Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ma, they're picking on me! That's what I hear when the McCain campaign claims, falsely, that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig. At a campaign stop, Obama used a familiar analogy when talking about McCain's sudden use of change as a campaign theme:
"John McCain says he's about change, too -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That's just calling the same thing something different."With a laugh, he added: "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it's still going to stink after eight years."
And the McCain camp immediately freaked out and said that Obama is calling Palin a pig. And once again, my teeth set on edge at the utterly hypocritical bullshit being shoveled out. Never mind that McCain and a bevy of Republicans leaders have used the same analogy repeatedly. Balko nails this one perfectly:
When did the right become a bunch of politically correct whiners, looking to interpret every comment in the way most likely to give offense? Jesus, what phonies. I think I've heard the word "sexist" come from the mouth of someone in a Brooks Brothers suit more times in the last two weeks than I have in my entire life.
Either Sarah Palin is a pit-bull, or she's a fragile woman with delicate sensibilities whom we'll all need to tiptoe around for the next four years.
She can't be both.
Unfortunately, to the people these complaints are aimed at, she can in fact be both. Just like Christians can be 80% of the population and hold 95% of the positions of power in the country AND be a poor persecuted minority on the verge of being rounded up into prison camps by those evil humanists who hold little political power.
And by the way, Obama's response was perfect: spare me the phony outrage.
Politics
Comments
My mother was using that saying before Sarah Palin was born, and she didn't consider it sexist. If Palin can't put on her big girl pants and face tough questions instead of putting on a false outrage in the hopes that people won't actually think, she has no place running for any office.
Posted by: Lisa D | September 11, 2008 9:33 AM
Actually Balko gets it wrong by falling in with the main rethuglican talking point. Obama wasn't referring to Palin at all, but to McCain's policies. To spin this in relation to whether Palin should be able to take it or not is irrelevant and maintains focus where the rethuglicans want it, on Palin!
Obama's comment had nothing to do with Palin, yet even Obama supporters are maintaining that link....I worry about this election.
Posted by: Lorax | September 11, 2008 9:36 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 11, 2008 9:36 AM
Palin, ethics and cronyism
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 11, 2008 9:49 AM
Okay, I ain't got the time. Somebody else, please, send Heart an e-mail and tell them to make an ad for Obama that with a couple of stanzas of their newest release, "Lipstick On A PigCain"
Posted by: democommie | September 11, 2008 9:52 AM
As soon as I heard of this "controversy", it brought this commercial from The Guardian to mind.
Posted by: Shygetz | September 11, 2008 9:56 AM
Didn't you know. This isn't his first sexist offense. He called a reporter "sweetie" last may. Apparently he is both elitist and sexist. /end sarcasm
Posted by: Genuinely Doug | September 11, 2008 10:03 AM
I saw Obama's response yesterday live and I came away thinking that Obama has lost this election. He is not hitting back quick and hard enough. If he had just said "spare me the phony outrage" that would of been fine but he droned on for a while. Ugh ... i would of thought they learned something from the last election with Kerry.
Posted by: yoshi | September 11, 2008 10:03 AM
Assuming that Obama was even talking about Palin (he wasn't) it's still ludicrous to complain about this. In her speech, Palin declared herself and every other hockey mom a female pit bull. Declaring to the world you're a bitch and then whining that someone called you a pig is pretty... bitchy. Which in hindsight makes makes perfect sense. Perhaps we should all get behind the "Palin is a bitch" slogan.
Posted by: KevinS | September 11, 2008 10:15 AM
KeviS,
Yes, please do that. I think that's a swell idea.
Posted by: heddle | September 11, 2008 10:20 AM
"Palin is a liar." is good enough for me.
Posted by: Dave X | September 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Pitbull Owners Blast Palin
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | September 11, 2008 10:40 AM
Shygets,
The video is perfect.
Posted by: Dr X | September 11, 2008 10:42 AM
I'm starting to wonder, is this really hypocrisy, or do these people actually believe themselves? I think bill maher put it best on this election:
Is there anything you can say that is so stupid that the people won't believe it because you forgot to put "lol" at the end?
I think that was back when they were still harping on the elitist BS. We've gone way off the deep end since those good old days.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 11, 2008 10:57 AM
on the pit bull theme again, somebody needs to link this thread to this other thread, if only because of the cute doggie picture.
