McCain's trend

[Camino LS6]

Oh, no I know how much they dislike him...but they still dislike Obama more. Lesser of two evils.

But that would be a logical approach, and many of those folks aren't so strong on logic.

They do however, have a mastery of vindictiveness.

Place your bets.

[Oracle of Delphi]

If that's what happens. I still disagree with your line of reasoning because if McCain is really a moderate and were campaigning as such, the far right may not be happy with him, but they'd vote for him out of a "lesser of two evils" point of view. They certainly wouldn't vote for Obama instead. The only other alternative is they wouldn't vote at all, and that isn't very likely. Also, if McCain were more moderate with his campaign, he'd most certainly be courting the Independent and conservative Democrat voters, who would more than outnumber any non-voting, disaffected rightwingers.

And it's really all so the citizens of Scottsdale can have their lush gardens and olympic-sized swimming pools in their private golf course gated communities.

IMO that goes to Michelle. Cindy looks like a Stepford Barbie, and I find that extremely unattractive.

+1, Her face scares me, it looks evil, and I'm not kidding!

Edited September 10, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Croc]

I understand what your saying. I am just too lazy to get the prove my facts. I am sure I could if I wanted to not be lazy. But if I here something most likely on NBC or FOX I use it as a point for discussion and a fact.

That's just it, though. Getting your "facts" from the talking heads on the TV is like listening to a bunch of toddlers muse about the ways of the world and use their musings in your own discussions. The mainstream media does not offer "facts" anymore. Pay attention to the next newscast you see--on NBC, since they at least attempt to be "fair and balanced," they will essentially read the D press release followed by the R response, or vice-versa. They do this under the assumption that "the truth is somewhere in the middle." They then "discuss" the press releases in what they call "analysis," but it is rarely any real analysis. No actual fact-checking. "Analysis" means getting a Dem and a Repub, putting them in splitscreen on your TV, and then each just regurgitates their own party's talking points.

It's all a bunch of worthless crap.

But that would be a logical approach, and many of those folks aren't so strong on logic.

They do however, have a mastery of vindictiveness.

Place your bets.

Again, I agree but I ultimately disagree. People on the far right go to church on Sunday. Their sermons are often very political. Someone being spoon-fed politics on a weekly basis has a deeply-ingrained sense of duty come election day, if only to support the party as a whole.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Croc

[Camino LS6]

That's just it, though. Getting your "facts" from the talking heads on the TV is like listening to a bunch of toddlers muse about the ways of the world and use their musings in your own discussions. The mainstream media does not offer "facts" anymore. Pay attention to the next newscast you see--on NBC, since they at least attempt to be "fair and balanced," they will essentially read the D press release followed by the R response, or vice-versa. They do this under the assumption that "the truth is somewhere in the middle." They then "discuss" the press releases in what they call "analysis," but it is rarely any real analysis. No actual fact-checking. "Analysis" means getting a Dem and a Repub, putting them in splitscreen on your TV, and then each just regurgitates their own party's talking points.

It's all a bunch of worthless crap.

Again, I agree but I ultimately disagree. People on the far right go to church on Sunday. Their sermons are often very political. Someone being spoon-fed politics on a weekly basis has a deeply-ingrained sense of duty come election day, if only to support the party as a whole.

Which is why I get my political information from C-span.

My brain works just fine, I don't need the media's "analysis".

[Robert Hall]

Which is why I get my political information from C-span.

My brain works just fine, I don't need the media's "analysis".

I like C-Span... I watch them frequently and the BBC America evening news. I also listen to NPR.

[Croc]

Which is why I get my political information from C-span.

My brain works just fine, I don't need the media's "analysis".

THANK YOU!!

[balthazar]

>>"If you follow Congress, it's more like the Republicans won't compromise with the Democrats. Look at where all the political noise (fillibusters, protests, etc) has come from--hint, it isn't the D's."<<

Who literally turned out the lights on proceedings, then voted with their majority to take a month & a half vacation with gas @ $4 per while many from the other party have continued working?

Who has steadfastly proclaimed that more drilling would do absolutely nothing & take 10 years doing it, that inflating tires would result in saving as much oil as could be gotten from new drilling, and has recently changed that stance to 'consider it, but limited'?

