Comments on: JohnMcCain.com is wearing a liar’s lipstick

By: OneGyT

OneGyT — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:55:57 +0000

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.

By: OneGyT

OneGyT — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:39:02 +0000

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.

By: David Bean

David Bean — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:42:35 +0000

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.

By: Connie

Connie — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:43:19 +0000

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.

By: Renaud

Renaud — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:31:26 +0000

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.

By: peter.centofante

peter.centofante — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:47:02 +0000

for the record I am NOT an Obama supporter, and I wrote this post…

By: David Bean

David Bean — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:05:43 +0000

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.

By: David Bean

David Bean — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:00:48 +0000

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.

By: nathan.clark

nathan.clark — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:56:46 +0000

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.

By: David Bean

David Bean — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:40:10 +0000

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.