(pit bulls are such great dogs. wish i could have one again.)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | September 11, 2008 11:02 AM
Coriolis, quoting Bill Maher:
Maybe that explains why Maher is anti-vaccine and denies the germ theory of disease. Whoever explained those to must have accidentally included an "lol".
Posted by: heddle | September 11, 2008 11:11 AM
This bullshit is seriously beginning to make me physically ill. November 7 can't come soon enough.
And as it happens, the irony of John McCain complaining about "sexism" is almost too much to bear.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 11, 2008 11:34 AM
Heddle, Bill Maher is a comedian. He makes jokes. In this case he puts something together better then I could've. The fact that he's a moron in alot of his convictions is not unknown to me.
I can enjoy his wittiness without having to buy all his other bullshit. One doesn't always have to make a personality cult out of everyone he sometimes he agrees with ;P.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 11, 2008 11:56 AM
Coming from supporters of the campaign that tarred everything anyone associated with the Clinton campaign said or did, this indignation is pretty rich. If you can't remember more than a few months ago, please google "clinton racist tactics". What goes around comes around. But of course, I forgot we are talking about the "chosen one". He is always right and everyone else is always wrong.
Posted by: Ted Eich | September 11, 2008 11:57 AM
If anyone still fostered the naive impression that this election was going to be fought on any higher ground that 2004's (including Obama), then I hope they've been disabused of that notion. McCain, in the full throes of his Faustian descent, intends to fight every bit as dirty venally as Bush/Rove ever did, and Obama is going to have to be faster, smarter, more ruthless than the Repugs to have a chance. We've lost the last two elections because the Democrats tried to fight like "gentlemen" on some sort of higher "talk about the issues" plane.
Talk about the issues, fine--but if the Dems don't learn how to play hardball they're going to throw this election away, too. The majority of Americans, sad to say, are idiots who vote on the basis of irrational, gut-level instincts--instincts that haven't been effectively reachable by glorious rhetoric since FDR. McCain needs to be shown brutally what a flip-flopper and panderer he's become, and they need to be extremely forthright about calling a spade a spade in Palin, who's a liar and an arbitrary authoritarian, as well as being dangerously unqualified to take over when (not if) McCain dies in office.
Posted by: gary l. day | September 11, 2008 11:58 AM
I'm starting to get a bit tired of people criticizing Obama for "not hitting back hard enough." He's hitting back plenty hard, while sticking to his principled stance about how this aspect of politics needs to change. It just rarely gets reported in anywhere near a timely fashion. I'm pretty sure Obama "gets it." He did run neck and neck with a Clinton, you know, after Hillary had been all but crowned the Democratic nominee by pundits. He knows what happened to Kerry as well as you do.
Could he still lose? Yes, of course. I've said all along this will be a very close election, and never took those polls showing Obama with a strong lead seriously; it merely reflected the fact that the conservative Xn base was lukewarm about McCain. Palin changed that (I saw it in my own parents); now they're energized and the polls are reflecting that. But folks like my parents were ALWAYS going to hold their noses and vote for McCain anyway; no way, no how, the religious right would vote for a Democrat, especially not a black man with a funny name. The polls changed; the underlying reality didn't.
What matters is who comes out to vote. Period. Polls are just one (flawed) indicator. And it's no secret that voters are easily taken in by Rove Squad tactics.
So yeah, Obama could lose. I hope not. I'm volunteering to help register voters in Nevada for his campaign this weekend to do my small part on his behalf. But I admire him greatly for sticking to his guns, for appealing to people's higher natures rather than their base instincts, for telling them they are smart enough to see through the lies. Maybe just enough voters will wake up and finally "hear" him.
We DO need to change the level of political discourse in this country, but until a candidate takes a strong, principled stand -- rather than panicking at the first dip in the polls and resorting to the same tactics because they're so terrified of losing -- nothing will change.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | September 11, 2008 12:14 PM
Posted by: Taz | September 11, 2008 12:20 PM
I may have missed someone mentioning this but there is tape out now of McCain using the same exact phrase when speaking about H. CLinton policies.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 12:24 PM
yes reading failure. Missed that link Ed. sorry.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 12:26 PM
Jennifer, it really ought to be the reporters job to determine when somebody is telling the truth or not. However, as has become obvious, they aren't going to do it.
