I don't think Obama intended the lipstick remark as an aspersion against Palin.  But, unfortunately, his audience did.  You can pick it up by the way they reacted.

More unfortunately, Palin's line about lipstick and pit bulls is so famous that everybody will think about it when they see the video replay of Obama using that line.

It was a bad slip on his part.  Just a dumb and damaging mistake.  At least akin to McCain's don't know how many houses gaffe.  But, potentially a lot worse because a lot of women may be offended, may not believe it was an accident, and may not forgive him.

I agree, he didn't do it on purpose.  I disagree that everyone will understand that.

Meanwhile, Michael, I would remind you of the Miranda warning:  Anything you say can and will be used against you.

That goes bigtime in a high stakes political campaign with the cameras and hot mikes going all the time.

Then why did his audience immediately assume he was referring to Palin? The audience response tells the story and reveals Obama's intent. As Obama says, words count, and references to lipstick have clearly become a trope for Palin-related talk among Demoicratic surrogates.

Snicker. The Republicans have a VP canidate that screams sexism at every turn and refuses to be interviewed by Larry King. Yes, Larry King. Okay, she's ready for the presidency but not ready answer questions like "Where did you get those glasses?" or "How did you come up with the name Willow?"

Don't panic people. There's a reason they're hiding.

Agree entirely, mpatrick. If they really thought Palin was ready to be exposed to the sunlight, they would have let her out 10 days ago. And they would have let her tackle a real interview, not this Barbara Walters style personality profile with soft focus pictures of her making lunch for the kids that's planned for this week.

If the Obama people play lipstickgate right, they can turn these shallow complaints back on the McCain campaign. No one likes a whiner.

This is no "houses" gaffe; it may not be a gaffe at all.

First, the houses cluelessness by McCain reinforced a view about him, that he's out of touch with ordinary folks' economic problems.

Obama is not seen as a sexist -- except by a tiny tiny number of Hillary deadenders.  If you did one of those word association things, "sexist" would not be in the top 10 responses to "Obama."

Second, it's not just Mike but everyone in the media who is calling BS on the faux outrage over "lipstick."  

On virtually every report I've seen of this, they've trotted out McCain's use of the phrase against Hillary.  So McCain's people have some currency -- cries of sexism -- that they are devaluing when they use it on something like this.  They are crying wolf and pretty soon people will tune out.  

Third, someone has put together a YouTube of lots of politicians using the line, including Cheney.  Strangely because the public can laugh at pretty stupid cliches, in every click the audience loves the phrase and eats it up.

Eos, the reason I don't think Obama intended Palin as the butt of his lipstick remark is that it would have been enormously stupid.  

It may have been a species of Freudian slip, but not man running for president can purposely call a woman a pig and not bring down the wrath of fifty million women upon himself.

And that would include women who have been his supporters.  And that would definitely include any woman who was a Hillary supporter and still feels aggrieved, even slightly, at her loss to him.

Obama may be getting tired on the trail.  But, I don't believe he's stupid.

! - It is time to stop responding to Eos, whose desperation to see something where there is nothing is so great, that he (she?) is either an idiot or even more cynical than those of whom Michael complains.

2 - Back in '88, Michael Dukakis, when asked if he thought Reagan had any connection to Iran-Contra (I think), replied "The fish stinks from the head." This perfectly ordinary colloquialism was instantly turned into a "gaffe" by Lee Atwater, who waxed indignantly on television that Dukakis had compared the sainted Ron to a dead fish.  Atwater-Rove-Scmidt---now we know the tradition in which the allegedly honorable McCain campaigns.  

Please, someone, don't let this happen.  Put a hundred surrogates on TV decrying the ridiculously low level to which the McCain campaign wants to drag our politics down to.  Put Kathleen Sebelius or Jennifer Granholm on TV to say "What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush?  Lipstick."

Meanwhile, you guys are really kidding yourselves if you think Palin has to give press interviews on your schedule, on the Democrats' schedule, or on the media's schedule.

The GOP can time her rollout to the press in any reasonable way.  And, in fact, they've got her with Charlie Gibson today or tomorrow.

Now you may think he's a softball interview, but so what?  Voters in general, and women in particular, could care less.

And before McCain waxes too indignant over "lipstick," he might spare a thought for his own troubled relationship to another charged word in the battle of the sexes: "cunt."

So,

So what other things can no longer be uttered because they are sexist.

I guess "sow's purse" is out.  Because it has the word pig in it, and the word purse which is a woman's accessory, so it has to go. You are essentially calling all women who carry purses a female pig.  Disgusting!

