I am still in shock that anyone who calls him- or herself a comunity leader could sink to the lowest level that Barack Obama sank to with this from Ben Smith's Blog:
September 09, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Obama: 'Lipstick on a pig'
Amie Parnes reports from Lebanon, VA:
Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra."You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."
"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink.""We've had enough of the same old thing."
The crowd apparently took the "lipstick" line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: "lipstick."
++++++++++++++++
How much longer can anyone who portrays him or herself "decent" withhold a barrage on Obama for this remark? Barack Obama is showing his true "moral core;" it is to slice and dice, lie and libel, do whatever it takes with The One as the sole criterion for deciding how far to go.
As the night progresses, I see that nearly 2,000 posts have gone up in the last 3 hours. To say that this hit a nerve is an understatement. This remark shattered the nation's spine.
What the Obama supporters can't handle is the reality of their Chosen One. He is vapid, shallow, inarticulate left to his own devices; and yes, it's true: if this were a white candidate, he would never have gotten past the Iowa Caucuses. He is where he is because he is black; that is the "historic" novelty of his campaign.
It's not racism to admit that reality; it is the truth, and everyone but the black racists knows that it is the truth. Well, actually it is more accurate to say that they do know, but by keeping up the "white guilt trip" hanging over everybody's head, they can act oblivious to the truth, and get away with it.
Let's have an honesty moment here: If Jeremiah Wright were white, and substituted black in his racist diatribes, do you believe for even a single second that person would be invited to address The National Press Club?
No, not in a million years.
The reality, the dirty secret of America's race relations, is that black racism directed towards whites is the only socially accepted racism left in America.
Let me make clear I am not saying it is morally acceptable - no form of racism is morally acceptable. What I am saying is that the black racists so cower the whites whom they attack, and force them into a total collapse of moral force, that they can assert their racism and not only have no fear of paying any penalties in the realm of social acceptance, but will, in fact, find themselves invited to such first-tier forums such as The National Press Club as "honored" speakers "enlightening" journalists inside The Beltway.
Oprah Winfrey offers another example of black racism at work. When a white author was caught lying in his Oprah-endorsed autobiography, no one can forget the groveling Ms. Winfrey made that author do to "earn" forgiveness.
Yet when Barack Obama's autobiography turns up with 40 significant lies documented by the Chicago Tribune, Ms. Winfrey goes on a whistle-stop tour to get him elected president.
When you apply one standard to one race, and another to some other race, that is racism. And that is exactly what Ms. Winfrey practiced in these well-known incidents.
-30-
3 comments:
This is a little simplisti. First, the "pig" in that statement is clearly McCain's policies, with the promise of "change" being the lipstick. The parallel fish metaphor, which you also post here for some reason, makes that even more evident. Was Obama using one of his competitor's catch phrases against her? absolutley. Exactly the same way the Republicans are doing by stealing the "change" mantra.
As for the Oprah thing, the Fries situation was different because this isa presidential candidate. There's no reason to assume Oprah, textbook bleeding heart liberal, wouldn't have forgiven a white candidate the same way. It's just as logical to say she behaved this way because there's no way she'd want an administration promising to be almost exactly like the previous one moving into the White House (or maybe there is if we're taking the color of her skin into account...but your blog here seems to be preaching against that...).
And I know, McCain says he'll bring change! But again, that word "change" is what? Lipstick on a pig.
And as for Obama's campaign not succeeding if he were white...that's a little hard to believe since he's clearly modelling his rhettoric and persona on John and Bobby Kennedy. They were both pretty successful. Also, whiter than wonder bread.
You miss the points - all the way around.
The lipstick remark demonstrates an unthinking lack of sensitivity to the phrases' connotation. In a world of sound-bites, a president must be able to foresee how every phrase will play. Obama obviously isn't up to that caliber.
Why is it reasonable to believe I perceived this more accurately than you? All we have to do is look at the firestorm Obama ignited. Obviously - in fact, inarguably, Obama's remark was taken in a way that outraged the public.
In fact, I'm watching Obama in Day 2 keeping the issue alive by bringing it up at a public appearance. This is a man who is used to people getting out of his way - for whatever reason people have done so throughout his life - and making excuses for his pitiful judgment.
You can rationalize it to death - the fact remains that Obama's failure to perceive the way it would affect the public demonstrates an inferior ability to handle presidential pronouncements. What excuse will you make for him when his unthinking mind blurts out an international incident instead of a campaign gaffe?
This is just another in a long line of air-headed phrases - such as how many states are in the Union, or what is his religious belief system - I believe "Muslim" was the quote. He obviously is given to terribly poor articulation when left to his own devices. He's not "presidential" on this aspect of qualifications for the White House.
I found your excuse for Ms. Winfrey's racially oriented standards to be disingenuous, to say the least.
If I take your explanation at its face, you are saying that a higher standard for honesty exists for a non-presidential author than for a presidential candidate. Respectfully, that is totally over-the-top. I really can't pursue it further because it is so far out in left field.
This is the problem I have all along with Obama. He is a pathological liar. I invite you to read the Chicago Tribune article about his biography. The newspaper documents its lies from beginning to end.
Then visit FactCheck.org and you'll find more. The Washington Post's own truth squad will give you more reading to validate my position.
And please note all three references I just gave you are first-tier organizations of excellence. I'm not sending you - or anyone else - off to less than internationally recognized news and research organizations.
I appreciate your comment, and I'm glad you presented it in a civil manner. Thank you for your time and interest.
Kenneth
hey man, I appreciate your civilty too.
But to clarify: I am not defending Oprah's actions. At all. It's a double standard, clear as day. All I'm saying is that it isn't inarguably a racial double stadard. There's another highly probable motive, i.e. Oprah's a democrat.
Also, I think Obama did realize the consequences of the line. Liberals (the people Obama's selling to) love it. I haven't seen moderates give this controversy more than a verbal shrug. Conservatives hate it yes, but their reactions are, in a word, giant. It really calls into question this image of feminism they're trying to portray if the highest crime one can commit is calling a lady ugly.
Obama flat out said on Letterman today that if this metaphor was a personal attack, McCain would be the pig. Look at that soundbite; it's not simply adopting language and then being misconstrewn, it's blunt. Let's see if calling a man a pig irritates the Republicans as much as the first line did.
And I'm familiar with factcheck; it's a good site.
Post a Comment