home

Thursday Open Thread

Apparently lipstick was the story of the day yesterday. I was barely aware of the controversy. I wonder how much it penetrated the American consciousness? I'm guessing not at all, that it was a "Freak Show" story for the Media. So I am going to ignore it.

All your non-Palin comments can go here. You can also add to the underdiscussed Ms. Palin as well if you wish.

This is an Open Thread.

< Republicans: Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote | Obama on Letterman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The irony (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:37:12 AM EST
    about the whole "lipstick" thing is that Obama really wasn't being sexist. But he's gotten that reputation now and has to be doubly careful. You can't do whatever you want in the primaries and before the convention and think it won't come back to haunt you. The fact that Obama has never run a tough campaign against the GOP is really showing. If he wants to win, he needs to completely can his current campaign team. They are simply awful.

    He just being typically incautious. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:30:51 AM EST
    He just can't afford to do that.  Ask Hillary about "baking cookies".  Who knows which unfortunate ad lib will follow a politician around for the rest of their career?

    I think if Obama was in front of a more tepid crowd, he'd be less tempted to crack wise.  This is where sticking to the issues and details actually helps.  Instead of fish and lipstick, talk about the kind of concrete things people can relate to.

    I wonder some whether Olbermann's posts on Daily Kos have encouraged his unprofessional conduct.  It's not that he didn't tend towards that behavior already, but having an enthusiastic and receptive audience reward him for it could add motivation.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:06:36 AM EST
    Obama actually has a reputation for being a sexist per se.  He has many supporters and surrogates that are far more sexist than he is.  Ex. Rep Cohen.

    Obama's camp reflects poorly on him sometimes, but I don't think that makes Obama a sexist.  

    Parent

    Obama is the leader of the party (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:24:18 AM EST
    As such, he is expected, to, you know, lead.

    Unfortunately, on sexism and on other issues important to Democrats, he has failed to do so.

    Parent

    it depends on your perspective (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:37:37 AM EST
    two different people will look at the same event and see two different things.

    For example, when he called the reporter "sweetie" in what SOME people thought was a very dismissive manner.  You could easily interpret that as being sexist in that he probably had never used a similarly dismissive term with a male reporter.

    But, at the same time you could also understand that sweetie just may be a term that he grew up around if his grandparents used it all the time in a loving way.

    The difference is that many of us grew up with terms in our childhood both good and bad that are now interpreted differently and we learn to purge them from our vocabulary.  Barack even admitted as much in his response to the sweetie incident.  Someone on the national stage needs to work a little harder to avoid even the appearance of "isms".

    He did the same type of thing (in some people's eyes) during the PA primary.  In an attempt to belittle Clinton, he started calling her Annie Oakley because of her story about her father teaching her how to use guns.  It made it sound as if he was saying Hillary was a little "girl" no father would have taught a little "girl" how to use a gun.

    You just need to watch how you do or say things to avoid the perception.  You can belittle your female opponent if you want to without it coming off as sexist.  It was done successfully with the "sniper fire" incident.

    So, who knows if he really is or isn't sexist.  But, he has said some things that could be interpreted either way.  In the end it doesn't really matter whether he is or not.  What matters is whether the voters think he is or isn't.  And, whether you keep providing fodder that your opponent can use to accuse you of it.

    If this latest "lipstick" incident was a scripted comment, then someone on his staff MUST have realized it could be related back to Palin's use of the lipstick analogy.  If no one did, they aren't as bright as I assumed.  And, it does sound as if it was scripted because both Obama and Biden have been using similar language.
    On the chance it wasn't scripted, then someone on his staff needs to remind him to stop inserting off the cuff remarks into his speeches.  Because, right or wrong, that incident loast him about two days of message control when there are very few days left.

    Parent

    I thought I read here (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:45:46 AM EST
    that Obama wasn't the only one to use the "lipstick" comment - Biden used it earlier in the day, in almost the same comments, so it sounds like it was a coordinated effort, and not "off-the cuff".

    Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Parent

    i heard that as well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:55:43 AM EST
    and also heard that at least one other suurogate (can't remember who) used similar language.

    Parent
    I've heard the expression.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:31:24 AM EST
    all my life from all kinds of people.

    Seriously...what could Obama/Biden hope to gain by calling Palin a pig in this hyper-sensitive politically correct climate?  Even if they are chauvinist pigs, they aren't that stupid.

    It's a figure of speech people....c'mon.

    Parent

    I use it too (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:41:48 AM EST
    But when your opponent used the "lipstick" analogy the week prior, and (like the face scratching), when your audience gets the meaning, then that's what it really is - whether you intended it or not.  The audience got that he was calling her a pig and McCain an old fish.

