Posted on 09/11/2008 9:38:27 PM PDT by CitizenM
Obama Smears Himself and Ends up In The “Pits”
No matter how Obama has tried to conceal his “pig in lipstick," comment, the smear remaining is on Obama. And like all good lipsticks, it will not wipe off easily.
There are three issues to be recognized when analyzing his comments of Sept. 9.
1) The contemptuous statements made at that appearance cannot be denied as being anything other than designed and scripted to be offensive to Palin and McCain. Lest anyone foolishly consider that Obama might simply have made another gaffe, the proof of this actually being a calculated remark that Democrats intended - and had already been used to demean Palin can be found at http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/10/oh-nooooo-they-never-meant-to-liken-palin-to-a-pig/ .
This post was captured and presented on Malkin’s website, Sept. 10. There it is revealed that “pig in lipstick” attack began on August 30 at www.democrats.org named “The Democratic Party” website. This post was enlarged and posted at the FreeRepublic so a reader can clearly see the specific references “lipstick on a pig,’ and even “lipstick on a Republican pig!” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2079347/post.
The liberal media can’t disprove that democrat.org post which, naturally, has since been removed from their site. And there is no way it, and Obama, did not refer to Palin, since the pig in the picture is dressed -- replete with pearls -- ala Miss Piggy! It was not a genderless pig. Did they really believe active, web-surfing Republicans would miss that post and then believe Obama’s remarks were unintentional?
Obviously Obama has issues with females in authoritative positions (who are not among his worshippers). That was visibly demonstrated by his inability to respect Hillary. Now he is targeting Sarah Palin. What a useless, fear-filled exercise. Palin is not campaigning for president!
2) Additionally, and actually more important to the argument that Obama planned to demean the GOP candidates in a personal way is by emphasizing that, in that same address, he attempted the subliminal comparison of McCain to an "old” fish. That is most assuredly discriminatory, unacceptable, and actually not even legal.
Look at it this way: You have been with a company for many years. You have been a dedicated employee and desire a promotion that is available. Your opponent is several years younger. Would it be appropriate for that opponent to refer to you as “old” when vying for the position? The answer is obvious.
3) What is another worrisome, possible offshoot of those comments, (whether or not one wants to believe Obama’s intent), is that the sound bite “lipstick on a pig,” can insidiously also be utilized by terrorists to poke fun of the Republican female candidate. It is known that reactionary factions of the Islamic faith strongly feel that women are inferior. And, in that part of the world, it is a major insult to call anyone a pig. Thus, Obama’s own words can be spun for their own propaganda purposes. Surely that sound-bite has not been overlooked by those actively working for the demise of the United States.
But why, in America, did this comment send Obama to “the pits?” The answer is simple: Most women are innately equipped to be attuned to the “little things,” that a person says or does. Men don’t understand this ability, (most don’t even have it). But women utilize this skill and it is invaluable to them..
It’s “little things” that are clues and help them judge a prospective friend, associate, and partner. It is not the grand, flamboyant acts – like speaking from a platform with columns, or promising great changes. It‘s the lesser details that indicate to women the true persona of an individual. Obama has totally shown his true self and frightened women about his potential. His condescending comments regarding the two women he has faced in this election have not gone unnoticed by discerning, analytical females.
The day after his statements Obama tied to attribute the resulting negativity to being McCain’s campaign strategy against him. Yet, it was the American people who furiously retaliated – to the media, on line, and even directly to the Obama people. The McCain staffers asked for an apology, but they did not initiate the surprising responses.
Then Obama tried to cover by saying he meant his sights as a reference to McCain’s proposed economic policies. In other words, McCain’s plans were the pig? Yet, even when he first made the statement, his own audience didn’t interpret that as the intended meaning. They enthusiastically laughed and applauded it as a slam at Palin.
Obama never, however, sought to explain his use of the term “old fish” that he assuredly meant about McCain and hoped would slip unnoticed in the feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, for the most part, he has had his way about that. But senior citizens didn’t miss it!
Of course, as with other blunders Obama’s handlers want the public to believe his insults are unintentional. But, the remarks on Sept. 9 were not gaffes. They were premeditated by a man who is adept at double-talking. Obama pretends to be tripping on his words so, if necessary, he can later claim they were a slip of the tongue and he is never held accountable for them. He figures people will excuse him, or simply laugh at him. BHO wants us to think he is just an ordinary guy who goofs up now and then. Or, he hopes people will say he’s just tired.
Often he inserts his notorious a-hhhs, and u-mmms to make it seem he is speaking at a common man’s level. This tactic for delivering a point appeals to those who have problems expressing themselves in public. They feel comfortable in his presence because he appears slightly nervous, as they would in the heat of the spotlight. They are forgiving of it.