In that sense, Obama does need to "fight back", and call Mccain&co on their lies. I think this is what most people are calling on him to do. Personally I think he's doing it, but largely in a respectful manner (i.e. saying they misrepresent things instead of lying, etc.). The problem is that apparently that won't be covered extensively unless he becomes alot more rude.
Still, apart from the principle of it, there is a limit to how nasty (should I say "uppity") a black man can be before it backfires, especially towards a white woman. I think he's doing as well as he can up to now - the problem is alot of his base will probably be turned off if he went into the gutter with his opponents. And unfortunately the republican base don't have such morals.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 11, 2008 12:28 PM
Mike Huckabee - The Voice of Reason
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/11/huckabee_calls_on_mccain-palin.html
belipsticked pigs must be flying. ;)
Posted by: sdg | September 11, 2008 12:32 PM
So it's ok to call Sarah Palin a pitbull in lipstick (which would imply she's a "bitch" in the original sense of the word), but not a pig....or a celebrity?
Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 12:42 PM
@Adrienne - your question is actually irrelevant. first of all, it was an analogy which means that even if the comparison was between palin and the pig, he would not have been calling her a pig. secondly, palin was not what was being compared to the pig. mccain's ideas were being compared to the pig (not called pigs).
Posted by: sdg | September 11, 2008 12:52 PM
Oh lighten up already, sdg. I realize that Palin was not in fact being called a pig. I should have put a ":-)" or a "LOL" at the end of my comment to help people clue in that it was a joke, huh?
Posted by: Adrienne | September 11, 2008 12:58 PM
sdg:
I would never call Sarah Palin a pig. I do call her lots of other things, but I actually like pigs. They're intelligent and they taste great--Sarah Palin, about the first, not so much; about the second, I won't be finding out. Now, I would call her a hagfish.
Posted by: democommie | September 11, 2008 1:01 PM
I agree with Yoshi, Obama needs to be a bit more concise. Quick, to the point, firm.
Posted by: Andrea | September 11, 2008 1:01 PM
@Adrienne - yes, yes you should have.
Posted by: sdg | September 11, 2008 1:11 PM
I'd like to see this on TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
Posted by: Taz | September 11, 2008 1:49 PM
"Ah, the old "he did it too" defense. Did that used to work with your mother? It seems to be a favorite with conservatives these days. In this case the facts are clear. Obama is right and the McCain campaign is a bunch of lying hypocrites."
Ah, the old avoid the main point of the argument tactic. Apparently that works pretty good in your crowd but have you ever tried it on the outside? In case you missed it, this is the point: One reason Obama won the democratic primary was by painting the Clinton's as racists. Everything anyone in the Clinton camp did or said was parsed for possible tenuous racist connections (again, please do the google search mentioned previously - think Bob Kerry, Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, etc. etc.). For this group to now get as indignant as it has over the fact that the McCain camp interpreted this (either in reality or for political reasons)as a slight towards Palin is hypocritical, disingenuous, and/or delusional. And to throw some gas on the flames, I think it is much more credible that this was in fact an attempt at a joke or a double entendre than some of the things the Obamaites labeled as racist against their opponents. You all seem to forget that Palins "lipstick/pitbull" comment was nationally covered and Obama's comment came a week later. I don't know Obama and maybe he was just to dense to realize how it sounded, but I'll guarantee that if that line was written in his speech by a staffer, the staffer meant it to be interpreted the way the audience clearly interpreted it. I actually think it was pretty funny. But what do I know, I'm just a political realist and not a worshiping whiner.
Posted by: tdeim2 | September 11, 2008 2:15 PM
In a world of candy cane skies and chocolate muffin trees, maybe.
Posted by: NJ | September 11, 2008 2:30 PM
i am 52 years old. I am a first time voter. I live in a battleground state. I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!!
Posted by: mii | September 11, 2008 2:32 PM
I am 52 years old. I am a first time voter. I live in a battleground state. I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!!
Posted by: mii | September 11, 2008 2:33 PM
I am 52 years old. I am a first time voter. I live in a battleground state. I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!!
