--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think you have some legitimate concerns about Obama Judy, but I am > surprised to see you go down this particular rabbit hole about him. I > don't agree that using the "lipstick on a pig" line was either stupid > or revealing. I don't suppose he spends a lot of time thinking about > Sara Palin, so it wasn't front and center for him to worry about. It > is an example of the worst of politics IMO and as I said before it > doesn't even make any sense. It is a vain attempt to stir the pot of > sympathy for a "not ready for primetime" VP choice. Palin will need > it as her recent interview revealed. She might even be a great > governor for all I know, but they are pushing her too far up the > political ladder too fast and the hype is unraveling. > > Did you see Obama on Oreilly? I thought that was helpful in > understanding him. Wait till he gets a hold of Palin, if her handlers > let her. > > Your point about Hillary is probably right. But bringing her up in > this context just underlines what a stupid choice McCain made. If I > was a woman I would be totally pissed that this historic moment has > been squandered. (Actually if I had lady parts I would never leave my > house, I would be too busy molesting myself.) (did I say that last bit > out loud?) > > Obama wouldn't use a third grade insult which would just backfire > anyway. He can just pay attention to his own campaign and let her > self destruct on her own. I don't get the petty vibe you seem to from > him. OTOH the classy move would have been for Palin to step up and > say that she knows he didn't mean it that way. Instead the campaign > fired off a direct lie in their ad saying "Obama speaking about Sara > Palin" when everything they cut out was about John McCain. He dropped > a few more points in my respect for authorizing that slimy tactic from > the Rove playbook.
I was surprised today to see 4-5 examples of the MSM standing up to the McCain lies (and some Obama distortions -- which pale in comparison), Below is start of front page article in NYT. Gibbons, view, PBS Newshour -- the press is actually pushing back -- in fairly articulated and detailed terms. "Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama's record and positions. Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama's words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain's claim to be the change agent in the race, "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig." (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's health plan.) Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults). .... " > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I'm going to follow up on this from Wednesday > > because I think it's important, although by > > now the incident itself it's old news. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Nobody said that "anytime" it's referenced it's about > > > > her. raunchydog is saying--and I agree--that *this* > > > > time it was about her. > > > > > > This insult, and the middle finger thing are out of > > > character for the guy. > > > > Curtis, that's just the point, they *aren't* > > out of character. That's the real Obama. He > > has a very nasty vindictive streak, particularly > > when it comes to women. > > > > Or, let's assume the pig reference wasn't > > intentional. If not, then it was supremely > > STOOOPID for him not to realize a whole lot of > > people who watched Palin's speech at the > > convention would instantly make that > > association (including his audience), and that > > it would give McCain's campaign an excuse to > > raise a ruckus and distract Obama from the > > actual issues of the campaign. > > > > So you pays your money and you takes your > > choice: which is more out of character for him, > > vindictiveness, or stupidity? > > > > > Calling her a "pig?" What possible purpose would > > > that serve? > > > > It's an insult, obviously, a bit of return fire > > for her nasty remarks about him, just as the > > cheek-scratch was return fire for some things > > Hillary had said about him (not as nasty, but > > pointed enough to get under his skin). Again, > > his audience got it instantly. > > > > > More importantly it is out of character for Obama > > > > He'd sure like for you to think so. But these > > two instances aren't the only ones by any means. > > I can give you a whole list if you're interested. > > > > > and serves no purpose, except as a tool for people > > > who want to try to make Sara out to be a martyr. > > > > Nobody's making Palin out to be a martyr. She's > > impervious to that kind of thing. That's a > > thought-stopper designed to distract attention > > from Obama's behavior. > > > > This is a tool Obama himself has handed to those > > who think his saintly image is fraudulent. It's > > yet another example of what his supporters and > > the media (not that there's much difference) > > have relied heavily on throughout the entire > > campaign and Obama has failed to criticize. > > > > > I guess seeing how that strategy worked > > > for the Hillary camp doesn't serve as a cautionary > > > tale. > > > > Actually it worked quite well for Hillary. It's > > pretty much accepted now, for example, that she > > won in New Hampshire, when she hadn't been > > expected to, because women were pissed off at > > how she'd been treated. > > > > But notice that Hillary herself, like Palin, was > > immune to all the sexism and didn't even mention > > it publicly until very late in the campaign. Nor > > did she ever try to make the case that sexism had > > cost her the primary. > > >