    Perception is reality.

    Parent

    I think he should keep saying it (none / 0) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    and so should his surrogates.

    Because the media is fascinated with it and then Obama folks can go on the airwaves as long as the media remains fascinated and hammer home the point of the comment which is that John McCain's proposals are more of the same failed and destructive Bush/Cheney/Republican Party policies.  Everytime they have to explain it, they get to take a meaningful shot at the McCain/Palin ticket...

    That's what Republicans do - and that is how they manipulate the media into getting them on to say what they really want repeated over and over and over again so that every person passing a TV that is tuned to a news outlet will hear their message.

    Parent

    and... (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:16:44 AM EST
    fairytale is a figure of speech.  And, so is "roll of the dice" and "arrogant" and "shuck & jive" and that didn't stop the media and surrogates from claiming there was "evil" intent behind the use of the phrases.

    People still insist there was evil intent in those phrases.  And, to borrow your same point, how would pi$$ing off over 90% of the black voters be helpful to Hillary's campaign?

    Throughout this entire campaign, racial remarks have been treated as though they were more "real" and more "dangerous" while sexist remarks have in general been laughed off or dismissed as not really there.  Previously the excuse was that it was just happening because it was Clinton.  YOu recall them saying it is ok to call her a b!tch because she really is a b!tch.  they made the assertion then that it wouldn't have happened to "another" woman.  Well guess what.  Along comes another woman, and it starts all over again.

    Parent

    The media... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    is out to sell controversy, the surrogates would sell their mother for a nickel to get their horse to win...what can I tell ya.

    I didn't agree with all the pc claims of racism against the Clintons, and I don't agree with all the pc claims of sexism against the Obama camp.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Amiss on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    Guess who wrote a book about the saying?

    McCain's former aide, Torie Clarke.

    LINK

    Parent

    Evidently, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:20:06 AM EST
    McCain's campaign manager wrote a book called...wait for it...Lipstick on a Pig...come on, you can't make this up!

    Parent
    Just a comparison (none / 0) (#66)
    by alasreso on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    But earlier in the race McCain made the precise same comment about Hilary.  So when McCain said it, it was all good no big hula bout that but since it came from Obama McCain is making a big deal about it.  In all honesty I do not believe he was making a comment about Palin but if they feel she is a pig then I guess you can say it relates.

    Parent
    He didn't make it about Hillary (none / 0) (#81)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    he made it about her health care plan.

    Parent
    I am aware (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:55:49 AM EST
    of the remarks Obama made over the primary that had sexist overtones.  I still think it is a stretch to call him a sexist, just as it is too much to call the Clintons racist.  

    Read this article about Rep Cohen from Tennessee, who said of Clinton "Glenn Close should've just stayed in the tub."  

    Rep. Cohen Haunted By Hillary/Fatal Attraction Gaffe - WaPo

    I think Cohen's statement, and his reaction to the criticism of the statement, is much more typical of a sexist at large.  Excerpt:  "But the Memphis congressman is also indignant at the treatment he's receiving. 'Just a little joke about getting out of the race and all of a sudden I'm a misogynist,' Cohen tells us. He says EMILY's List, by working to unseat him, is 'playing speech police.'"

    To me that attitude is far more repugnant than anything Obama has said over the course of the campaign.  It is a stick-my-fingers in the ears attitude, an unwillingness to hear out why your statement might've hurt someone.  Obama apologized for the "sweetie" comment and seemed to understand it was a misstep.  Maybe that sort of humility doesn't have an effect on your perceptions, but it does on mine.  

    There are shades of sexism throughout the Democratic Party.  It isn't as though Bill Clinton is the perfect role model for male-female relations.  But, I don't have a major problem with him.  

    My problem is with the Republicans.  They don't want to give equal pay for equal work.  They don't support a concept of womankind that includes a woman's right to choose.  They don't think homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals - if you're going to refuse homosexuals equality under the law, then there's no other way to put it.  These attitudes are the poisonous ones for me.  

    Parent

    It's not an either-or (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:02:29 AM EST
    And it's not just Obama and his campaign's sexist attitudes.  He seems to have these "slips of the tongue" too frequently - hence, the acronym WORM (What Obama Really Meant).  This whole campaign season, when tells us on one hand, that "words matter", he keeps saying stupid stuff that causes unnecessary problems.  If he can't control his mouth during a campaign, how can we be sure he won't say the wrong thing to Putin or Ahmadinejad?