I guess Elton John can no longer sing "The Bitch is Back" because as you know that song is dripping with sexism.  Why is he calling women Bitches?  Why couldn't the song be called "The Strong, Independent, Self-Sufficient Woman Is  Back".  Elton John is of course a raging...sexist.

I guess that also means that I can no longer sing along to "My Girl" by the Temptations.  Because it should be "My Woman", but wait, are the Temps trying to say that I am theirs?  Women are not possessions.  On second thought, maybe it should be changed to "This Woman, Who I Do Not Own, Who is My Equal, and Chose To Be Mine".

And of course forget about singing "It's A Man's World" by James Brown.  It's just insulting.   It's a Man's World but it wouldn't be nothin' without a woman or a girl. How dare he!  The song should be changed to "It's a PERSON'S World" and it wouldn't be nothin' without a man or a woman.

Sexism is everywhere, right?

My brother-in-law has a quip "I resemble that remark".  Who is it that really insults Palin by tying her immediately to any reference to lipstick?

In his dystopian novel The Time Machine , H.G. Wells describes how the Morlocks, who had originally evolved

An exchange between Anderson Cooper (CNN) and Mark Halperin (TIME) last night:

HALPERIN: They knew exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign in the sense that every day they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more.

But I think this is a low point in the day and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. To spend even a minute on this expression, I think, is amazing and outrageous.

COOPER: Mark, has there ever been a vice presidential candidate who has yet to talk to the press at this point in the race?

HALPERIN: No. It's another thing that, again, I'm embarrassed about our profession for. She should be held more accountable for that.

The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous. And if you press them on it, they'll fall because they know they can't defend what they're saying. They're staying it on the stump as a core part of their message, it's in their advertising.

I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin. But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist -- journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening.

The other three people who are on the national ticket have been scrutinized for months and in cases, years. We've got less than 60 days to do this. We'd better get about doing it. And if she doesn't cooperate in that more than she has, the public should be told that clearly.

[Toward the end Cooper asks if the GOP will continue this strategy]

HALPERIN: And now that the press and the Obama campaign is so sexist, of course she's not going to come forward and speak. I actually think now that they could probably keep her relatively sequestered for most of the remaining days. I really do.

===

Nah, I'm not speechless but I've never felt this level of hostility and distress.

Watch out conspiracy theorists. There's material here. Is Obama an hoax, truly working for the Republicans? Since he seems to fit their "strategy" perfectly...

PS: Don't talk about "cynicism at work". After all it was through moves exactly like these that you got everyone calling Hillary a "bitch". Since you were so good at it with Hillary, it's a piety you are loosing with the true masters of the game.

It's over, It's over.

Will President Mccain govern as a moderate or a right winger?  Does he have the temperment to be president?  Who knows, but we'll find out.

When Palin becomes president (1-20-13 at the latest) will she govern as a moderate or a right winger?  Will she be experienced enough? Will she abuse her power?  Who knows, but we'll find out.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

Look, it is time, and it is necessary, to get over the surprise at the tactics of the Republican party.  Republicans believe in NOTHING.  The Republican party is a giant criminal organization devoted to one thing, no two:  theft and ostentatious displays of power.  Other than the fact that we don't live in a society where extreme brutality is necessary to remain in power, there is very little that separates Saddam Hussein from the modern Republican party.  Their gassy patriotism is bullshit.  Their economic theology is bullshit.  Their purported concern for the little guy is absolutely laughable.

Given that the Republican party has no interest in governing the country, only in stealing from the country, they have no more scruple about what they say and do than the mafia would.  Would anyone express shock at the "cynicism" of mafiosi telling lies?  Of course not.  That would be ridiculous because we already understand that they are criminals.  The Republicans are criminals, one and all, including John McCain.  They will say and do anything, absolutely anything, that they think will have the desired political impact.  They do not even pause for a moment to think about whether what they are saying is true because it is completely irrelevant from their point of view.  And they understand that, when you are caught lying, you just repeat the lie louder and with a great display of outrage at being called a liar.

Time for the Democrats and Obama, at the least since there is not much hope that the press will awake from its stupor in the face of these vicious tactics, the see the enemy for what it is -- THE ENEMY of our country -- and be prepared to do what it takes.