Who has made a point of turning every interview & sound bite into a Bush bash-fest, issues be damned, as if GWB was somehow running for another term?

Who has led the most inactive, most unproductive Congress in 20 years?

The Dems.

[loki]

Which is why I get my political information from C-span.

My brain works just fine, I don't need the media's "analysis".

I don't mind Cspan, i get "trapped" by bookTv sometimes. haha.

i don't turn it on much at all during the week though.

Npr... other than it's fluff pieces.. the time allowance for big news doesn't allow for indepth coverage and i think they skew to the liberal, but not alot, nor all the time.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Croc, while some of the far right may vote mccain anyways, a lot would likely not vote. plus he would not have nearly as much support campaigning etc if he didnt suck up to them a bit.

However, if he is elected, and he prooves to be popular, he very well may be able to run for reelection under a moderate or even independent (since im sure a lot of the far right GOP will be less than pleased)!

[Sixty8panther]

>>"No one can spend as out of control as Republicans"<<

BO has proposed over $1T in new spending out on the trail. He has also co-signed (w/ Biden) the World Povery Act, tentatively proposing to send another $845B overseas over the next 13 years. Great- I guess that's a monster FU to this country's infrastructure. How much would that accomplish towards energy independance ?? Add to that any claim to balance or even reduce the budget... and where, again, is that money going to come from?

70% of the rest of the world hates us.... and yet we keep giving them handouts

despite that.... while they work to destroy us economically & in some cases in a

medeival Jihad,we do very little to help ourselves. It pisses me off SO much that

we almost never look out for our own first & foremost.

Therer's plent of poverty RIGHT here in my town and Boston & Worcester,

there are thousands of veterans who fought in wars they might or might NOT

have agreed with (to protect our freedoms & way of life) who are left to fend for

themselves in the gutter (sometimes litterally) so that we can give MORE money

to a bunch of countrie who breed like fu**ing rabitts despite their long term &

short term inability to feedthemseves.

And STILL they hate us.. always will too... jelaousy is an ugly monster.

[Sixty8panther]

Agreed 100%. Ocn and gm4life: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me...but for the love of Ogg BACK YOUR &#036;h&#33; UP! This is the internet, Google is but a mouseclick away.

Yup... if you read it on the internet it MUST be true!

[Croc]

>>"If you follow Congress, it's more like the Republicans won't compromise with the Democrats. Look at where all the political noise (fillibusters, protests, etc) has come from--hint, it isn't the D's."<<

Who literally turned out the lights on proceedings, then voted with their majority to take a month & a half vacation with gas @ $4 per while many from the other party have continued working?

Who has steadfastly proclaimed that more drilling would do absolutely nothing & take 10 years doing it, that inflating tires would result in saving as much oil as could be gotten from new drilling, and has recently changed that stance to 'consider it, but limited'?

Who has made a point of turning every interview & sound bite into a Bush bash-fest, issues be damned, as if GWB was somehow running for another term?

Who has led the most inactive, most unproductive Congress in 20 years?

The Dems.

False. The issue is offshore drilling, NOT drilling on domestic land that the oil companies already have leases for. The ban on offshore drilling was STARTED by Reagan, and has been renewed all along, through both Republican and Democratic leadership.

The oil companies already have a LOT of domestic land for which they hold the leases that they ARE CHOOSING NOT TO DRILL ON. How would allowing them to drill offshore--where the environmental concerns are much greater, and the cost and technology involved for extracting such oil is already MUCH MORE expensive than the domestic land for which they are not drilling--help any? From even a business perspective it makes much more sense for them to do the cheaper drilling NOW on DOMESTIC LAND instead of inject millions or billions into offshore drilling operations. They may be able to desecrate the offshore environment when the ban expires this October, but they aren't going to start drilling for years at the earliest, and why should they when they've been choosing not to drill on land they already can--and IMO SHOULD--be drilling on?

[Croc]

Yup... if you read it on the internet it MUST be true!

Oh stuff it. For all the crap on the internet, there is plenty of easily-accessible legitimate information. Wikipedia is a great source for compiling information, and when the wiki entry cites its sources, THOSE sources can be used to trot out arguments. Those can then be debated legitimately.