But this is a practiced speech pattern that Obama tactically employs. He uses it to emphasize what he is saying. Detractors usually feel that his difficulty with unscripted material and that his stuttering, pauses, glances away into space, reveal his insecurity or that he does not want to tell the truth. They believe he is searching for words that will not commit him to anything. That probably is partly true. What is actually happening is that by making his listeners almost hold their breaths as he hem-haws he intentionally makes what he is saying more meaningful.
He wants to make sure people are listening. He wants his words to resound. After he drops the snide comment, he pauses – long - and flashes his wily, fox-like grin.
Just as some preachers continually repeat the same phrase over and over in a sermon so no one will miss the point, Obama utilizes his pausing and ah-ing style of speaking with the additional expectation that he can subtly slide in a memorable zinger without being called on the carpet for it. (It was an accident, man. Don’t you believe me?) Obama is no dummy, more correctly he is like the crafty fox in the barnyard.
So, why are these “pig in lipstick” and “old fish” comments important and not to be dismissed as inconsequential compared to the greater issues facing the country? Consider this: Could this child-like reaction of name-calling, personal attacks in a debasing manner, and immature innuendoes be signs of Obama’s typical M.O.? Will his future behavior when facing the challenges of responding to the criticisms of international leaders who question him and his decisions, reveal a bully? Will he use insulting words against heads of state to try and degrade them? He has proclaimed that he intends to “talk” to our enemies, rather than make a show of our military strength. But, insults are fighting words, and often arouse more contempt than a mention of our military might.
If Obama cannot run a dignified campaign without sinking to name calling like a kid on the streets of Chicago, then this is not a man fit to handle diplomatic matters from the Oval Office on Pennsylvania Ave.
There is the wise adage: “Watch how a candidate runs his campaign and you will see how he will run the country.” Obama asked us to watch how he is running his campaign. We are. And we are most assuredly listening, also!
“No matter how Obama has tried to conceal his “pig in lipstick,” comment, the smear remaining is on Obama. And like all good lipsticks, it will not wipe off easily.”
They forgot two things when they called Palin a pig.
1) They have to roll around in the mud with the pig which means they will get all muddy.
2) The pig likes it.
You're right, he's not stupid. That's why he called Palin a pig in a way that his audience understood, but in a way that allowed plausible deniability when he was called on it.
“We notice these things..”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31VwNbTIVI
Watch around 1:10 for the lead-in to Obama giving Hillary “the FU finger” and notice the audience reaction, especially
when the the woman directly behind him on his left, who at first doesn’t “get it”, until her friend tells her what Obama just did.
Remember all the people behind Obama can also watch big screen monitors where they can see him from our perspective.
SInce his slip saying he was a Muslim the TV caster nicely reminded him today he was saying Chirstian. It’s fair game so if he attacked sarah palin with a sexist remark she should ask him if the KORAN taught him that?
Naive. He was indulging in “trash talk” and the audience sure knew what he meant — watch their reaction.
“Why would Obama need to refer to both a pig and a fish?”
IMHO, Obama was riding high until Sarah came along, THEN our dear Sarah entered the ring.
I feel that he was talking about Sarah in both cases, first the lipstick(pig) then fish, (Baracuda, her nickname in highschool.)
They wanted us to think McCain.
He did a double blast on Sarah. Because she is hurting him the most.
“Thoroughlypissedoff BUMP!!!”
Well, don’t you mean it is a “phony” Thoroughlypissedoff BUMP!!!
Thanks for the link. I heard about it but never saw it. He talks - but says nothing! What a fraud.
I don’t have the best radar for people on first impressions but I got the same vibe about 0bama. I know plenty of men who do have finely tuned intuition though. But that isn’t quite the same thing as a BS detector which is what I think is in play as far as seeing his little “lipstick” game. JMHO
I think you opinion is dead on. Obama knew what he was saying. I think if he keeps this up, the men will not vote for him either. The women in their lives are riled up, and it Obama’s fault. Riled up women is the last thing men want. LOL
Muslims don't believe women are people. Women don't have souls.
Sarah Palin embodies the kind of strength a woman is capable of in family and in business. A woman who engenders respect for being unapologetically herself on all fronts. A woman unafraid to stand up for her principles without regard to stereotypes.
A lot of men are going to see their wife, sister, mother etc, in her and will be deeply resentful of the insults directed at her for nothing other than being an unapologetically self-confident wife, mother and public servant. It undoubtedly brings to mind all the like-minded insults the women in their lives have been subjected to. 0bama and the MSM now embody that.
Well said. Sarah is my hero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.