It is not necessary for the Democrats to lie.  It is only necessary for them relentlessly and singlemindedly to smear John McCain with all of the shit that he has left in his wake during his political career.  Display him lying and ask why a man who claims honor is the most important think stoops to such blatant lying tactics.  Hang him over and over and over again with Phil Gramm sneering at Americans as "whiners."  Hang him with his incestuous relationship to Washington lobbyists and corruption.  You don't talk about Republican hypocrisy, you display it, and since the Republicans contradict themselves at every turn without batting an eye -- like all good Stalinists -- you SHOW them contradicting themselves and you impugn their honesty, their competence, and their devotion to duty, country, or anything but pocketing as many millions as they can for bridges to nowhere.  The Republican party IS the bridge to nowhere.  That's a good theme.  "The Republican party didn't just try to build the bridge to nowhere at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, the Republican party is the bridge to nowhere.  It cannot protect us from our enemies.  It cannot protect us from falling behind in global competition.  It cannot protect us from the storms and natural disasters the result from climate change.  It is not just the party of the past, it is the party of no place, no program, no values."

It is time for the Democrats to recognize that they cannot win a dirty war and expect to be clean.  You cannot win an actual war without killing people, innocent people.  Any decent human being should feel soiled by that and recoil at the necessity.  But it is a necessity.  Kicking out the disgusting, predatory Republican party requires getting down in the muck where it lives and defeating it there.  We will not feel clean when we have done so, but our civic responsibility is to kick these bums out, NOW, before our the economic, military, and moral decline of our beautiful country goes any further.

This ad is nothing but a smear and is utterly dishonest, and the McCain campaign's "outrage" is truly empty. Are they actually airing the ad, or is this just on the internet to try to trip up the Obama campaign? The McCain campaign has a history now of releasing "ads" on the internet with that clear aim. Keep using the line, and add to it another one that hits the McCain camp for being pathetic. It is actually another mark in the list of the McCain campaign's lies.

By the way, Obama should take up the lipstick on a pig, laugh about, and say,

"You know, the Republicans are attacking me for describing them as "putting lipstick on a pig."  I was talking about their claim to be the party of change, when they are the very ones who, over the past eight years, have brought this nation to the very edge of disaster in so many areas -- economic, defense, and disaster response.  They say I was using sexist language to refer to their vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, even though I made no mention of her.  It's just another ridiculous Republican smear, they only thing they know how to do because they have no program at all for our country, none, nothing, nada.  But next time I will be a lot more careful.  At the Republican convention, Sarah Palin described herself as "a pitbull with lipstick."  I guess what I should have said is, "You can put lipstick on a pitbull, but it's still a pitbull."  I've got one biting my ankle right now.  It's a Republican pitbull.  But that is not going to stop us from taking back our beautiful country from the corrupt, the rapacious, and the incompetent Republican party."

A little ridicule goes a long way.

OF COURSE IT WAS AIMED AT PALIN.  Although I will concede it was not aimed at women in general, nor would I call it sexist.  But it is boorish and stupid.

How do I know it was aimed at Palin?  If you were doing free word association with the typical clueless voter, and you mentioned "pit bull" and "hockey mom", what word would they come back with?  Anybody ever seen any "Read my lipstick" signs at McCain/Palin rallies?  Has Obama EVER used this phrase before in public? (maybe he has, I don't know, but if so, I'd like to see it).  Why did he theatrically stop his delivery at "You can put lipstick on a pig ........................ " before proceeding - so everybody could get a chance to think about the joke?

It was an unconscious slip, an example of which has been attributed to Freud. The consequences will be what they will be. Doesn't mean he didn't have Palin Syndrome (just added to the DSM-V, a late entry).

"OF COURSE IT WAS AIMED AT PALIN."

Of course. And to pretend otherwise is just stupid. As stupid as having said that.

Wanna be smart? Treat Palin with all the respect you can. And, at the same time, PATRONIZE HER, for God sake. Patronize her in an indirect, intelligent way, of course. That is not that difficult (oh, please, Mrs. Palin...). And it has the effect of making people that now identify with her feeling ashamed of that...

Because that's what you're after: the identification process of her with the American lower classes. That until now has been running on wings...

And on McCain (CAIN) and the Republican party in general, Roi has said everything.

I was more distressed at Obama's rambling conflation of all campaign issues.  If he doesn't start saying "this election is a choice between John McCain spending $10 billion per month in Iraq or me and Joe Biden pulling us out of Iraq responsibly and saving your job in the process" that's what will lose it for him, not Sarah Palin or GOP micheif.  

luispc,

*OF COURSE IT WASN'T...*, for G-d's sake. Awkward, yes, embarrassing, maybe, but the idea he had made a conscious decision to use the line in order to, what...slime, slander, ridicule...her is preposterous. And your prescription, if performed intentionally, *would be stupid*. Treat her with respect because she deserves respect. Punto!

