Posted on 09/12/2008 5:36:52 AM PDT by shortstop
There is a rich irony in this lipstick-on-the-pig controversy. At long last Barack Obama is getting a taste of his own medicine.
He has thrown the stones of political correctness for years, and now some of them are being thrown back at him.
Maybe he'll learn something from it.
Here's the background. In her masterful speech at the Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin famously recycled an old Alaska joke – What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?
Answering her own question, she pointed at her mouth and said, “Lipstick.”
It was a great moment, and the word “lipstick” immediately became a happy trademark of the Palin candidacy.
A candidacy which, by the way, may be the death knell of Barack Obama's presidential ambitions.
Earlier this week, in a clearly purposeful swipe at the lipstick trademark, Barack Obama said that John McCain's proposed Washington reforms were like putting lipstick on a pig. His pauses as he said it, and the crowd's laughing response, clearly indicated that he was jabbing Sarah Palin.
Interestingly, about an hour later, a former Massachusetts governor – who is also a woman – came out publicly saying she was offended by Barack Obama's remarks and that she considered them sexist. She accused him of bigotry, saying that his words insulted all women.
This same chorus was taken up by bloggers and McCain campaign surrogates all across the country. The campaign itself came out forcefully saying that the remarks were a deep and sexist insult to Sarah Palin.
The accusations were, of course, nonsense.
Barack Obama was certainly taking a shot at Sarah Palin, but it was not a sexist shot. Just as the Republicans at their convention had damaged his brand -- “community organizer” -- he wanted to damage her brand -- “lipstick.”
It was nothing more than the back and forth hooking and jabbing that is part of any major campaign. The accusation of sexism was illogical and unfounded.
But it was an exact parallel of illogical and unfounded accusations of bigotry which Barack Obama's campaign and surrogates have themselves repeatedly – and recently – used.
What happened in the lipstick-on-the-pig controversy is that the hypersensitivity of race communications was applied for the first time to gender communications. The chip-on-the-shoulder standard of race sensitivity was applied to a new area and worked against Barack Obama, instead of for him.
In race communications, in these politically correct times, it doesn't matter what you mean, it matters what someone else says you mean. The intent of the speaker is meaningless, the reaction of the hearer is everything. It doesn't matter whether or not you intended to offend, it only matters whether or not the other person chooses to be offended.
If someone says a word or thought is racially insensitive, there is no defense. The accusation is also the proof. And the accusations of racial insensitivity are thrown like hand grenades.
Here are some examples from the Obama campaign.
Early in the Democratic primary campaign, Sen. Joe Biden – in response to a question about Barack Obama – described him as “articulate.”
Immediately, Obama surrogates called the comment racist. They said that it was a racist code, that it made reference to a white stereotype that black people speak poorly. Essays were written about it, commentators went on at length, and Joe Biden's presidential aspirations were dead.
Joe Biden meant his comments as a compliment, that he considered Barack Obama a good speaker. But the hypersensitivity of race communications allowed him to be crucified for his words. It didn't matter what he intended, it only mattered what others thought to accuse him of.
By accusing racism, Obama supporters were able to damage an Obama rival.
Similarly, just this week the governor of New York – David Patterson – said that when Republicans at their convention said the words “community organizer” they were racist code for “black.”
Patterson – himself an African-American – said that the comments were meant to inflame and exploit white racism against Barack Obama.
The accusation, of course, is preposterous. But, again, under the rules of contemporary political correctness, the indictment is the conviction. If someone says it is racist, it is, regardless of the intent or thinking of the person doing the speaking.
Now Barack Obama is getting a dose of that medicine.
Defenders of Sarah Palin have decided to use the tactic of race activists. They have decided to throw the accusation of sexism the way some people throw the accusation of racism.
Interestingly, Barack Obama recoiled from and lashed out against this treatment.
Hopefully he learned something from it.
Hopefully he, in a quiet moment, was able to see the injustice of the accusation of sexism against him, and the fact that it is an exact parallel of the injustice of the accusation of racism that is made against so many people.
Barack Obama's comment about the pig with the lipstick was not sexist. Joe Biden's comment about Barack Obama being “articulate” was not racist. Republican use of the phrase “community organizer” is not racist.
These accusations are all equally absurd and irresponsible. They are not legitimate reactions to what was said, they are all calculated acts of character assassination and political sabotage.
And now that Barack Obama knows what it feels like to have it done to him, maybe he'll stop doing it to others.
There, fixed it...
>course we know he is not just black but also just as much white and more Arab, but do these people think blacks are not racist or something
Yes, they do. I had one tell me (a man who describes himself as “to the left” of liberal) that a minority cannot be racist except towards members of smaller minorities.
That left of lib logic.
Yeah, and it's just too bad that Obambi will be yucking it up on SNL about the time when TX is getting blasted by hurricane Ike.
But then, Obambi doesn't care about the people of a Red State like TX I guess.
Exact. THEY know what THEY would do, and they assume we are just like them.
They are wrong.
Thanks for the reply,
Tatt
The author very incorrectly assumes, and attributes, the negative responses to Barack's comment as something planned as a tactic. I watched that comment the first time it was on. I didn't plan to respond because it was a tactic. I responded because it was an offensive, caustic comment. And I was sitting, alone in my home, with no McCain campaign advisers prodding me! As were, obviously, thousands of women who were also offended and had no one from McCain's staff with them trying to manipulate their feelings. It was intentional, and we knew it immediately. We did not need any McCain statement to make us feel as we instincitevely felt at the exact moment Obama made the statemet. McCain's response came hours later, after so many Palin supporters were repulsed and made their anger known.