Posted by: mii | September 11, 2008 2:34 PM
I am 52 years old. I am a first time voter. I live in a battleground state. I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!!
Posted by: mii | September 11, 2008 2:35 PM
But what do I know, I'm just a political realist and not a worshiping whiner.
Political realist?
...over the fact that the McCain camp interpreted this (either in reality or for political reasons)as a slight towards Palin is hypocritical, disingenuous, and/or delusional...
If you actually heard/read the transcripts, you would know Obama was referring directly, clearly, and without question to McCain's policies NOT Palin. So I disagree with your hypothesis that you are a realist in any sense of the word.
Posted by: Lorax | September 11, 2008 2:35 PM
I am 52 years old. I am a first time voter. I live in a battleground state. I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!!
Posted by: mii | September 11, 2008 2:37 PM
I am 52 years old. I am a first time voter. I live in a battleground state. I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!!
Posted by: miiiii | September 11, 2008 2:38 PM
tdeim2 - First of all, what's with phrases like "chosen one" and "worshiping whiner" you feel it necessary to put in your responses? Nothing in this post validates them, and they certainly don't pertain to the subject of this thread, which is the fact that the McCain campaign in this case is being completely dishonest. Is it boilerplate? You have to work the bullshit "Obama worship" meme into every discussion, no matter how tenuous the connection, right? Second, if you think examples of Obama campaign dishonesty are pertinent, then give them. If you think you have facts on your side then bring the facts, don't expect everyone else to look them up for you. You don't even mention a specific example, just weak-ass "they did it all the time" crap. Hell, I might even agree with you about some of the examples, not being an "Obama worshiper". You, on the other hand, can't even bring yourself to admit that this is one clear example of obvious political bullshit from McCain. You must be some kind of McCain (or Palin) worshiper.
Posted by: Taz | September 11, 2008 3:07 PM
I should have known better. I am well aware that Obamaites are idol worshipping zombies. I guess it is just my eternal optimism that thinks maybe if I try hard enough I can get one to understand a simple argument or address a simple point. Silly me, I should know by now that ad hominem attacks behind righteous indignation are the order of the day. Please continue on with your faith-based support of your savior. Ignore his past of prolific accusations of racism in his political opponents that seemed unfounded to objective observers but happened to help him win the primary, and continue pretending that you never in your life heard someone make a veiled joke or slight by way of a double entendre using a well worn phrase in a particular context that gives it a new meaning. You are, after all, living in Obabmaland - that well known location east of bumf**k and close to Psychosisville. But on a lighter note, by all reason, McCain should not stand a chance to win this election. Yet the race is currently tied. It is at once both beyond my wildest dreams and almost within grasp that he will actually pull it off. If that happens, the ensuing river of tears-of-sadness of the Obamafaithful will surely bring joy to my heart.
Peace.
Posted by: tdeim2 | September 11, 2008 3:07 PM
miii
I hope you vote as often as you post.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | September 11, 2008 3:10 PM
Next the McCain camp will complain that Obama was insulting the 72 year old McCain by alluding to his age when Obama said "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it's still going to stink after eight years."
Posted by: bastion | September 11, 2008 3:28 PM
Posted by: Taz | September 11, 2008 3:29 PM
bastion, That started about 2 minutes after the feigned outrage about the lipstick. It just hasn't gotten as much attention, probably because the lipstick comment seemed more controversial. What would you rather focus on: "my opponent is sexist" or "my opponent thinks old people smell"?
Posted by: Odie | September 11, 2008 4:44 PM
democommie, how DARE you compare Palin to a hagfish! My ex-mother-in-law IS a hagfish, and she would be highly offended to be lumped in the same category as SP. (She's actually a fairly nice lady - compared to her daughter)
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | September 11, 2008 5:41 PM
The best way (and possibly the tactic (some) actual voters employ) to deal with such silly-ass shit as lipstick on pigs, or lipstick on collars, or pigs caught under a gate, or pigs in a blanket is to appreciate the metaphor and ignore the image.
This is usually how metaphor and simile and allusion is processed by a rational mind.
In many cases revealed by this presidential campaign the proper response is no response. And a pointed one at that.