Hell, even using &#036;h&#33; sources in a thread like this isn't even a problem, because citing a &#036;h&#33; source would lead several posters to check up on it and promptly debunk it if it is not legitimate.

But generally credible journalism, like most newspapers, is easily accessed on the net.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Croc

[Drew Dowdell]

"Republicans think that tax cuts.... any tax cuts... are fiscal conservatism. They're wrong." - Oldsmoboi

That is an opinion, not a fact. If you're going to throw up your hands in disgust at others who post opinions in this thread, while claiming only to post "facts" yourself, please don't deviate from that.

Tax cuts can be reckless. Being reckless is not conservative. That isn't an opinion.

[Drew Dowdell]

The main problem with this subject is... we can all argue until we're blue in the face... but we will not change each other's minds. If the other guy you wish to persuade is not persuaded and shows no signs of being converted... what's the point in going on with your arguments?

"...why don't you refute your position with a cogent argument." Um, I am not going to refute my own positions. What are you talking about?

You're supposed to try and refute my argument with something more than "No it isn't!".

I don't even bother to try and argue about abortion because much of the debate revolves around emotion. I'm basing my tax cut argument on economic constructs and history. Do you sit there and scream at the Discovery Channel when they present a version of history you don't agree with?

[Drew Dowdell]

weren't the dems elected as an anti war group or something like that? the approval ratings for both bush and congress show how much things are not liked right now...from both sides.

i do try...usually. lol

should I run for office?

..welfare, useless? i'd think so. hehe

"tax rates"..you mean income taxs or all taxes combined?

a staple quote of RP's campaign is that if we had the budget of 8 years a go we wouldn't need the income tax. now with the debt that's prolly not possible, but i think we should work towards that. that would create an economic growth spurt, prolly increase "happiness" and maybe even have fewer people in the hospital from February to May. lol

olds. was that RP snippet put in there as an example or just appeasement.

and :rotflmao: not that i care.

I don't know if you see me as some generic "tax and spend" liberal or not but I agree with many of RP's policies. The notable exception being his clinging to the gold standard. I would let the government tax and run energy, transportation, interstate commerce, and the military and shove nearly everything else back down to the states.

In the meantime however, he have this debt to overcome and tax cuts for the wealthy will not help resolve that issue. RP may not be right on everything, but he's a LOT closer than any of the other candidates when it comes to economic policy.

[Drew Dowdell]

hm? i try to stay informed, but maybe i skipped over this....?

We, the taxpayers, are now on the hook for all of Fannie and Freddie's bad debt.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yup... if you read it on the internet it MUST be true!

Man, I've been linking to McCain's and Obama's web sites, wiki articles on economics that explain both sides of the theory.... how much more direct do you want me to get? Next step, I start mailing out Econ 101 text books to the lot of you.

[loki]

I don't know if you see me as some generic "tax and spend" liberal or not but I agree with many of RP's policies. The notable exception being his clinging to the gold standard. I would let the government tax and run energy, transportation, interstate commerce, and the military and shove nearly everything else back down to the states.

In the meantime however, he have this debt to overcome and tax cuts for the wealthy will not help resolve that issue. RP may not be right on everything, but he's a LOT closer than any of the other candidates when it comes to economic policy.

i can't agree on the energy or transportation....unless you mean only to keep it fair and working....which i think the states would be able to usually do.

"generic...."....not really. i just can't agree on spending tax payers money on things that we'll never get direct use out of...other than the military. like ethanol, or something in alaska, etc.

if the gov't does it and you replace the gov't with a person you may or may not know and you wouldn't want that person doing it, then i don't think the gov't should be doing it. like stealing money from my paycheck... sure..."it's safe and waiting for your retirement".... but it's still keeping my money i worked for and not letting me have it when i should...Social security. bah.

We, the taxpayers, are now on the hook for all of Fannie and Freddie's bad debt.

ok, that was the only thing coming to mind. just checking.

[Drew Dowdell]

i can't agree on the energy or transportation....unless you mean only to keep it fair and working....which i think the states would be able to usually do.

"generic...."....not really. i just can't agree on spending tax payers money on things that we'll never get direct use out of...other than the military. like ethanol, or something in alaska, etc.

if the gov't does it and you replace the gov't with a person you may or may not know and you wouldn't want that person doing it, then i don't think the gov't should be doing it. like stealing money from my paycheck... sure..."it's safe and waiting for your retirement".... but it's still keeping my money i worked for and not letting me have it when i should...Social security. bah.

