Lipstick Wearing Pigs and Paper-bagged Fishies (aka English Comprehension 101)

This is beyond self-parody. There is no word for this.

So Obama said that McCain trying to wrap himself in the mantle of change was like putting lipstick on a pig. A phrase anybody with an English-comprehending brain knows means you are trying to dress something up as new/more appealing when in actuality you haven’t change the essence of the thing (it’s still a pig, with or without lipstick). Pig obviously bearing the connotation of dirty, muddy, filthy, etc.

So the McCain camp said that (I kid not) Obama was being sexist and calling Gov. Palin a pig. [Normally men are called pigs in sexist language–memo the McCain camp. I don’t think Obama was saying McCain is a cross-dresser?!!].

Except that Obama then said right after the big comment the following:

“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,'” Obama continued, “it’s still gonna stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing! It’s time to bring about real change to Washington. And that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.”

Obviously the rotten fish in the bag amplifies the lipsticked pig. Both are trying to cover what are negative things (pigs as dirty, fish as rotten/smelly). Those analogies, according to Obama, refer to John McCain being a creature of the Republican Party and trying to give the appearance of change/reform, when in Obama’s mind, nothing essentially is different (still pig, still rotten fish).

Jake Tapper points out that McCain himself used the lipstick on a pig line before criticizing Hillary’s health care plan and no one (rightly) accused him of sexism to Clinton. Because of course there is none. [Tapper also shows another time Obama used the lipstick/pig line in reference to President Bush…how sexist was that statement?]

But that level of basic non-stupidity (not even anywhere near intelligence just not being a blinkered dumbass) is apparently beyond the juvenile morons who run the McCain camp (either that or they are absolutely craven bastards–I’ll let the reader decide which is more likely and which is more offensive) and then this.

Former Mass Gov. Jane Swift er, swiftboated (??) (sex-boated?) Obama in a conference call. Then some non-moron quoted her the line about the fish, which evoked this response (which is FOR THE AGES):

It was pointed out to Swift that, after the line about the pig, Obama had said, “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’ it’s still gonna stink after eight years.”

Swift then suggested that Obama was calling McCain a fish.

Are you kidding me? WTTF? (The Extra T stands for Triple).

So looking at urbandictionary.com, calling someone a fish means they are either:

A)A Canadian or American online poker player
B)A new guy in jail or a new student at school (i.e. fresh bait)

We know McCain loves craps, so perhaps Obama was referencing his gambling vice? I mean he talked about lipstick and Sarah Palin wears lipstick so he must have been calling her a pig right (so argued, I s–t you not Fmr. Gov. Swift). Except since McCain doesn’t send out his emails and is still learning The Google, I’m assuming that online poker is beyond him.

I guess that leaves Obama calling McCain a new inmate in jail? That must be a new low and is a very under handed and unethical way of referring to John McCain’s POW past, right? I mean the only jail McCain was ever in was in Hanoi. How dare Obama–he must apologize at once!!!

To quote girl on the street:  Oh no you didn’t Barack Obama, no you didn’t.

Actually, wait a minute, no you actually didn’t.

Advertisements
Published in: on September 9, 2008 at 10:11 pm  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://indistinctunion.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/fish-eating-lipstick-wearing-pigs-aka-english-comprehension-101/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. If it’s so obvious to anyone but a dumbass that Obama wasn’t referring to Palin, then why does the audience cheer and laugh wildly in response to his line?

  2. Any number of reasons I imagine.

    1)It’s unexpected
    2)They think it’s a good line.

    My guess is 3)Because the crowds tend to love when Obama mocks McCain and his fake seriousness. Obama likes to play the “they think you are soooo stupid” line. It’s simply more of that.

    I will grant that it is certainly a vastly more important question than say why doesn’t Palin know what the Bush Doctrine is. Or why McCain is no longer giving interviews and is canceling events he was supposed to do without Palin.

  3. Nice tone. The correct answer is that although Obama wasn’t talking about Palin, the audience clearly thought he was, and he should have recognized that.

  4. Fishboy77 is right about the audience. And, if one pays attention to radio, such as the Dennis Miller show (hardly a shill), even there you hear how women took offense to this.

    I would only add that Obama, I think, intended this controversy so as to attempt to recapture the steering wheel of the media narrative of the campaign. McCain/Palin had been at the wheel since the announcement of Palin, so Obama felt he needed a controversy to, subsequently on Letterman for example, be able to not only say “I didn’t mean that” but also attempt to go back on the defensive.

    Both Clintons perfected this strategy. It is a form of control you even see one spouse using against the other.

  5. I mean, go back on the offensive.

  6. Fboy and MD,

    I don’t know that the audience thought he was referring to Palin. What’s the evidence for that assertion btw? That “women” on a call-in show expressed outrage shows nothing. They could have been riled into by shock jocks saying that was we he meant. Ex post facto justification and re-reading of current feelings into initial reaction is a classic human trait.

    And even if the audience did take him the way you both are suggesting–if that was not what he intended, then what? My point was that Obama didn’t intend to refer to Palin–even fishboy agrees with that statement. If people mistook him to do so–positively or negatively–I can’t really say that matters to me. Because I think they are wrong and their reactions was not my point.

    How in other words was Obama supposed to read their minds and assume they took it (in the spur of the moment) in the way you suggest and then know to–what was he supposed to do–calm them down I suppose?

    That is of course assuming you are right that the “crowd”–as opposed to say some people who may have thought or others who may have reacted for other possible reasons (not limited to but perhaps including the ones mentioned above by me).

    Final question: Is this really what it has come to?

  7. I’m saying Obama did intend to cause a stir. How could he not using one of the signature lines from Palin’s acceptance speech? We all agree he is not stupid. And neither are you, for all your attackermanmeetspmbarnett rhetorical poses.

    ANY mention of the word “lipstick” in any way whatsoever is going to immediately connect to Palin in the mind of the public. He could have waited until later in the campaign, and it still would have connected that way. Of all her lines, the lipstick line was the most memorable of her speech, itself watched by 38 million people or whatever high number. The term became hers for the remainder of her political life.

    He intended this because this is what cynical politicians do — artfully create a controversy so as to be stamp it back down and try to look better for it.

    Apostrophes around the word woman. Dude, you are sexist, as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: