The official McCcain campaign released a remarkably misleading video this week. The text “Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin” appears, then is followed by the following quote from Obama:
You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.
Full Video (NOTE: The original video has been taken down, but here’s a mirror)
The full quote of Obama’s text is:
“John McCain says he’s about change too, so I guess his angle is, “Watch Out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in washington. That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. But you know you cant, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”
Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic expands that both Obama and John Mccain are fond of this phrase. Mccain in 2007 on Hillary Clinton:
McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health-care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan, he said it was “eerily reminiscent” of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the 1990s.
“I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” he said of her proposal.
So the McCain campaign took a knock Obama used against McCain, lifted a phrase from it, and then lied about it’s context. Obama said the words, no one is disputing that. But the clear and overwhelming lie was manipulating Obama’s statement about McCain into a sexist comment about Palin. Clearly +1 for the red camp.
Update: Obama’s Response
Tags: johnmccain.com
September 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
A phrase that has been used before, yes, but fact is, this time it was used to refer in part to a woman who had joked that the difference between herself and a pit bull was lipstick.
If you watch the audiance reaction, you can tell exactly what he’s alluding to.
Lesson: Keep Obama on the teleprompter.
This may be the “Howard Dean Yell” that marks the end of Obama.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
there is no indication that this was in any way referring to Palin. the reaction from the crowd gives no accurate indication either.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So, either Obama is not bright enough to know that it would be received this way, or he knew exactly what he was doing.
I think he is smart enough to know.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Do you have any audience shots? Every video I’ve seen cuts away at the end. The crowd is clapping, but he just finished a minute of railing on McCain, so I’m not sure why I’d presume they’re clapping for any strange reasons.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avhB3Hehg3w
September 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Even if Obama WAS alluding to Palin being a pig (which I don’t think he was.. I think it’s an out of context / over wrought interpretation) how is that any different than Palin alluding to Barack as presenting himself as Moses - basically a godlike figure? She specifically calls out his “Greek columns” and “turning back the waters” - statements just as ‘offensive’ as this pig comment COULD be interpreted. I don’t understand the double standard.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Also - from CNN.com: “McCain’s campaign said Obama’s remarks were offensive and a slap at Palin — despite the fact that the senator from Arizona used the phrase last year to describe a policy proposal of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s”
another great example of the double standard in place. McCain can use the EXACT same phrase against Hilary but if they believe Obama MAY be using the phrase against Palin, it’s a foul.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Obama’s response to this “made-up controversy”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epaOZP7nQ68
Also find it ironic that in the full quote Obama eludes to Rove-style politics and they used Rove-style politics to swift-boat him here.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I was researching this just this morning after seeing some bad media coverage of it. I saw the full video on the Huffington Post (http://tinyurl.com/6rb37b), with some audience reaction.
I definitely think Obama should’ve seen how it would be perceived; to me, this paints him either foolish/ignorant for not realizing or condescending/vicious for realizing. Not a good place to be.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
We can’t know as fact someone’s intentions (unless they’re explicitly stated) but we can compare Obama’s speech to McCain’s ad and see in that cross-examination that McCain’s team is lying with that ad.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I don’t know, Nathan - I’m leaning with Uhmanduh on this one. He must’ve known the kind of reaction a remark like that would have after Palin’s joke in her speech - which is clear with the applause/laughter and standing ovation behind him in the video MLP linked to.
I’d never heard that turn of phrase before, which I’m guessing a lot of other Americans hadn’t either.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Good point Jamie.
There’s a piece that NPR ran on the expression, with audio of other politicians recently using the expression including Obama (previously) McCain, Cheney, and Chuck Rangel. The other audio snippets are all pre-Palin, and in McCain’s case referred to Hillary Clinton’s health care plan.
That radio segment is available free for streaming on NPR’s website.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
If you naysayers actually go watch the full video of what Obama said, this conversation will stop here. You need to be informed before making a decision or forming an opinion…..unless you are a lemming. Learn the facts and judge for yourself. This is obvious a HUGE lie for the McCain Campaign.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
He was not talking about Palin in any way, read the context people. How on earth can this be taken to be about Palin, they where talking about the differences between Bush and McCain!