The reasons I think energy should be controlled at the federal level are:

1. It is a domestic security issue, perhaps the largest one out there.

2. There needs to be national standards for fuels, having 45 different blends of gasoline for 50 states is terribly inefficient.

3. The electricity grid is nationally and internationally connected. The outage in Ohio a few years back took out parts of Canada and NYC also.

4. The need for some sort of alternative energy is clear. I'd rather have us move forward as one country rather than 50 states moving in every which direction and some not moving at all.

5. In energy, buying in bulk matters.... a LOT.

The reasons I think transportation should be controlled at the federal level are:

1. CARB.... do I even need to remind anyone of this?

2. Most transportation is interstate.

3. There need to be national (if not international) standards for emissions, safety, and efficiency. Not just for cars, but for ships, planes, and trains too.

4. The Interstate highway network.

5. Air Traffic Control

I'd prefer that Social Security would be privatized, but I fully admit that I have no idea how to go about doing it.

I disagree with your assessment that the general public won't get a use out of something like ethanol or a bridge in Alaska. There are going to be things that you do help pay for to help the overall common good. That is part of being part of society. Ethanol (though I hate what the corn lobby has done) will benefit us as a nation. That bridge in Alaska might be taking oil workers to their jobs.

I pay school taxes even though I have no (and probably never will have) kids. But I also recognize, as the founding fathers did, that an educated populace is better than an uneducated one. No, the school tax doesn't benefit me directly, but due to education, there are fewer idiots out there arguing economics with me when they don't have even a basic understanding of the subject.

[Drew Dowdell]

Oh good grief......

“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics,” Mr. Obama told his supporters here. “That’s just calling the same thing something different.”

With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”

In the latest sign of the campaign’s heightened intensity, Mr. McCain’s surrogates responded within minutes and called on Mr. Obama to apologize to Gov. Sarah Palin for the lipstick remark. But to those in the audience, it was clear that Mr. Obama was employing an age-old phrase — lipstick on a pig — and referring to Mr. McCain’s policies. He had not yet mentioned Ms. Palin at that point of his speech.

How dumb does McCain think we are?

[Robert Hall]

Oh good grief......

How dumb does McCain think we are?

They fixate on nonsense because they have nothing of substance of their own to present.

[Intrepidation]

Obama has nothing to apologize for and shows how petty, childish, and desperate McCain is for attention.

Yep I want that big old baby running my country.

[gm4life]

Obama has nothing to apologize for and shows how petty, childish, and desperate McCain is for attention.

Yep I want that big old baby running my country.

Yes he does, it was a clear swing at Palin. He wouldn't have used that term otherwise. He could have said it 100 other ways and it was clear his crowd got it too. McCain is hardly what I would call petty, he is a proud American, served our country, and also his wife has always been proud of her country and actually done good things in the world. As for Michelle no she is just proud of her country now that her hubby is running for prez that shows how petty her family is. Barack is going to say whatever he has to get votes, he'll say one thing in San Fransico and another thing in Dayton. One thing you can say about McCain he is whom he is a the Obama camp is upset his messeage of being a maverick is true so is Palins like taking on big oil. The Obama camp is &#036;h&#33;ting there pants over the new energy and polls and it is was suppose to be a slam dunk for a dem this year. So much for that. Had they picked anyone but Obama they might not be hear but leave it to the dems to screw it up. Obama couldn't run as such a liberal so he has had to come to the middle more and more, weather he really beliefs that stuff remains to be seen. Obama is about futhering his politcal career and the media except for FOX are all in the tank with him. It is disgusting. Hmmmmmmm so you say McCain is petty? And a big baby, it would be closer to other way around. Yeah right.

The &#036;h&#33; some of you people believe is so sad. Obama is like the second coming of Christ right?

Edited September 10, 2008 by gm4life

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes he does it was a clear swing at Palin.

Using a common common common phrase was a stab at Palin... who at that point of the speech had not even been mentioned yet?

[Drew Dowdell]

Palin took on big oil by TAXING THEM!

As a result, a refinery that was originally planned was canceled.

[gm4life]

I hardly consider that a common phrase. Every time Obama's media boyz and girlz take a swing at her its more votes for McCain I hope they know that.

[Drew Dowdell]

I hardly consider that a common phrase.

You need to get out more then

Used on this board:

Here

Here

Here

Here

Referenced here

Referenced here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

There are 3 pages worth of results.... in case you're curious.

[z28luvr01]

Not that I'm taking sides, but Obama said the same thing about Hillary's health care plan.

[Intrepidation]

You need to get out more then

+1

[gm4life]

And some of that money went back to the people. I would like to see Obama have the guts to take on the status quo in a state like Alaska.

[Intrepidation]

It's an extremely common phrase we even use on this site to describe cars, saying it isn't is just stupid.

[Drew Dowdell]

And some of that money went back to the people. I would like to see Obama have the guts to take on the status quo in a state like Alaska.

uh, whatever happened to "taxes are bad", "taxes on the rich are bad", and "taxes on corporations are bad"?

Her tax cut is exactly the opposite of Horse and Sparrow theory.

I'm not even against her tax cut, I think it was a good thing. I'm just against you using it as an example of Palin "Taking on the Oil Companies" because it is directly contrary to your entire economic policy. Geeze, at least keep your flawed arguments consistent!

[Drew Dowdell]

And some of that money went back to the people. I would like to see Obama have the guts to take on the status quo in a state like Alaska.

The status quo is the Bush admin, McCain, and the Clintons. He's taking them on just fine.

[Drew Dowdell]

What Obama should say:

"Yesterday I talked to a group of voters about how the McCain campaign is trying to call their continuation of just about every single Bush-Cheney policy of the last eight years "change." In doing so, I used a common, hundred-year-old phrase that we all understand: You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Now the McCain campaign demands that I apologize for saying this. Everyone, it seems, wants to hear my answer. Here it is: NO.

No, I will not apologize for telling the American people the truth: That McCain and Palin represent a stunning, and disastrous, continuation of Bush and Cheney's policies. Policies of sacrificing the middle class to give huge tax cuts to millionaires and big corporations. Policies that prevent Americans from getting the health care they need. Policies that would privatize Social Security and take away a woman's right to choose.

No, I will not apologize for saying the truth, even if it hurts John McCain's and Sarah Palin's feelings. Because this is not about them. And it's not about me. It's about you. These past eight years, Americans have suffered a lot more than hurt feelings . . . [insert brief litany of Bush disasters here].

You are the ones who have been hurt, and someone has to fight for you. And I will do that, even if it gets me in trouble.

There's a word I've heard from the McCain campaign recently: "deference." No one is going to ask Sarah Palin a question, they say, unless they show her "deference." Joe Biden points out that they oppose all stem cell research, and they are offended he even mentioned it. I point out that their claim of bringing change is ridiculous, and they demand an apology. Apparently we are not showing them enough deference.

Let me explain something to Senator McCain and Governor Palin, as deferentially as I can: This is a democracy -- not a monarchy. You don't get to demand "deference" from the American people as if they were your royal subjects. You -- and I -- and everyone who seeks elected office must defer to the American people, and answer their questions, and fight for them even when it's politically inconvenient. That is what I promise to do. Thank You."

[Intrepidation]

There should be a clap emote because that was excellent.

[Croc]

Yes he does, it was a clear swing at Palin. He wouldn't have used that term otherwise. He could have said it 100 other ways and it was clear his crowd got it too. McCain is hardly what I would call petty, he is a proud American, served our country, and also his wife has always been proud of her country and actually done good things in the world. As for Michelle no she is just proud of her country now that her hubby is running for prez that shows how petty her family is. Barack is going to say whatever he has to get votes, he'll say one thing in San Fransico and another thing in Dayton. One thing you can say about McCain he is whom he is a the Obama camp is upset his messeage of being a maverick is true so is Palins like taking on big oil. The Obama camp is &#036;h&#33;ting there pants over the new energy and polls and it is was suppose to be a slam dunk for a dem this year. So much for that. Had they picked anyone but Obama they might not be hear but leave it to the dems to screw it up. Obama couldn't run as such a liberal so he has had to come to the middle more and more, weather he really beliefs that stuff remains to be seen. Obama is about futhering his politcal career and the media except for FOX are all in the tank with him. It is disgusting. Hmmmmmmm so you say McCain is petty? And a big baby, it would be closer to other way around. Yeah right.

