Pickler, join the club. Sean Hannity, Leatherhelmet, Interesting Gob server, and many other grating Americans seem to know these unknowable things.Sorry if I left anybody off the list, but I suppose you can reply to this comment by letting me know that you know what everybody in the audience knew.

To be fair, and I mean FAIR, I'm sure the audience did think about Palin.  But the interpretation was probably not "he just called her a pig" but rather "two can play game, making pithy comments about lipatick."  I saw it as just a way of taking something Palin said an turning it around.  Kinds of like what McCain has tried to do with "CHANGE" or "HONOR" and the latest: "TEMPERMENT." (!)  McCain tries to twist Obama's word around and use them for himself all the time.  That all Obama did here, he just had some WIT as to how he went about it.  I thought it was great.

(BTW - It's so bad lately how McCain can seem to describe himself without stealing words from Obama, that I swear if Obama came out and said "I'm the only candidate with enough schnoogleblatt to lead this country" you'd hear McCain describing himself as the REAL schnoogleblatt candidate!)

"But the interpretation was probably not "he just called her a pig"

Personally I am finding it absolutely HILARIOUS that the R's immediately jumped to the conclusion that Palin = a pig.  They must have a LOT of respect (/sarcasm) for their presumptive VP nominee, don't you think?

Yes, they really are mind readers...

  Ed:  "5 dimes, a couple of pennies, a Susan B Anthony dollar, a subway token and a couple of Chuck E Cheese coins."

 Johnny:  "What is the change the Republicans are thinking about bringing to American citizens?"

Um.....Colonel sir.....

We know what we know and we know what we don't know and we know that we know what we don't know and know what is known by those that should know and know that they don't know what they know they don't know.......

Ya know?

p.s. The WMD's are North, West, East, and South of Tikrit and all the surrounding area's, but we know that they don't know that we know we don't know!

UUUGGGHHHHH!!!

I need a drink...........................

Sorry, I find much to be offensive when I look at her "religion". Anyone who wants the vast majority of people to die, suffer eternal damnation in an intense fire, just so they get a chance to have Jesus autograph their (real corinthian gold leaf gilded embossed leather) bible, is not going to get my respect or tolerance.

"clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant"

This is MMFA's beef within a very fair article?  It clearly did draw a connection simply by the word "lipstick", what evidence does MMFA require?  And it clearly was not what Obama meant, so the statement in question is accurate.

Of course the McCain campaign ran with it knowing full well, I believe, what Obama meant.  That is the real sliminess in all of this, and they know that too, and don't seem to care.

No, the reporter stated as fact that "his audience" somehow knew to connect his line about McCain's policies to somehow be about Palin.  The reporter sites appause as evidence of what the audience was thinking.  Perhaps they were clapping in Morse Code...

It clearly did draw a connection simply by the word "lipstick"

Surely you're joking. So any mention of the word "lipstick" is now a reference to Sarah Palin? Don't be silly.

I'm prepared to assume simpy based on averages and probabilities that there were some in the audience who thought of Palin. But for Pickler to say that the audience broke out in "laughter, shouts and raucous applause" because were "clearly drawing a connection" to Palin is not only absurd on its face, it wasn't even supported by her own reporting.

What I think happened is that Pickler made the connection and well, if she did then of course everyone else must have. Even if they say they didn't.

Pickler is a hack but now that McCain got somebody to take the bait he's going to try to ride it all the way to the White House.

Two things.

1) What does it matter what conclusion the crowd drew? Obama's intention was to point out the paucity of real, significant difference between the potential McCain presidency and actual Bush effort. If Obama had given this speech to a crowd of non-English speakers, the reaction would have been different, but the intent would have been the same. The crowd is not running for president.

2) Unless one asks the crowd individually and specifically, their personal reactions are unknowable and so speculation about them is utterly pointless.

I'll try and be funnier next time. This is just getting on my wick.

What does it matter what conclusion the crowd drew? Obama's intention was to point out the paucity of real, significant difference between the potential McCain presidency and actual Bush effort. If Obama had given this speech to a crowd of non-English speakers, the reaction would have been different, but the intent would have been the same. The crowd is not running for president.

Exactly. What the crowd may have read into the remark is irrelevant.  Even if Obama despises Palin, he's not dumb enough to go stumping around calling her a pig.  It's ridiculous.  At most, he simply used the little cliche, that went over so well when Palin used it, to his own advantage.  That's it. It's incredibly asinine to think he intended otherwise.

I usually get a kick out of the dumb sh!t that compaigns throw at each other, but Maverick's campaign is really insulting common sense with this one  

Credit where it's due, Thomp, I don't post here much but I lurk a fair bit and I imagine we disagree on most everything, but you nailed it (except for the "Maverick" part, obv.).