September 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
It’s just one more big lie keeping with the entire tone of the McCain campaign so far. It makes me sad, I use to like this guy.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
One of McCain’s own former advisers wrote an ENTIRE BOOK called Lipstick on a Pig. Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager said this election isn’t about issues, and your succeeding in not letting it be. Congratulations America.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
So what if he DID call her a pig??? She is one. Why is it always okay for the GOP to call out whatever bull and chicannery they can dream up without even a piece of truth to it, but when any Democrat simply calls it like it is, they cry foul, want to take their ball and go home like whiny BABIES????
GROW UP.
This is effin’ SERIOUS. ACT LIKE ADULTS, you GOP godless WHORES!
September 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I agree this is fake news. the REAL news from yesterday was Joe Biden saying that Hillary was more qualified to be VP and that she probably should have been the VP pick.
Where’s the news coverage of that?????
September 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
By the way. I seriously think you are stretching it wayyyy far to classify this as a lie. can you prove this is not what Obama meant and can you prove the McCain camp didn’t believe he meant this at Palin.
I believe this falls under slimy campaigning on the McCain side, but if this site is about exposing lies then this does not belong here.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Again, the question here isn’t whether or not Obama meant it. I have no clue - maybe he did. But McCain lied in making this an Obama quote about Sarah Palin when it is literally a quote about McCain. We can add all the allusion we want, and it’s at best a quote about McCain with a nasty side-swipe at Palin. When McCain’s campaign crossed the line into re-contextualizing that quote as a literal dig at Palin, they moved firmly into “lie” category.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:00 am
prove it. if you can’t it’s not a lie. it’s as simple as that. you can’t go around accusing people of lying just because you “think” they did or thought something untrue.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:05 am
and just because the person saying the line (obama) says it’s not about palin is not proof. these are things that cannot ever be proven and it seems like you guys are just out to make McCains’ camp liars and give Obama the breaks just because you support him.
I had high hopes for this site but your partiality is showing big-time by things like this and using palin bridge thing twice to count as a lie each time. McCain and Obama both have lied enough to fill pages of this site. But you seem to swing one way very heavily.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:47 am
for the record I am NOT an Obama supporter, and I wrote this post…
September 12th, 2008 at 5:31 am
David read the friggin quote! There is no talk of Palin in the quote at all! The figurative pig here is “lack of change.” You can put lipstick on it and it’s still not going to change.
This phrase is part of vernacular and common in my trade, graphic design. Often I’ll be asked to redesign a website or a brochure with horrible copy or a site with a stupid idea and I refer to it as putting lipstick on a pig.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Wow, Nathan. This one hit a cord! Did you happen to see Obama on Letterman last week? He talked about this. And in a brilliant comment clarified the fact that he was not referring to Palin, but if he had - given the expression - she would actually have been the lipstick, not the pig.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
BUT But but……, the reason some people think he was referring to palin was because (and i’m sure you all know this by now) was because of how Biden was earlier introduced:
http://politicalhub.tv/2008/09/10/democrat-introduces-biden-with-lipstick-line/
THAT was CLEARLY a shot at Palin. Then right after came Obama’s.
THAT’S why people are making the connection.
point is, you cannot prove the intentions of what someone said. a lie can ONLY be a lie if you can prove it to be.
there is absolutely NO way you can ever prove this is not what Obama meant. I don’t think he was talking about Palin but to call it a lie required YOU to prove it so. And you cannot.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Obama said it and then the crowd cheered wildly, gave him a standing ovation, and chanted “no more pitbull”. Go ahead and say the crowd reaction doesn’t gauge his actual intention. Okay then, in that case, if the McCain campaign is dishonest or stupid in their interpretation, what does that make his supporters who thought the exact same thing?
And how did Obama not get the connection before delivering it OR after the crowd’s reaction? Either he’s just a total moron or he really did mean it that way. He’s simply hiding behind the “McCain is using phony outrage” excuse to paint himself, as usual, as a victim.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Also, remember this Obama quote back in June? “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” Well, notice the parallels between that and this one in August: “The only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’” Almost identical in substance. Obama claimed first through his campaign that in the latter quote he hadn’t played the race card, then backtracked, then reversed the backtrack. Still liberal pundits insist it’s “not clear” that he was playing the race card.
Some even accused McCain of being the one who was injecting race into the campaign by the very suggestion that Obama called Republicans racist.
My point is it’s the same pattern now. Say something absurd, make it obvious what you’re referring to but don’t come right out and say it, then when called on it paint the other side as liars.