like this that is completely pointless then on the actual issues.
It works both ways. He just defined his own campaign: “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’ it’s still going to stink,” Obama said.
I saw Obama on O'Reilly last night. I continue to be thoroughly impressed with him as a man, and I absolutely see why people are attracted to his campaign. There's no question that there's a lot of bullshit coming from the right about him, and it's just plain ugly. The whole Hannity "William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright blah blah" is mean spirited and really has nothing to do with Obama's qualifications or ability to serve as president. It's guilt by association, as Obama said.
Just what are Americans supposed to base their vote on? You are defined by those around you. Personally speaking, I don't hang out with idiots because I don't want it to reflect badly on me. Sadly, Obama chose to associate with an unapologetic terrorist and a racist. That is very relevant information to me, and it makes me sick that so few people care about it. It's interesting to note that Oprah was a member of Rev. Racists church from 1984 to 1986, then only attended occasionally until the early 90's, after which she stopped going because she found Wrights sermons too incendiary. Oprah clearly had a problem with it, I would assume Barack did not because he continued to go, continued to refer to the man as a "spiritual guide" and did not throw him under the bus until it became a MEDIA ISSUE. Remember kids, it's only racist if your white!
Those people Hannity talks about certainly had an influence on Obama, but there's absolutely zero evidence he shares their extremist views. If anything, Obama seems to be a pretty good person all things considered. It's be a hugely different story if Obama said the same things as Wright, or condoned domestic terrorism. The reverse is true - he never has said those things, nor has he condoned terrorism. Everything he stands for seems counter to the things people are trying to associate him with (guilt by association). It'd also be a different story if Obama came out and said he's considering Wright for Secy. of Education and Ayers for Secy. of State - that would speak volumes to the kinds of people he'd surround himself with and who'd run big chunks of the govt. They're not going to be picked, so where's the beef? Maybe we should consider the kinds of things a president and administration can actually affect or effect, and what the candidates propose to do using that ability? Base our votes on that.
For the record, I do not watch Hannity & Colmes very often, I'm aware that he's one of the few people who mention these issues consistently. However, I was aware of William Ayers before Hannity started talking about it every night. Obviously I did not know about Wright until it came into the media. I would argue that if Obama didn't share Wrights beliefs at least to a certain extent, he would not have sat and listened to these sermons for 20 years. In fact, if the media had never made an issue of it, he would still attend this mans church. I see that as a huge problem.
Everyone gets something different from Church. My grandparents met at Church, so that would be a social function of it. I know several people who have a lot of business connections through their Church. Etc. We also don't know Wright but from a very few (bad) things he's said over a long period of years. The Church there is oriented towards black people and their issues - that's an appeal to a lot of people; though I hear a few white people have attended and were treated quite well. When you attend a Church for decades, you may build a friendship with the pastor, even though you disagree with some of his sermons. I don't see anything wrong with it. Consider that you or I might have friends who are quite left-leaning - in things unrelated to politics, we like the same sports teams, to fish or hunt, or post on the same message boards. I wouldn't label you as left-leaning for hanging with your friends who are. I give Obama the same courtesy. Again, I stress that we should look at what HE says and what HE does. I see nothing like Wright or Ayers in him. He's his own man. I also stress that we should consider his policies and especially those he can act on if elected and make your decision based upon those.
That can work towards McCain also. I don't have any clever quotes to deliver anyone though, sorry. But you know what I mean.
You can say Obama won't bring change and you may be right in the context that he'll be about as much change as any democrat would bring but I don't think anyone can honestly call the guy a sexiest like McCain's camp is trying to imply. He's married and has two daughters so I would think he is very devoted to woman's rights. If McCain's camp wanted to make this about issues they would respond much like I think a post above or something said. Obama is about as much change as fill in the blank or however you want. Instead they try and make it personal. It's clear that's the republican strategy and quite frankly it might just work considering they have a pow and a evangelical on the ticket.
You think Obama is taking the high ground? Did you miss his primary with Hillary Clinton? What about his campaign's attempt to swiftboat McCain's military record? (I know Clark said, but we all know that Clark was just being a sock puppet when he said it.) Obama is just as full of crap and willing to play the game as dirty as any other anyone else in this election. That's just the plain and simple truth.