Ok. Ok, Tomeg. It was not conscious. But now that we are at the conscious level, keep in mind: the word lipstick in this campaign associated to an animal (pitbull or pig or duck) is going to be naturally associated with Palin. Please tell your candidate to remain conscious all the time.

ChanRobt said:

"It was a bad slip on his part.  Just a dumb and damaging mistake.  At least akin to McCain's don't know how many houses gaffe.  But, potentially a lot worse because a lot of women may be offended, may not believe it was an accident, and may not forgive him.

I agree, he didn't do it on purpose.  I disagree that everyone will understand that."

Channy,

I notice I've agreed with you on several occasions recently. What is happening to me?? Disturbing, very disturbing.   ;-)

Anyway, I think your observation is about right. I've begun to form an impression and theory why women generally may be ambivalent toward Obama, and suspicious that he is harboring sexist opinions and attitudes. I'm researching because I've had a hunch for quite some time that there's something to it, though not what is assumed.

ChanRobt said:

"It was a bad slip on his part.  Just a dumb and damaging mistake.  At least akin to McCain's don't know how many houses gaffe.  But, potentially a lot worse because a lot of women may be offended, may not believe it was an accident, and may not forgive him.

I agree, he didn't do it on purpose.  I disagree that everyone will understand that."

Channy,

I notice I've agreed with you on several occasions recently. What is happening to me?? Disturbing, very disturbing.   ;-)

Anyway, I think your observation is about right. I've begun to form an impression and theory why women generally may be ambivalent toward Obama, and suspicious that he is harboring sexist opinions and attitudes. I'm researching because I've had a hunch for quite some time that there's something to it, though not what is assumed.

"Lipstick on a pig."  "Earrings on a pig?"  I've been in politics a long time and have heard those phrases along with "skunk in a woodpile" and other various and sundry colloquialisms numerous times.  I really find it hilarious that the Republicans, who usually abhor the lanugage police, are all over this one.  Where was the indignation when McCain used the exact same phrase to attack the Clinton health plan?

If Obama had said "Lipstick on a right-wing loonball," I would be able to understand all of this indignation.  He didn't.

LDuncan writes, "...This is no "houses" gaffe; it may not be a gaffe at all..." followed by a long rationalization about why "even the media" knew that.

Duncan, you missed the most important point.  The audience laughed, chortled, and gloated over that line because THEY thought Obama was riffing off the Palin lipstick joke.

That was their immediate response.  Everybody at least made that association, even if (like me) they didn't think Obama meant that.

It was a gaffe because it was so easy to misunderstand, so easy to exploit.  And the proof that it was a gaffe is that the Obama camp is on the defensive about it and the gaffe story is filling the news.

You can sit here and try to explain it away.  Which shows you just don't know how modern media can seriously injure people.  Even if by accident.

Do you recall that misspelling "potatoe" plus the Lloyd Bentsen swipe in the debates ("You're no Jack Kennedy") destroyed Dan Quayle.  Maybe a cooler guy could have worked his way back, but still.

lamh31, if you've got a problem with "sexism" as a concept and as an interference to free speech, then your beef is not with the GOP, but with the Left and the Democrats.

It was the latter two who invented "sexism" as an idea.  Along with all the other grievance words.

You are now being hoisted on your own petards and blasted with your own weapons.  Tough.

Stop being pussies.  (That's me being "sexist".)

tomeg writes, "I notice I've agreed with you on several occasions recently. What is happening to me?? Disturbing, very disturbing.   ;-)

tomeg, I don't know if it will surprise you, but one of my very favorite writers in the commentariat is Camille Paglia.  I think almost all her social and socio-political observations are brilliant and spot on.  They reflect almost perfectly my own thinking.

Yet close as our thinking is in that respect, she and I come to the opposite political conclusion at the end of the logic trail.  

It's very possible to share insights, sensibilities and much else with another person, yet ultimately fall out on opposite sides.

Which is why "some of my best friends are"  on the Left or Democrats etc.  Maybe the majority of them.

tomeg writes, "...I've begun to form an impression and theory why women generally may be ambivalent toward Obama, and suspicious that he is harboring sexist opinions and attitudes. I'm researching because I've had a hunch for quite some time that there's something to it, though not what is assumed."

Excellent observation, tomeg.  

And for starters-- and I suppose I'll catch a lot of shit for saying this- but contemporary black culture is thick with the ugliest, stupidest, crudest kind of sexism.  Pimps, ho's, bitches, absent fathers-- the whole mess.

