Andrew Sullivan, one of my favorite writers and a huge Barack Obama supporter, reacts to the Senator's "lipstick on a pig" remark on his blog:For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?I have a lot of respect for Sullivan and I'm happy to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. BUT his post bends over backwards to dismiss the remark completely.
Can he seriously contend that the crowd at the rally would have reacted to the mere mention of the word "lipstick" as enthusiastically IF they hadn't connected it to what's become the most memorable catchphrase of Palin's RNC speech? (I'd say no.)
I agree the sexism charge is probably a bit much. But didn't Obama rake McCain over the coals for his equally stupid, and out of context, "100 years" quip? (I'd say yes.)
Is the GOP posturing? (OF COURSE they are!)
However, I'd argue that this was clearly a blunder on Obama's part, and as such, more than just a little newsworthy.
5 comments:
Every election year, someone rolls out the "lipstick on a pig" quote and the crowd goes crazy.
Here's Dick Cheney saying the same thing four years ago to an even louder cheer. In fact, they cheered so loudly, he took a curtain call, saying "you want to hear that again?" and then repeated the phrase to more applause.
McCain, of course, used it a couple times, but his timing and tired delivery couldn't garner the same applause.
McCain, in his ad, accuses Obama explicitly of calling Palin a pig, which is certainly false. I'm sure you can draw the partisan line on folks that will interpret the crowd's response, but to say that Obama was calling Palin a pig is a sleazy stretch of truth.
Between that and the 'teaching sex to kindergartners' ad, what little respect for McCain that I had (and I had a lot,) is all gone now.
And it should be said that Sullivan wasn't a 'huge Obama supporter' until the past couple weeks, thanks to McCain's selection of Palin and the questionable campaign he's run thus far. If you look back at his posts, he was still hesitant to back Obama, but presented with the alternative, feels it's the only route to go now.
The Cheney and McCain quotes that I've been hearing are irrelevent because, as I said, the "pit bull with lipstick" remark was a huge tagline (a spontaneous slogan if you will) that came out of the RNC.
Cheney's use of it to reference Kerry or McCain's regarding a healthcare bill just DON'T have that same point of reference.
When I heard Obama say it, my jaw dropped. In retrospect, I don't think he meant to say it. But it was still a fuck up. Period.
McCain created a similar jaw dropping moment for me in 2000 when asked if Colin Powell would have a place in a McCain administration. McCain enthusiastically said "yes," and referring to Powell's high approval rating and popularity at the time, added that Powell could name his job because he was the "500 pound gorilla" in the GOP tent. E-fucking-gads! You could see him cringe after saying it. I was surprised nothing came out of it.
McCain, in his ad, accuses Obama explicitly of calling Palin a pig, which is certainly false. I'm sure you can draw the partisan line on folks that will interpret the crowd's response, but to say that Obama was calling Palin a pig is a sleazy stretch of truth.
I'm not sure if it rises to the level of "sleazy" just yet, but I agree that the McCain camp is posturing. BUT, that's politics, isn't it.
I'll repeat that the Obama team's reference to McCain's offhand "100 years" remark, IN CONTEXT, bears little resemblence to how it's been used against him to characterize his foreign policy perspective on Iraq.
That McCain has lost his luster for some by engaging in "politics as usual" is totally understandable. But, I can't say that the other side is squeaky clean either. I'll cite the manner in which Bill Clinton was characterized as a racist during the Dem primaries, as one example. To suggest that the Obama team didn't play a role in that will only cause me to invoke Michael Corleone and reply "NOW who's being naive Kay?" :)
I'm not suggesting that two wrongs make a right. But, I just see it as business as usual.
Frankly, I'm more upset with McCain over the cynical pick of Palin.
Finally, I'd beg to differ with you regarding Sullivan's support. I've been reading his blog regularly for close to two years -- even before he found a home at the Atlantic Monthly site -- (BTW, I found THND from a Daily Dish link) and he's clearly been on the bandwagon AT LEAST since Obama's speech after the Ted Kennedy endorsement.
Sullivan liked the idea of a McCain/Obama match up. But, I've never sensed ANY RELUCTANCE in him to be a booster for the latter's cause. He's been using terms like "transformational" about Obama for a while.
I think we'll end up arguing semantics on the 'huge' part of being a Obama supporter. Sure, he's been behind Obama, but he's referenced several times that he's not enthusiastic about it, and is only voting Democrat because he feels Republicans have strayed too far away from the conservatism he knows and loves.
Fair enough. It's been my impression that Sullivan has clearly been more than a little enthusiastic about the Obama candidacy for a long while. But, what's a few months between friends, eh ;)
BTW, I just realized I've been reading Sullivan for at least SEVEN years. I remembered a very moving Dish post put up the day after 9/11 (how time flies).
And RE: Republicans have strayed too far away from the conservatism he knows and loves.
I'll only add...Amen to that brother!
Post a Comment