While I agree with both of you on Obama's intent and the stupidity of this whole non-issue, audience's reaction and their perception is important.  Crowds may not be running for the job, but they are the ones who do the voting.  Obama should hit it forcefully and then be done with it.

Again, Tommy, I disagree with you 90% of the time, but you might be on to something here. What I object to, though, and it's where we differ, is the contention that the reaction of the crowd to Obama's remark is somehow the responsibility of the candidate, and that anything they do that is so esoteric as laughter or applause can be interpreted as representing anything other than enthusiasm for the speaker.

Obama made a remark that had nowt to do with Palin. The crowd may have interpreted it as such, or they may not. As far as gleaning Obama's attitude towards women is concerned, it. Doesn't. Matter.

The context is important too.  Considering what Obama was talking about, I find it hard to believe that anyone listening to him really thought he was referencing Palin.  If someone woke up from a nap just in time to hear "lipstick", then that person might get the wrong idea.  That's pretty negligible.

You can't second-guess or expand on every single word you say, or you'll sound like an idiot anyway.  "Um...uh...and...you know I'm talking about policy, right?  Not talking about Palin...just making sure you get that...where was I?"

There's no rational basis for criticism here, so nobody can blame Obama for not thinking "lipstick...oh, some people might think I'm talking about Palin, even though that doesn't match up with what I'm saying...but I guess I'd better come up with another analogy, just in case."

Tommy, I think he should come out with guns blazing at the media and Maverick.  As mentioned, both are banking on the public being pretty damn dumb to think he compared Palin to a pig.

If I were in Obama's shoes, I wouldnt admonish the audience at all.  Although I do think at least some in the audience, who began giggling before the punchline, had Palin in mind, I'd leave it alone.  He can't go around presuming the worst in his audiences.  He should presume they knew what he meant 

It's also entirely possible that people giggled because they found the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to be humorous by itself.

True enough.

It's also entirely possible that people giggled because they found the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to be humorous by itself.

Bet you really roll on the floor when you hear "Take my wife.... please!"...

Fact is it's a common expression. Obama, I'm sure, had no intention to call Palin a pig. It's his audience and their reaction that spurred it on more than anything else. watch the soundbite clip. They were beside themselves over it and it's probably they, more than anything that gave this little nugget the impetus it needed to turn into a media feeding frenzy.

 

I certainly would never have expected this from you. Very fair assessment.

I'd say it was more the McCain Campaign's tears and foot stomping that set the media off than it was clapping Obama supporters.

I think the mcsamnites latched onto that and projected the rest, but for Dee I'd say that post was a breakthrough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w

Yeah, McCain's delivery is all wrong. 

But he does get a laugh. How did he know about palin back then? Obviously, he was referring to her joke from the future, as is clear by the audience reaction.

No, not a big fan of that particular Henny Youngman line.  He has better stuff, though.

Some things just sound funnier than others.  It's a big part of how some things catch on and others don't.  It is an old expression, and maybe the humor of it is why it's still around.  I'm just saying that laughing at that line doesn't mean the audience was thinking about it in reference to Palin.

And even if the crowd was thinking of Palin, the only thing that makes it funny would be if McCain was pig and Palin was the lipstick.  Palin was ADDED to the ticket but McCain is still the same animal.

Steve,

My point is that lipstick is not a word heard very often in political campaigns. Palin's line in her acceptance speech was looped endlessly, and then less than a week later Obama uses the same word in a speech.  Of course, when heard in context it had nothing to do with Palin, but perception is important.

McCain's campaign shamelessly used it, expolited it, twisted it, and their phony outrage was sickening.  Nevertheless, there was a "connection", and in my opinion, the author of this piece was not jumping to any conclusion in stating that.

"While I agree with both of you on Obama's intent and the stupidity of this whole non-issue, audience's reaction and their perception is important.  Crowds may not be running for the job, but they are the ones who do the voting."

Isn't the vast majority of the "audience" going to hear what he said in context?  Or are you talking about the general public? 

I was talking about the general public for the most part.  But I still think that many people would have remembered Palin's remarks when Obama says lipstick and the connection is made.  By the word connection I don't mean people assume he was talking about Palin, but I think the word itself triggers the link.

It might have triggered that connection, but whether people reacted to that or what he actually meant is not clear.  They might get a brief recollection of Palin, but brush it off because it's got nothing to do with the context.  We don't really know.

It helps to validate the criticism against Obama.  Even the people he was talking to thought he was talking about Palin, right?

""You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant."

That pretty clearly suggests that the audience took it to be about Palin.  The reaction of the audience is directly tied to Palin's joke.