Obviousluy, Obama himself has led an exemplary family life.  And his wife would seem to be very much her own woman and very much holding her own with him.

But, Obama didn't go the Colin Powell route.  He consciously decided-- and he had a choice, growing up as he did in a white world-- he consciously chose to self-identify with and immerse himself in black society and culture.

Probably a smart political move.  And it has served him well.  But, what you are sensing may be the downside.

Chan, Quayle had the "deer in the headlights" thing (there I go being a "species-ist" again) from the get-go and hardly ever uttered a word of note until the debate (and I believe "potatoe" occured after he was VP and not during the campaign).  Palin has come out swinging (as in a verbal analogy roughly equating to undertaking physical motion with the fists, not the swapping of sexual partners--one cannot be too careful with all of this parsing of the language happening), which puts this on a different plain.

I agree Obama could have turned a better phrase, but I don't think anything here will truly last.

tomeg, while we are shrinking Obama, the fact that he was raised by a single mother and his father abandoned him may have made him resentful and hostile to women.

It is not uncommon for a child of divorce to blame the parent he lives with for not having the other parent.  Obama might have decided that it was his mother's fault that the old man bailed.

It may be paradoxical because at one level Obama himself may feel he reveres his mother and owes everything to her.  And that it would naturally follow that he would respect and admire women in general.

But, I suspect the very opposite may be true for Obama, and millions of other male children of single mothers.  It may account for the pathology of disrespect for women in the black underclass.

That and the fact that when a boy reaches adolescence, it is very difficult for a single mother to control and enjoy the respect of that boy.  She needs a man around to be a father.

It's why the entire single mother movement is so self-destructive and absurd.

Lundell writes, "Quayle had a deer in the headlights look..."

There's no question the man was not much of an advocate for himself or his Party.  But if he were a Democrat, he wouldn't have been a star.  But he wouldn't have found himself so widely mocked and humiliated either.

luispc - the only public figure to defend Palin when she was first unvieled was Obama, who was passionate, sincere and personal.

She responded with a vulgar, mean,sarcastic rant that was as vile as anything ever televised. I can think of very few people who have helped degrade our political culture so completely so quickly.  

She has never expressed even the smallest thanks, which was unprofessional and said everything anyone would need to know about her.

She's a rude, classless bully who deserves whatever she gets.  She begged for it!  Bring it on.  Obama was way too nice.

This was a set-up and it was nicely done.  They were ready with the McCain lipstick quote on HRC.  They are trying to provoke an overreaction and they have done so.  They should now roll-out the McCain's a whiner ad and the coup de grace will be complete.

But they need to hit harder.  Whiner is not sufficient.  Where is the McCain's an adulterer ad?  Where is the McCain has cancer ad?  They've got to dig up some good melanoma pics.

gennitydo writes, "...Where is the McCain's an adulterer ad?  Where is the McCain has cancer ad?  They've got to dig up some good melanoma pics."

Boy, gennity, do I wish you worked for the Obama campaign.  You would put them 30 points behind in three days.

Uh, when you go after your political opponents, you use a stiletto, not a chain saw.  The latter tends to upset the audience with all the unnecessary gore.

Chan--

this thread may be dead, but I'm just getting home from work.

I don't think Obama was fully conscious of what he was saying. but I do think he had a semiconscious inkling of where he was going, and that it was a motivated statement that reveals some of his real feeling. I think this is is why he lifted his hand to cover his face as he began to say it. I believe he was indulging his hostility for Palin, as his "you're likeable enough, Hillary" indulged his hostility to Clinton. (I think he also had his hand half-covering his face when he made the remark about Clinton.) I don't think it is possible for there not to have been an association to Palin somewhere in his mind. His audience immediately got the point precisely because the association is so obvious and readily available.Obama can't have missed it as he was forming his sentence.

Eos writes, "...I don't think Obama was fully conscious of what he was saying. but I do think he had a semiconscious inkling of where he was going …I don't think it is possible for there not to have been an association to Palin somewhere in his mind. His audience immediately got the point precisely because the association is so obvious...Obama can't have missed it as he was forming his sentence…”

I agree with all of that Eos.  And your observations about the placement of his hands during this statement abnd the Hillary one is very astute.

There was something intensely Freudian about the entire utterance.

My simplest point is, I don't believe he would have purposely set out to make the statement because the ensuing firestorm was so predictable.

We may have learned a lot about Obama's psyche from this.  One would want a poker player with fewer "tells" in the White House when tough adversaries must be faced down.