    It just shows his whole attitude, not just towards women who may threaten his "power", but his whole outlook on people in general - it has been fairly obvious that he is dismissive and uncomfortable around certain kinds of people because he cannot relate to them.

    Parent

    Are you serious?? (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:53:49 AM EST
    We just went through 8 years with a President who purposefully says the most asnine things he can to world leaders, and you are afraid Obama will somehow offend Putin or Ahmadinejad?  By saying what exactly?  Obama is not an @ss, and he's not a loose cannon.  Do you think that Hillary saying that we could annihilate Iran disqualifies her from dealing with world leaders?

    WORM does not refer to some vast bank of sexist things Obama said.  It refers to the positive spin put on every little thing that comes out of his mouth by the media.  

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    1. Hillary did not say we could annihilate Iran in a vacuum - she said if they nuked Israel - very different.

    2. I think Obama could offend Putin or Ahmadinejad.  He certainly manages to offend members of his own party.  Obama has the tendency to talk down to people, and he tends to misspeak.  WORM is a way for him to backpedal and CYA. WORM is not all about the media-  he himself on many occasions has out out 4 or 5 statements explaining an original one that made people mad.

    I think he is far smarter than Bush, but he too has problems communicating and relating to people when he is not giving a speech in a stadium full of adoring fans. Not a criticism - that's just not his talent.  But, I don't also see him as being a smooth diplomat, no.

    Sorry, I don't agree with you.

    Parent

    you say.... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    " Maybe that sort of humility doesn't have an effect on your perceptions, but it does on mine. "

    I tried to be very careful in my post to talk about this is general terms and view this in ways it could reasonably be viewed by EITHER side without making any comment on whether I personally perceive Obama to be a sexist.

    And, I'm probably not the best person to respond to about whether republicans think gays are equal to straights.  I am gay.  And, this time I will tell you my personal opinion.  I don't think Obama believes gays are equal to straights.  If he did, there is no way he would "welcome" bigots like Donnie McClurkin into his campaign.  If he did, he wouldn't claim that civil unions with full legal rights is equal to marriage equality.  It is not.  It is the separate but equal concept.  Ishe "better" on gay issues than republicans in general?  yes.  Is he as good or better on the issue as many other democrats? yes.  But, in the case of other democrats, they don't go around "claiming" that civilunions are equal when they support them.  They don't go around saying we have to be nice to anti-gay bigots because they views come from deeply held religious beliefs.  If Obama wants me to respect his support of gays, then get him to stop trying to convince me that his support is MORE than it is.  Yes, hissupport is better than many.  But, it is NOT equality and itis not respect.

    I was fully ready to support Obama's position on gay marriage when he said he supported getting the state OUT of the marriage business and leaving marriage to churches.  This seems the perfect solution to me to because it would be default marriage equality.  But, only if it applies to straight as well as gays.  Any gay couple with a state civil union could easily, if they wanted to, go to their gay-friendly church and get "married".  And, no one in society could logically claim that a straight union was somehow better than a gay union.  But, when I questioned his campaign further on this issue, they admitted that he only meant it for gays.  Straights would still be awarded "marriage" licenses by the state.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    I was offering my personal perspective on Obama vis-a-vis sexism.

    I understand your feelings about Obama and gay marriage.  He is more conservative than I'd like him to be (for what it is worth, I'm gay too).  But at least he is on board with same-sex benefits, civil unions and couples in California.  I think Palin and McCain would actively hurt the gay community if they were elected (Palin wanted to get gay lit out of the library for God's sake).  That's my POV.  

    Parent

    i understand (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    i just wish he would be HONEST about his positions on gays.  Don't pi$$ on my leg and try to tell me it's raining while you do it.

    Parent
    Did you ever see Cohen at work (none / 0) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    during the House Judiciary committee hearings about the DOJ scandal?

    I'd rather Emily's List stand down frankly.  That guy cares about the Constitution and he knows how to talk about it authoritatively and efffectively.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    They already stood down.  In fact they got kinda embarrassed when the primary opponent they supported started unleashing all sorts of race-baiting and anti-semitic attacks against Cohen.  You probably remember that.

    I'm still kinda glad they sent a shot across his bow.  If there are consequences for making misogynistic remarks, then maybe people will stop making them.  I'm not saying he should have been removed from office or anything.

    Parent

    I am all for discipline and I think (none / 0) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    that there are times when throwing people out of the party makes all the sense in the world to me, but I don't believe in doing that based on one comment without any reflection about what other things those people might bring to the table - that's why I asked if the commenter had seen him doing his job.  Seems to me that a comment during a heated primary should be taken in context of that person's greater portfolio of work.