Unless we really want America run by playground rejects. Bridges to Nowhere and Tax Breaks my ass. What about protecting freedom and encouraging responsibility?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | September 11, 2008 8:05 PM
Oh, almost forgot:
E Pluribus Unum. It doesn't just happen.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | September 11, 2008 8:10 PM
Taz: of course he hasn't given any examples. What were you expecting?
tdeim2 reminds me of the unknown yob who wrote "Obama bin Laden" (in chalk - go figure) over and over again near the train I catch to work a couple of years ago. It's not enough for people like that to win; they have to gloat in as irritating and public a fashion as possible in order to let their inner two-year-old get out.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | September 11, 2008 8:50 PM
Posted by: llewelly | September 12, 2008 12:56 AM
All we're gonna get from both sides in this PC election season is card playing. One's gonna play the gender card for all it's worth; the other, the race. Nauseating on both sides.
Posted by: T's Grammy | September 12, 2008 8:30 AM
"If you think you have facts on your side then bring the facts"
"You haven't given any to ignore."
"Taz: of course he hasn't given any examples. What were you expecting?"
Are you people really that stupid, or just cynical disingenuous liars? Or maybe you just can't read since otherwise you would have seen the following in my previous posts:
please google "clinton racist tactics".
(again, please do the google search mentioned previously - think Bob Kerry, Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, etc. etc.).
Perhaps you don't know how to do a google search? Would you like me to list 10,000 links for you below? Or maybe you wouldn't know how to do use a link either? So am I supposed to paste the full text from 10,000 stories - but of course then we are back to the question of whether you can read or not, or you would start questioning my choice of fonts.
And what exactly does your feigning ignorance on this subject say about you? That you have never heard of Hillary or Bill Clinton and have not come across the 1000's of stories of the danger of her supporters not voting for Obama? And therefore you obviously have no idea why they are upset with the Obama campaign? So apparently you have paid zero attention to this election until approximately 1-2 weeks ago, correct? So tell me, since you seem to know so little about Obama and the campaign to date, why exactly are you now supporting him? Are all of his supporters as vacuous as dishonest as you?
"It's not enough for people like that to win; they have to gloat in as irritating and public a fashion as possible in order to let their inner two-year-old get out"
Ooooooh...looks like you are already getting worried about losing, and once again we see ad hominem attacks behind righteous indignation. The only intelligent comment in this whole thread was from T's Grammy "All we're gonna get from both sides in this PC election season is card playing. One's gonna play the gender card for all it's worth; the other, the race. Nauseating on both sides."
Posted by: tdeim2 | September 12, 2008 10:31 AM
tdeim2,
Don't be an idiot and leave the job to the blog readers to google for reputable sources supporting your own damn argument. Post the damn links yourself. Yes, I can google quite well, thank you, but I am not going to rummage through the crap to find a reputable source.
- GD
PS I am not an Obama supporter.
Posted by: Genuinely Doug | September 12, 2008 10:56 AM
Genuinely Doug,
Fair enough comment if you've come in late and only read the latter posts - but I think you may have a mistaken view of my main point which got side-tracked by these obtuse comments to "show me the proof". My main point was not a specific allegation that Obama made against Clinton that I believe to be false. My original post was how rich it was to see the indignation of Obama and his supporters over McCain and his camp finding insult in a statement that could be viewed as innocuous. The irony was that the Obama camp played this card relentlessly throughout the primary with Clinton. Thus, my point wasn't about specific allegations, but about the mountain of supposed racial slights inflicted on Obama by Clinton and her surrogates and how hypocritical it is to now get indignant over McCain's indignation over the lipstick comment (yes, very convoluted). If you did the google search I suggested you would have seen the proof of how prevalent the Clinton-racist meme was in the number of hits - that was the point, not to read the specific links. This is all political theater on both sides. Politics is hardball and everyone in it knows this. It is just a personal flaw of mine that I find it particularly irksome when people actually believe their man is taking the higher road despite piles of evidence to the contrary. It seems doubly cynical to me and that's coming from a political cynic.
Posted by: tdeim2 | September 12, 2008 11:52 AM
Why does Obama bother with putting up ads?
He should just put up these comments - they're drive the point home better than some actor voicing-over stock footage.
Enough! Stop the phone outrage! That's all that needs be said.
Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2008 12:39 PM
Tedious2:
"It is just a personal flaw of mine that I find it particularly irksome when people actually believe their man is taking the higher road despite piles of evidence to the contrary. It seems doubly cynical to me and that's coming from a political cynic."
I know it would be too much to ask that you put some of that PILE here.
You sound like most of the legion of reichtards that make specious claims based on non-existent evidence.
Posted by: democommie | September 12, 2008 2:34 PM
And what exactly does your feigning ignorance on this subject say about you? That you have never heard of Hillary or Bill Clinton...
Heard of 'em, yes. Voted for one of them, yes. What's your point? That you can't be bothered to post a damn quote that supports your thesis?
Gee, I dunno, here's one that supports the opposite:
Geraldine Ferraro (cited from the NY Times, March 12, 2008):
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Like part of the country wasn't caught up in the concept of Hillary Clinton getting the nomination?
While I'm willing to take a pass at Bob Kerry's "secular madrassa" comment - he was one of my choices for the 1992 Dem presidential nomination before (A) he dropped out and (B) got on my nerves a few years later for supporting the vomit-inducing Communications Decency Act - the wording was a tad, well, suspicious.
...and have not come across the 1000's of stories of the danger of her supporters not voting for Obama?
What danger? Are you confusing Barack Obama with Robert Mugabe? Where are the club- and machete-wielding thugs who provide the danger element in this little vision of yours, anyway? Out watching a baseball game between the Montreal Expos and the Bad New Bears?
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | September 12, 2008 4:49 PM
tdeim, again:
I should have known better. I am well aware that Obamaites are idol worshipping zombies.
Uh, no. I'm aware he has faults. Look, I'm from the same damn city he is and I'm very, very irritated that he took a pass on changing the FISA rules back to something more, say, constitutional. He's not a perfect candidate, but no one else is, either. And the GOP pretty resorted to the same sort of mindless tokenism that they see everywhere else except where they're standing. Never mind the fact that Palin is about as "experienced" as a freshly baked loaf of bread; she's a woman, and this'll haul in the 2% of the electorate that can't count to five and actually thinks that because she's a woman, she holds the same policy positions that Hillary does even when it's clear she doesn't!
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM
tdiem2: Are you people really that stupid, or just cynical disingenuous liars?
I dunno. Are you one of those comment posters who can't seem to grasp the point? Obama made a comment that had nothing to do with Palin, and the McCain campaign and/or its supporters falsely claimed that it was about Palin.
What in the world does this have to do with comments made by actual Clinton supporters that actually were about Obama?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 12, 2008 5:28 PM
tdeim2 -
Actually I did see that. Which is why I wrote in a previous comment: See, there's a direct connection between those two quotes, which was apparently too obscure for you to grasp. Evidently it's your reading skills which need work.But I must admit your insults have cut me to the quick. To be called a liar isn't so bad, but a disingenuous liar? That's a low blow. /sarcasm
Posted by: Taz | September 12, 2008 10:03 PM
Ah, I see the Obamettes are still batting 0.000 with respect to intelligent comments. Good to know, it increases my hopes for November. I encourage all of you to get out there and talk to everyone you meet in support of your savior...I mean candidate.
And to see the attacks on grammar brought a smile to my face - this is best interpreted as the last refuge of the thoughtless. Its especially funny because, being thoughtless, the practitioners of this strategy usually turn out to be no better at grammar than at formulating a coherent thought or argument. The umbrage at my use of "danger" is particularly funny because I am sure the author is serious and thought he was onto something. I could hurl an insult at him, but he does a much better job than I could every time he opens his mouth (excuse me Chris, I meant every time you put your finger to a key board).
Your fear and anxiety about your candidate shows in every post. So keep posting - I need a good laugh now and then.
Posted by: tdeim2 | September 13, 2008 10:55 AM
Posted by: Taz | September 13, 2008 1:32 PM
tdiem2 And to see the attacks on grammar brought a smile to my face....
How about my comment that you've been spending your time comparing apples to oranges?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 13, 2008 1:44 PM
I know someone has already said it before (hell, even I have said it before):
Didn't John McCain use exactly this phrase in regard to Hillary Clinton's Healthcare plan, several times?
Republican fake outrage over this issue is simply playing as hypocrisy.
Republicans, grow up and get over it, then start talking about real issues-DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 13, 2008 1:45 PM