"The reaction of the audience is directly tied to Palin's joke"

Now you are assuming what the author said, she said a connection was made, she made no reference as to the direct or indirect connection at all....you can extrapolate that to mean "directly tied" if you want, but I don't.  

I have stated my opinion on why I believe it is a logical assumption to make that a connection was made when two opposing politicians use such a rarely heard campaign word such as "lipstick", less than a week apart.  If you don't see it, or agree with MMFA, so be it.

It's the clear implication of the phrasing.  If she didn't mean to say that they were reacting to that connection, then she shouldn't have mentioned it there.

I didn't say they were or were not reacting to the connection, my point was it is quite logical to assume their was some connection, for reasons I have already stated.  Now to what degree or strength of that connection is obviously impossible to gauge.

You go right ahead and assume all you want.  I would prefer that reporters refrain from the practice.

"Now you are assuming what the author said, she said a connection was made, she made no reference as to the direct or indirect connection at all....you can extrapolate that to mean "directly tied" if you want, but I don't."

I was talking about Pickler's phrasing.  She made a direct connection between the reaction and Palin's joke.  What I'm saying is that helps to justify Republican reaction to it, since supposedly even people who were there thought he was referencing Palin to some degree or other.  

Fair enough.

I assume Tommy thought this was about him and his assumptions, rather than those of the AP reporter.

good points .Tommy . . . but can't reply now. Gotta run . . .

Tommy,

It was incredible political tone deafness on Obama's part to use the phrase 'lipstick on a pig' while attacking McCain and Palin when Palin used the term 'lipstick' as a punchline to describe herself.

It is a gaffe reminiscent of Kerry's "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" or Trent Lott's 100th birthday toast to Strom Thurmond. No matter what they meant, it just came out all wrong. 

 

AA, 

Tone deaf or not, McCain ought to be ashamed of himself, and that is the real issue for me.  He is fast losing any respect I had for him with slimy campaign tactics like this.  

Tommy,

I thought you had already lost respect for McCain. :-)

To use another analogy. The real problem is not McCain's highlighting this gaffe, it is that as far as the campaign goes, Obama brought a knife to a gunfight.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

You can't justify how it's a "gaffe".  McCain used the phrase himself.  It's not new.  People are allowed to use the word "lipstick" after Palin used it.

Brab,

Of course one can use the term lipstick all day long as long as it doesn't smear. ;-)

And one is free to blot, err, ah...blog about it all day long too.

Your substance-free post confirms that you have no justification for what you're saying.  Thanks.

Obama ought to makeup.

Make up? Heck no, he should say it over and over and over every chance he gets. McCain just threw his female card under the bus. Now every time McCain sheds crocodile tears Obama can say "If mccain wants to keep discussing lipstick on a pig we'll be happy to have a discussion of his record".

Would that be pork barrel politics?

Among other things. Palin may have taken second place in a beauty pagent but she's definitely the queen of pork.

So true, AnotherAmerican.  So so so so so so true.  It's downright eerie just how similar Obama's remark about McCain's policies is to Trent Lott's 100th birthday toast to Strom Thurmond.  Thanks.

I can't do it anymore, Gov. Barney is beyond parody . It's impossible to even point out the flaws with his thinking, it's so far removed from any Earth logic.Was that his plan all along?

You just reminded me of AnotherAnalogy about how even broken pig clocks put on lipstick twice a day. 

A rather ham fisted analogy don't you think?

I think you got a whole lotta mutton, Barn.

I think 23/6 has it right. We should probably go with Palin's description of herself. What do y'all think?

SHAME! McCain using Obama to call Sarah a "pig with lipstick"

Sarah Palin called herself a "pitbull with lipstick." Yesterday, the McCain campaign slyly misinterpreted Barack Obama's comments so they could call Sarah Palin a "pig with lipstick." Who's right, McCain or Palin? Tell us in the comments!

Snoop,

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

I found an earlier reference to the "lipstick on a pig" remark while doing a Google search to learn its origin.  This excerpt from a 1985 newspaper article predates Ann Richards version, which involved putting lipstick on a hog and calling it Monique:

San Francisco Tries To Keep Baseball Raiders at Bay

City Intent on Keeping Giants -- And Its Money

By Jay Mathews Washington Post Staff Writer.

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 15 -- KNBR, the AM radio station carrying the Giants
baseball games, had raised $20,000 toward the construction of a new downtown stadium. The board of supervisors, reluctant to commit to such a project, asked if they couldn't use the money to renovate Candlestick Park.

"That," replied KNBR personality Ron Lyons, "Would be like putting lipstick
on a pig."

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0408a&L=ads-l&P=14910

Pickler isn't the only collective-mind reader, so are Jake Tapper, Ben Smith and GEOFF EARLE:

 

http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-mind-reader.html