    And I don't recall hearing anything about his opponent or Emily's List's eventual decision not to go any farther.  That's news to me.

    Parent

    His (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    passive agressive behavior is what has led this narrative. He simply can't take a stand against it so people think that he must agree with it.

    Parent
    GOP exploits home foreclosure crisis... (none / 0) (#73)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    LOSE YOUR HOUSE, LOSE YOUR VOTE. Jeralyn put up a thread last night and it's languishing there, with a grand total of 49 comments, by my last count.

    The GOP stole 2000 and 2004 by shaving off Democratic votes via various forms of misconduct, including SUPPRESSION of the Democratic vote.

    Let's have a bash at that topic shall we?

    Parent

    Palin? Never heard of her. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:45:29 AM EST


    Interior Department (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:53:40 AM EST
    Maybe the media should pick up on the oil companies friendly relationship with the Interior Dept. It has it all! Sex, drugs and political corruption. It's nice to know that our tax breaks to them haven't  been wasted. Maybe then the Democrat's would get back to focusing on why we need change. It seems every agency has been either corrupted or destroyed while under Republican leadership.

    I wish Obama and Biden would pick it up (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:00:09 AM EST
    as an example of Republican mismanagement.  They seem a little slow off the dime on this one.

    Parent
    Corruption allegations.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:47:21 AM EST
    will do nothing the change the mind of a likely McCain voter...apparently these people love them some corruption, they voted for Bush twice after all.

    Though the sex and drugs angle might play well with them...

    Parent

    It might change the dialogue (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:54:18 AM EST
    It might not hit the hardcore Rep, but there's still time to make the case with indies and moderates. The scandals worked well for the Dem's in 2006. And anything is better than this constant obsession with Palin from all sides!

    Parent
    True... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:18:23 AM EST
    at least it is a legit issue, unlike most of the sh*t being talked about...point taken.

    I wonder though if all these indies and moderates even exist but in our own minds and the minds of the candidates.  I don't know anybody who hasn't made up their mind already about who they are voting for.  Feels like this election season has lasted 2 years, if these undecided voters do actually exist, what more do they need to know?

    Parent

    The phantoms! (none / 0) (#38)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM EST
    I think you're right. In this divisive political climate, there are stark contrasts between the two parties. I can't image not knowing what your own priorities are.  And I believe that in the end people that actually vote do so based on those priorities.

    Parent
    Actually, (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM EST
    I only see superficial differences between the parties...that's why I decided long ago to vote for whoever doesn't have an R or a D after their name.  But that is neither here nor there:)

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    the bigger the gov't the less stuff like this will happen, right?

    Parent
    The Inspector General's Report, (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    characterizes the agency as "a culture of ethical failure".  Boy, this is a line to run with and pick up all the other Republican-corrupted agencies along the way. Come on Barack and Joe, let go.

    Parent
    No politics for me today (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:58:25 AM EST
    I worked 1 block from the WTC on 9/11.  I knew 3 people who were just having their regular Tuesday breakfasts at Windows on the World.  God bless their souls and  all the others who were taken from us that day.

    Amen brother.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:22:07 AM EST
    and I'd extend the same sentiment to all the innocent victims of terrorism and war worldwide...Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Spanish, English...everyone everywhere.  We all bleed red and all deserve a life of peace from political violence.

    Parent
    I am more motivated on days like (none / 0) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    these because I always felt that what happened on 9/11 was a massive failure on the part of our government to protect us - I have felt that way since the day it happened.  Fool that I was, I wrongly thought that the people of our country would hold the Bush Administration accountable for the failure rather than rewarding them with unnecessary wars, outrageous amounts of un-Constitutional power and re-election.  The only thing I can do for the good people who lost their lives that day is to try to preserve this democracy and this country - I don't think they would want us to give either up because that would mean that the terrorists really would have won.

    Parent
    And you for remembering them and their families. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Realleft on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    not just the lipstick. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by rise hillary rise on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    I did not see much mention of the "fish" remark that Obama made at the same event. that to me was worse-a nasty, locker room, dogwhistle phrase if I ever heard one.

    he thought he was so clever back during the primaries when he'd say things like that in reference to Clinton- like "the china's flying"
    -which made it clear to me how the guy really feels about women.

    he isn't doing much to build his case to disaffected Hillary supporters with stuff like that.

    The stinking fish thing is almost too ugly to (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by jawbone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    contemplate, much less discuss.

    And, in support of Obama's remarks having been considered, if not scripted, his initial riff against McCain being just like Bush is almost word for word from a Tom Toles cartoon.