The writer put Obama's words together in the above article purposely omitting the long pause, the stuttering, the ahhh, and ummm, before Obama threw out the jabbing line "lipstick on a pig." That line, delivered as it was (you know, they call it "timing") was definately scripped to call attention to Palin's joke about difference between hockey moms and pit bulls being lipstick. In delivering his words as he did...and saying "putting lipstick on a pig," the reference was clear that he was making a connection for his audience between Palin and a pig. His own audience there at that appearance in Virginia saw the jab for what it was, and for whom it was intended to slam. They erupted in laughter and applause. They wouldn't have responded that way if they just thought Obama was referring to McClain's economic policies. That wouldn't have made them laugh so hysterically.
Those who are trying to defend Obama by saying he used a well-used expression, are ignoring the fact that even his own audience at that time didn't take it that way. And, when they applauded and laughed as they did, he made no attempt to correct himself (or tell them he actually meant something else) because that was the exact response he had hoped for, and that they would appreciate his inuendo against Palin. Right after the words fell from his mouth he simply paused again, and flashed a sarcastic smile.
Besides, on Aug. 30 - before Obama's Sept. 9 statement - there was, on a democrat website, references to Palin, with a picture of a pig dressed as a female, with pearls, sunglasses, a hat and lipstick - and several references to the words..."lipstick on pig" and on "a Republican pig." It was not a genderless pig picture. That post on that website was up until the day after Obama's comment. If Obama hadn't intended his words to be used exactly as they were intended on that website to be a slight at Palin, and those were innocent words - why did that website: www.democrat.org take the post and picture off the day after Obama's statement? Obviously they knew it was not harmless!
That “rushing water” sound you hear in the background is the lifting of the flapper valve as the Obama candidacy begins circling the drain.
The non-prompter words that come out of Obama’s mouth are what comes from his heart. Obama is an angry, confused person and if not lead in his words, they will sound as such. The man needs counseling.
Thanks for the information. This confirms my opinion that his remark was not innocent as Barack claims. Nor is this the first time that something like this has happened.
The 3 AM e-mail that chose Biden as his running mate doubtless led to a 3 AM phone call to Hillary that she was not chosen as VP. It was as if to say “Hey Hillary. Can you handle that 3AM phone call?” It was pointed because she had asked that question of him during the campaign.
At an earlier date in the campaign for the Democratic nomination, he got a great laugh from his audience for no apparent reason. The video shows him talking, with his hand against his face, with the middle finger extended, supposedly scratching his cheek. His audience laughed, and he laughed with them. His audience got it, I didn’t (until the second viewing). Had I been present, this very un-Presidential behavior would have been completely lost on me.
Obama’s sly nastiness is not what I’m looking for in a President. I find it very low, mean and vindictive. It’s not magnanimous. Most politicians are better than this.
Reagan and both Presidents Bush were always kind to their political opponents. McCain is full of soothing words. Biden was recently kind, even if awkwardly, to Hillary Clinton. Reagan and Palin rhetoric is similar in being hard on the ideas and issues, but not personally mean. If Obama wins, his acceptance speech will insult Republicans. He’s no unifier. He’s more of a spit on the grave, now that I’ve won I want everyone to know it, type person.
What about when he later said (on Letterman) that Palin is just lipstick for McCain’s policies, was that sexist? Definitely.
and just ask Trent Lott.
Now that is HILARIOUS!!! Sure hope McCain gets to see this, and since it’s been proven that laughter adds to our lifespan, he should be good for another 30+ years!
Was a true epiphany for me--and I am so grateful for it!
And--if Clarence Thomas ever were to run for President--he'd get my vote, and probably 99% of the votes from us Freepers! But then--I think he--and we--are blessed to have him as a member of our SCOTUS!
When pigs -- with or without lipstick -- fly !!
Thanks, and if anyone should want to use it, please feel free to do so.
” The writer put Obama’s words together in the above article purposely omitting the long pause, the stuttering, the ahhh, and ummm, before Obama threw out the jabbing line “lipstick on a pig.” That line, delivered as it was (you know, they call it “timing”) was definately scripped to call attention to Palin’s joke about difference between hockey moms and pit bulls being lipstick. In delivering his words as he did...and saying “putting lipstick on a pig,” the reference was clear that he was making a connection for his audience between Palin and a pig. His own audience there at that appearance in Virginia saw the jab for what it was, and for whom it was intended to slam. They erupted in laughter and applause. They wouldn’t have responded that way if they just thought Obama was referring to McClain’s economic policies. That wouldn’t have made them laugh so hysterically.”
Agree with you. Obama often lapses into his late night talk show host routine. This comment was timed, and delivered for impact.
He tried to weasel out of it but in my and my wifes opinion knew what he was doing, and so did the audience.
We don’t need a comedian for a president................
In any case, Obama is a nasty, bitter man. Furthermore, he has a tin ear and seems to be really prone to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. I think the whole “pig” remark just called attention to this.””
Does NOT give me a warm and fuzzy feeling to think that this person who has a “tin ear” and “prone to saying the wrong thing at the wrong time might be in the White House and talking to the heads of other countries or taking the 3 AM phone call.
Or Bob Packwood, or Tom DeLay or Robert Bork, or Richard Nixon....we could go on.
It was important for the RNC to respond, if for no other reason than to show disaffected Hillary supporters that the Republicans will defend Palin, unlike the Democrats who did nothing to defend Hillary against the same kind of attacks. You should see how much this means to them. They are flocking to McCain/Palin in droves!
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.