The &#036;h&#33; some of you people believe is so sad. Obama is like the second coming of Christ right?

You came to this conclusion watching C-Span and forming your own opinions?

[Croc]

Some Op/Ed I found online...very interesting:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...ibertarian.html

[gm4life]

You came to this conclusion watching C-Span and forming your own opinions?

Yup.

[Drew Dowdell]

Useage of the phrase "Lipstick on a pig" on just this website alone:

Here

Here

Here

Here

Referenced here

Referenced here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

There are 3 pages worth of results.... in case you're curious.

[Croc]

Some interesting articles:

Palin Received Per Diem at Wasilla Home

Wydon Challenges Order Authorizing Export of Alaskan Natural Gas

Businessweek: Obama vs. McCain: Taxing and Spending

[Croc]

Yup.

I asked you that question to test your veracity. I don't really appreciate being lied to, so you'll have to continue your end of the debate with someone else.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Oh, the lipstick on a pig comment doesn't even matter. HOWEVER, Obama is playing right into the GOPs hand by refuting it. The GOP is doing exactly what they need to do, steal the spotlight off of Obama. Biden is already on the back burner with the media since hes arguably more boring to listen to than McCain. And by taking the spotlight off of Obama it will ultimately help the GOP in the long run.

EDIT

Ha! check out this thing from Biden.

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America," Biden said. "Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate.”

link to him saying it here http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi..._clinton_a.html

EDIT #2

we may very possibly have a Barr/Paul ticket now lol

Edited September 10, 2008 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Croc]

Oh, the lipstick on a pig comment doesn't even matter. HOWEVER, Obama is playing right into the GOPs hand by refuting it.

But he isn't refuting it...he's using the opportunity to highlight the "mock outrage" campaign tactic.

[Camino LS6]

My take on "swinegate":

First, it doesn't matter whatsoever.

Second, if you listen to the clip of it, Obama is fumbling around for words just before he says it. Obviously, his use of the expression wasn't premeditated. However, his audience (also obviously) made the connection to Palin even before Obama finished getting the words out. I'm sure he realized what had happened immediately ( I imagine that he must have thought to himself at that moment "Oh &#036;h&#33;!").

There are two disingenous thing s going on about this right now:

1. The McCain campaign is using it to the hilt while knowing it was unintentional.

2. Obama is denying the obvious reference to Palin as if he is surprised at the reaction his word choice caused.

Obama should have simply stated the truth: that he didn't think of the connection to Palin until after he said what he said.

All he had to do was say that it was an unintentional thing, and that he in no way meant it as a slight to Palin.

If you watch the clip it's quite obvious.

[Drew Dowdell]

Quite simply.... no. He shouldn't correct himself or apologize at all. He said nothing wrong.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I can't wait until Biden has her for lunch. I've seen the man in person, he takes no prisoners.

[Camino LS6]

Quite simply.... no. He shouldn't correct himself or apologize at all. He said nothing wrong.

Oh come on, it was an obvious slip of the lip. He could have snuffed it out with a choice comment at the start. You know, a slight smile and "you know I didn't mean it like that" would have prevented the whole thing from getting to this level of silly. To start defending such an inane thing when the connection is so obvious just makes him look petulant, or worse, foolish.

[Croc]

Oh come on, it was an obvious slip of the lip. He could have snuffed it out with a choice comment at the start. You know, a slight smile and "you know I didn't mean it like that" would have prevented the whole thing from getting to this level of silly. To start defending such an inane thing when the connection is so obvious just makes him look petulant, or worse, foolish.

McCain used the exact same expression against Senator Clinton and her health care plan back a few months ago.

Also, Palin's whole joke was comparing herself to a pit bull.

Now, had Obama said "you can put lipstick on a pit bull, but she's still a bitch" then I'd agree that there was something uncalled for. But "putting lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig" while obviously referencing McCain and NOT Palin (if you see the clip within the context of what he was saying), it's moot.

[gm4life]

But Croc this happend after Palin said it.