    I followed a link to a site I never go to, but it had the cartoon and the transcript of Obama's remarks. Sheesh.

    Parent

    I had a go at the stinking fish (none / 0) (#74)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    dog-whistle quip on another thread.

    Parent
    thanks. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by rise hillary rise on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    I found that incredibly offensive. the thing about Obama is that he rarely says something that is not considered, scripted, edited or rehearsed. so for him to make that remark means he was well aware of the secondary meaning and the potential impact on the audience. just like the "bamboozled" comments.

    on the other hand, imagine what the reaction would be if, lets say, McCain said "my opponent is tap dancing around the issues?"

    I'm sure that the Obama campaign would go into overdrive, and we'd be treated to another "Special Comment" a la the RFK remark.

    who says the double standard is dead.

    Parent

    Why is it that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    evangelizing is bad unless it's about political beliefs and "our" side is the one doing it?

    From TL's "Jews for Jesus" thread:

    If you know any Jewish voters, please forward this to them. Particularly if they live in Florida. They can assess for themselves the danger of giving any voice in government to these extremist radical right groups.

    I bring this up now because a neighbor sent my wife an evangelical email yesterday which basically said "Palin=anti-woman, please forward this email widely!"

    Your bs detector is on point... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    sarc, you have a gift my friend.

    I never thought of myself as an evangelical for individual liberty before, now I do:)

    Hallelujah! All praise unto the sovereignty of the individual!  Eternal damnation for those who sin in the name of the collective!  Repent! Repent!

    Parent

    You should see the email my wife got. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    It even ended with a version of the "If you don't forward this on to 20 people w/in 1 hour bad things will happen to you" bs. Unbelievable.

    Also, it came from a "ca.gov" email address. Not sure that's an appropriate use of taxpayer's money.

    Parent

    Oh, it actually came from a (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    "jud.ca.gov" address. I thought we thought a politicized judiciary was bad?

    Parent
    Speak of the devil.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    just got a chain email about 9/11 not 5 minutes ago.

    Started out well enough, a tribute to the victims...till you got to the bottom and it went on about taking a minute to bring God into your life, forming a prayer chain, with a few cheap shots at the ACLU for good measure.  

    Way to ruin it, mysterious chain email originator dude.  At least this one wasn't taxpayer funded:)

    Parent

    Too funny. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    I think my friends know me well enough not to send any chain-type emails to me.

    fwiw, here's particularly cheery part of the the anti-Palin evangelical chain email I'm talking about:

    [...] We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, [...]


    Parent
    LOL.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    iow, they have nothing against Palin, even though she is a terrible mother who can't keep her daughter's knickers on.

    What a business that politics!

    Parent

    They're all a bunch of basturds, (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:41:27 PM EST
    you evangelical libertarian you. :)

    Parent
    For Cream City: (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53:34 AM EST
    Teacher OK after crashing into bear on a bicycle
     [AP headline]

    Oculus, sorry I missed this until now! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:03:32 AM EST
    I was tipped off to it on an ex-TLer site, bless them.  I was too busy on Thursday crashing into the brains of bearish students with backpacks -- i.e., I was teaching.

    As it happens, though, I did almost get run over by a bearish student on a bicycle.  The good news is that I'm okay, too.  The better news for that student is that I resisted the temptation to whack my bookbag into his bike spokes.  And it was early in the day, before distributing handouts in my bag to hundreds of students, so that bookbag was heavy.

    I resisted the temptation because, after all, he might still have tuition payments to make.  The deadline is next week.  After that, the next time a student on a bicycle ignores the stoplights, the headline well may read:

    Student Not OK After Crashing into Teacher with Two-Ton Bookbag!

    Parent

    Caution: Bears on Bikes (none / 0) (#59)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    Did the teacher get a traffic ticket?  Or was the bear at fault.   Bears shouldn't ride bikes, pigs shouldn't wear lipstick and bulls shouldn't be in china shops.

    Parent
    My God (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    What if the bear made off with the teacher's fanny pack and starts showing up in lipstick?  Then the difference between a teacher and a grouchy ole bear won't be lipstick anymore!

    Parent
    What's a fella to do? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:18:28 PM EST
    Here comes Bush - authorizing raids into Pakistan (which I think is usually considered to be a sovereign nation) without prior consent of the government.

    I think to myself, what an as-hole.

    Then I have to remember, unbidden, that Obama called for exactly this months ago.

    Another martini please, bartender.

    The Agonist, Moon of Alabama are covering this (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jawbone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    latest whack BushBoy is taking at a hornet's nest.

    Sean-Paul's post at The Agonist has link to NYTimes article about Bush's policy and lots of comments.

    Bernhard at Moon has link to AP article about Pakistani PM and general saying they will not tolerate such actions.

    And, Bernhard covers one such attack which, unpredictably!, didn't go well. Don't miss the comment about the appearance of Death Squads in Afghanistan.

    Moon has been covering what appears to be work arounds in military orders, with the US doing things the other NATO forces don't know about, and the Special Ops (probably, but who knows?) doing things CentCom and the Joint Chiefs may not know about. Something which Bernstein is saying Bush did in Iraq.

    What a way to run an empire!

    Anyway, browse around Moon and Agonist as they have good posts on international affairs.

    Parent

    Help me, please (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by echinopsia on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:31:18 PM EST
    I just had a meeting with my boss - something that happens twice yearly, at best.

    We are both disgusted with the Democratic Party, for very different reasons. He's a very crunchy-granola kind of guy, and also a big misogynist. Which wraps him up in hypocrisy now and then, because he freely admits that the two of us are the two smartest employees X Inc. has. Even though I am an icky gurl.

    But the comment that had me sitting there with my jaw on the floor was this one: "I follow politics on the most trustworthy and honest liberal political site available - Daily Kos."

    <boggle>

    This was in response to my claim that the Dem primary process was corrupt, five states broke the rules but only two were punished, the RBC violated its own rules by giving unearned delegates to Obama, voter fraud and intimidation in caucuses, etc - and he said he hadn't read a word about any of this. And he cited his trust of DK as proof that it therefore didn't happen.

    I promised to send him links to how Kos abandoned objective and realistic coverage this election, and drove off hundreds of readers, but just linking to TL won't be enough.

    Why isn't there a Koswatch site?

    In one funny exchange, I said, "I'm disgusted with both candidates. I think they should shoot both of them and start over." He said, "I, firstname_lastname, hereby disassociate myself from this statement made by myname. Whoever is listening. And I know someone is listening."

    The importance of "just words"-- (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jawbone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    When I've heard the "lipstick on a pig" metaphor used, it's usually about a proposal, project, plan that's considered pretty bad, and some additional details are only cosmetic and don't improve the overall quality. (Get it? Lipstick is a cosmetic....)

    That's how McCain used it to diss Hillary's healthcare plans (the early 90's version and her present one from the campaign). He did not use the phrase about her; he used it about her plans.

    Last night on Letterman, Obama explained what he meant when he used it this past week, to gleeful laughter from his audience; and then he went on to talk about smelly fish, but I digress to another possible slur. Great--simple explanation from Obama; game over. He's cleared things up.

    But, it seems to me, he went one step too far and dissed Palin herself. Per the transcript:

    Obama:  "...in Illinois, the expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea, in this case I was talking about John McCain's economic plans, that just calling them change, calling it something different, doesn't make it better, hence, lipstick on a pig is still a pig." [NB: Here's the straight forward explanation. Coulda stopped with that.]

    Dave: "Now what I like about this scenario is because they demanded, the Republicans demanded an apology."

    Obama: "Yes, they did."

    Dave: "So that means there had been a meeting at some point somewhere along the line." [NB: Dave, were you helping him out? or leading him on?]

    Obama: "All of them."

    Dave: "Yeah, they got together and they said, `You know what?  He called our vice presidential candidate a pig.'" (audience laughs)  "Well, that seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it?"

    Obama: "It does. But keep in mind that, technically, had I meant it that way, she would have been the lipstick, you see?" (audience, Dave laugh) "But now we're..."

    Dave: "I don't know, you're way ahead of me." (audience laughs)

    Obama: "Yeah, the failed policies of John McCain would be the pig."(my emphasis; my notes)

    So, by going a step too far, Obama underlines what he probably really meant with his reference to the lipstick on a pig when he was speaking at a campaign rally. Now, he makes it worse, almost, by emphasizing that McCain was a sentient human being who makes proposals, albeit bad ones, but Palin is a thing, lipstick, an inamimate object. He used lipstick to refer to Palin as an object--that's the diss.

    (It's reported, btw, that inside the Obama campaign Palin is called "Lipstick.")

    It's the old objectifying of women thing, OK? Like referring to a woman as a "piece of a$$." It's demeaning and ugly. Or photographing a woman and showing only her legs and shoes, but identifying the photo as the woman. When a part of the body of a man is shown in a photo, it's usual to caption the photo as, for example, the hand of Barack Obama. Something I picked up from Melissa over at ShakespearesSister.

    Why should a Democrat care about how a Repub female is referred to? Just recall the primary...sweeties.

    Next (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:15:39 AM EST
    It will be reported that while speaking to a group of women Barack Obama pursed his lips prior to answering a question.
    The McCain campaign sees an opening and accuses Obama, "Only an elitist like Obama would disparage purses. Sarah Palin carries a purse, is Obama saying she's bad?" The media goes off on a 24 hour frenzy of Gucchi versus Walmart. "Next on Fox News, Is it un-American to criticize purses? Some say it undermines our hunt for terrorists." "Hold my purse, Dear - an investigative report from MSNBC tonight at 10PM."

    What do the blogs scream? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:34:14 AM EST
    You have to have the hyper reactive outrage junkies get up in arms about how the media takes everything out of context.  Or something.  Like "Gucci isn't elitist!  Prada, now THAT'S elitist!".

    Parent
    again, overreaction by the media (none / 0) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:14:21 AM EST
    the syllogism used to make this a sexist remark is akin to the witch scene in the holy grail.

    it's an old, pithy saying, and I bet Palin has used it before also. It's gender neutral.

    the phrase is a well known and often used (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:31:06 AM EST
    and I don't think it would have caused a problem other than the fact that Palin had used a lipstick analogy to describe herself the week before.  If hse hadn't done that, this would not have caused a stink just like it didn't cause a stink when McCain used the phrase to describe Hillary's healthcare plan.

    But, when the most repeated line from Palin's speech was the "lipstick" line and then Obama comes out using this lipstick/pig analogy, it is very easy to take the small step to assume Obama was referencing Palin.

    Actually I still don't know if comparing your opponent to a pig is "sexist" or not.  Even if it isn't sexist, it's still calling your opponent a pig and that probably isn't a good thing.

    It wasn't "sexist" for an Obama campaign member to call Hillary a monster.  But, it wasn't a good thing either.

    Parent

    Comparing anyone to a pig, unless it's Miss Piggy, (none / 0) (#85)
    by jawbone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    is at least an insult. Unless there's some context about the brilliance of pigs or something like that.

    Comparing a woman to a pig? Get real! Sexist. Perhaps with incredible context, it might not be, but don't try it on your girlfriend, woman friend, female teacher or boss, your friends' daughters, etc.

    Parent

    But Obama said on Letterman it WAS (none / 0) (#43)
    by Exeter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    about Palin, but that what he meant was that Palin is the lipstick  and McCain's policies are the pig.  Obama is adrift right now.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#56)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:58:46 AM EST
    He never said it was about Palin.  Please don't distort the interview.

    Parent
    That was snark. right? (none / 0) (#22)
    by goldberry on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:46:02 AM EST
    EVERYBODY at work was talking about it yesterday.  It was a big, fricking deal.  
    He is in trouble, with a capital T that rhymes with P that stands for pig.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:12:28 AM EST
    Lot of people at my office brought it up, although they all seemed to be rolling their eyes about it.  So "trouble" isn't the conclusion I drew.

    Parent
    I don't recall anyone bringing it up (none / 0) (#32)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    where I work, and politics is a major discussion point here, also.

    Rather odd how different the reactions have been to the remark...

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:40:15 AM EST
    It's not like I bumped into people spontaneously discussing it around the water cooler, but I have a reputation as the "political guy" at work, so people are always talking to me about the issue of the day.  It's always informative to see their reactions.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#44)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:17:35 AM EST
    when I went into my morning deli yesterday, the clerk said, "Glad to see you're not wearing lipstick today."  I replied, "Yeah, you'll see me in lipstick when pigs fly." Everybody laughed. At work they are all Obama fans (I was a Hillary supporter) and none of them brought it up. It was like if we don't talk about it, maybe it will go away (I used to not open bills, like then I wouldn't have to pay them). But I think the story is turning as McCain may have won the battle but lose the war. In the long run this whole lipstick controversy could turn into a joke on McCain.

    Parent
    Kinsey Gaffe by Biden? (none / 0) (#26)
    by davnee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    So the CNN ticker reports that Biden answered a question yesterday where he emphatically stuck up for Clinton as a VP choice, saying she was absolutely qualified to be both president and VP and that she would have been such a great VP that she was probably a better choice than he.  It was a great statement by Biden, absolutely true and very honorable of him to say what he believed and stick up for a friend and colleague, but still I wanted to say "Oh Joe what were you thinking!"

    Context (none / 0) (#28)
    by liberalone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:00:54 AM EST
    Obama was in Lebanon, Virginia close to the NC border.  Although I am not certain, the crowd was predominately white.  

    How many of you honestly believe that even in 2008, a black man can go to the south, call a white woman a pig and receive thunderous applause from a white audience?  There is a New South but it's not that new.

    If anything, he was trying to sound folksy and relate to the crowd.

    Late to the table on this open thread, but (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    I just watched Chris Matthews evicerate a McCain representative. You can see it on My dd. It actually made me laugh and almost made me feel sorry for the guy...well not really.

    Like it or not ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    the "lipstick" thing put Obama on the defensive for about a day.  There are only fifty-something days left.

    You need all the days in your column you can get.

    I was on Conan last night, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    Insult the Comic Dog segment, with "Your Blunder War is Showing" sign. Good thing they edited to use my friend Oliver for the interview, as I was slow on the uptake.

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/muQRIUVd6Aw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/muQRIUVd6Aw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

    The Post and the comment (none / 0) (#60)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    Yeah, I know it is the NY Post. But, when I was at the grocery store last night, it was the NY POST with big headlines "Obama says that a pig with lipstick is still a pig" or something to that effect. Underneath it was Palin's picture. It really jumped out at me in the mist of the papers. I suspect others standing in line might have looked at that too. When I saw it I immediately thought of those 'other' comments and jestures he had made in the primary. Actually, my thought was, yeah, so much for the Harvard education. Crude is just crude and sooooooo unnecessary. He needs to be attacking McCain. BTW, she was on the front of all the major magazines of People,US, etc.

    So the New York Post called (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST
    Palin a pig? That is so like them.

    Parent
    Actually no.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    thats not like the Post...they put lots of women on the cover.

    Palin is a switch though...usually it's Britney or Paris or some model in town for Fashion Week.

    Parent

    Isn't Palin's son supposed to be headed (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    to Iraq today?  I do remember hearing that stumped.  According to my spouse though he thought the Pentagon would fight it as they usually do. It is bad for their PR when the children of rockstars get killed for no good reason....ticks everyone off royally usually after everyone gets over the misty eyed 21 gun salute.  Haven't heard a peep about it but I can't stand cosmetically focused news lately.  Anybody heard anything about it?

    So I went to look, I'm dumb like that (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:06:20 PM EST

    Palin's son's job to guard his commanders in Iraq
    By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

    Friday, September 5, 2008

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's eldest son, Track, will perform security duties for his brigade's top officers.

    "He's just like any other infantry soldier here," said Army Col. Burt Thompson, who heads the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. "He tries to remain as anonymous as he possibly can."

    He's just another infantry soldier who gets the job of guarding his brigade's top officers.......bawahahahah.  Mostly a job that is within the wire and when outside the wire, well losing your brigade's top officers can create tremendous chaos so think about how John McCain tours Iraq and now you have an idea how Track will be touring Iraq.  Which is fine but can we please stop calling him just another infantry soldier?

    Parent

    I recall hearing something (none / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    about how Sarah Palin maybe revealed some details of her son's deployment (in one of her speeches) that she wasn't really supposed to.  Like, you know more about this than I do, but I guess you're not supposed to advertise that Unit X is shipping out on Date Y.  I don't know if there is truth to what I heard or if it's just a rumor.

    Parent
    It is true that it is frowned on to (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    place photographs along with names, units, dates, times, and locations. Exposing names of more prominent figures and the units they are with are greatly discouraged because they can make such wonderful political pain inflicting targets.  We were a bit stunned with all the info she was giving out, she makes it a lot more difficult for his commanders to keep all of their soldiers safe and not specifically targeted for a special attack.  They don't even like the military to have myspace or facebook pages right now, many do but my spouse comes down hard on anyone still having them right now if he finds out.  If you are captured it possibly gives those who capture you a lot of ammunition to harm those who love you and drive people completely out of their minds.  Often on those pages soldiers can expose something that those who wish to harm them can exploit as a weakness.

    Parent
    sometimes it's the little things... (none / 0) (#71)
    by indie in CA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    that end up making the difference. "Lipstick" is effective as a symbol for women and femininity (and Gov. Sarah Palin in particular). I think it has what Gladwell calls the stickiness factor.
    "The stickiness factor says that messages must have a certain character which causes them to remain active in the recipients' minds. Moreover, they must be deemed worthy of being passed on."


    Where's Michelle? (none / 0) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    Obama showed up at Ground Zero solo while John McCain had Cindy along with him for this solemn and significant event. It made Michelle's absence all the more noticeable.

    Neither spoke to the crowd, which was the correct thing to do. 9/11 memorials should never be political campaign stumps.