The Note: Amid Silliness, Races Take a Pause
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports in Thursday’s Note: Cue the serial condemnations: It’s unfair, dirty, nasty, despicable politics. We all hate it, and it has no place in a presidential campaign.
It also just might work.
Team McCain is in over-the-top outrage mode — shocked, offended, and aghast at the sexism, ageism, fill-in-the-blank-ism being directed at John McCain and Sarah Palin, real and (more than slightly) imagined.
Good luck keeping track of all the indignities (and the McCain campaign would prefer that you didn’t try to keep score).
“Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign launched a broadside against Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, accusing him of a sexist smear, comparing his campaign to a pack of wolves on the prowl against the GOP vice presidential pick, charging that the Democratic nominee favored sex education for kindergarteners, and resurrecting the comments of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.,” Jonathan Weisman and Peter Slevin write in The Washington Post.
McCain seems content to have the race focus on personality and process — not, heaven forbid, actual real issues. “Another day. Another roll in the mud,” writes the New York Daily News’ Michael Saul.
Read the rest of The Note — and get all the latest on the 2008 election, Congress, the White House and the wide world of politics every day — from Rick Klein by bookmarking this link.
By making discredited and untrue claims about Obama — and pretending that outrageous, offensive things are being widely circulated about Palin by the Obama campaign — Team McCain is pushing the limits of its claim to an open, honest, positive campaign.
“I just can’t wait for the moment when John McCain — contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat — talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment,” Time’s Joe Klein writes. “Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.”
“Tactically, it is clear, and it has been frequently noted, that McCain learned well the lessons from his last run in 2000,” ABC’s Andy Fies writes. “McCain may want to keep Bush at a distance … but not his tactics.”
“McCain’s campaign called Obama’s ‘disturbing,’ ‘desperate,’ ‘offensive,’ and ‘disgraceful.’ Obama’s campaign fired back with ‘pathetic,’ ‘perverse,’ ‘dishonorable,’ and ‘shameful,’” The Boston Globe’s Scott Helman reports. “Though McCain has more often been the aggressor, the back-and-forth — to borrow a recent McCain campaign description of Obama running mate Joe Biden — has reached ‘a new low.’”
Continue reading today’s Note by clicking HERE.
ABC News’ Hope Ditto contributed to this report.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
This is the stump speech Hillary Clinton should give now.
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/hillary-clintons-stump-speech-obama-sexist-comment/
Posted by: ZachJonesIsHome | September 11, 2008, 8:29 am 8:29 am
From:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/6qr95o
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Truth
Mark Halperin, on Anderson Cooper 360, September 9, from Talking Points Memo:
Cite:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/6qr95o
Posted by: Marie Stewart | September 11, 2008, 8:37 am 8:37 am
Yes, McCain is “pushing the limits” with those of us that vote the issues. While he is acting like a teenager in puberty, the rest of us are trying to pay bills, fill our cars up with gas, save for college, etc.
Posted by: Parker | September 11, 2008, 8:44 am 8:44 am
If the McCain campaign is so willing to exaggerate the most trivial comments of others, one wonders how McCain will exaggerate the ‘evidence’ of “weapons of mass destruction” to justify the invasion of another country.
John McCain has already shown a willingness to ‘take Iran out’, and distortion of the evidence is exactly how the invasion of Iraq was sold. John McCain was calling for the invasion of Iraq within days of the twin towers, and the evidence for the invasion was ‘misleading’, ‘distorted’, and outright lies.
Clearly from the willingness of McCain’s campaign to distort issues, lie about the record, and mislead with their comments, McCain cannot be trusted on the situation with Iran.
Posted by: James | September 11, 2008, 8:51 am 8:51 am
Misleading attack ads Of McCain Campaign sinks into silliness.
Win or lose, John McCain’s pride will tremble.
Posted by: Peace | September 11, 2008, 8:55 am 8:55 am
Weather or not the term “lipstick on a pig” is a common expression is certainly a sexist expression.
Far more sexist than saying someone’s voting record on Iraq is a racist comment. Obama and the MSM had no problem stocking the fires of false racism accusations against the most successful Democratic president in living memory who has spent his entire adult life fighting racism.
Spare me the fake outrage Mr Obama.
Posted by: s.b. | September 11, 2008, 8:55 am 8:55 am
He will use every tactic he can ,he can not win this race so he will take the action off what we the people want to hear for from him it is the same ole crap that Bush has and Palin is more like Bush then he is .He can put lipstick on her butt for all I care What color does he want????????I want to know what he is doing to help the American people.
Posted by: indp voter | September 11, 2008, 8:58 am 8:58 am
and the man who brought us the last 8 years
is back ion Mccain’s payroll.
remember the manipulation cover-ups and lies that faked us into all the tragic mistakes over the past 8 years…
well the architect has just been found receiving those moneys again.
2000 and 2004…
Karl Rove is trying to steal your nation again.
don’t let them…
Posted by: dl | September 11, 2008, 9:06 am 9:06 am
no answers
no changes
just Karl Rove behind the scenes fooling all the stupid people again.
save our country…throw these slimey nation manipulating scum bags out.
Posted by: dl | September 11, 2008, 9:07 am 9:07 am
The Republican fascists have no plan (other than follow the same, tired road to nowhere of the last eight years) so they turn to histrionics and obfuscation! “WAHHH!! WAAHHHH!!! They’re asking questions on real issues! They’re picking on me!!” WAHHH! WAHHHH!”
Posted by: Victoria | September 11, 2008, 9:08 am 9:08 am
The “war on terror” is a fraud.
Expose the 9/11 Big Lie.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Posted by: wtcbrother | September 11, 2008, 9:09 am 9:09 am
McCain would rather win an election than advocate for the American people.
Posted by: Parker | September 11, 2008, 9:14 am 9:14 am
Not a balanced article from Rick Klein:
Obama campaign are behind rediculous claims:
(First two point are enough for any gentlemen to bash Obama.Obama started it as before convention McCain Maintain his healthy environment):
1. “Ageism” – What will happen when something happen to McCain when Palin was selected
2. “Sexism”- Biden’s Sarcastic remark to Palin’s daugther, “Novelty”, “Lipstick”,”Abortion” as a resume
3. “Religion”- “Jesus was a Community Organizer”- Palin compared her resume with Obama’s. So, Obama compared his resume with Jesus.
4. “Beastism” – Often calling McCain a Pig
Posted by: Tim | September 11, 2008, 9:19 am 9:19 am
Posted by: Tim | Sep 11, 2008 9:19:27 AM
Not a balanced article from Rick Klein:
Obama campaign are behind rediculous claims:
==========================================
You cite the following as evidence that that Obama campaign is as guilty as McCain:
Alleged remarks about “McCain’s old-age”, alleged sexist remarks, Obama’s allegedly comparing himself favorably to Jesus, Obama’s allegedly calling McCain a pig (something you call “beastism”).
1. The question of “what might happen if something happened to McCain (he is old, he has suffered from skin-cancer), is not a smear, it is a legitimate question.
2. I do not recall either Obama or Biden making any remarks AT ALL about Palin’s daughter. Bloggers have done so, but Obama has expressly stated he thinks candidates’ families are off limits.
Addressing Palin’s or McCain’s positions on matters of public policy like Roe v. Wade is legitimate – not sexism.
3. Religion. Obama has never compared himself favorably or otherwise to any religious figure, certainly NOT to Jesus. Others have, usually comedians or conservative commentators trying to make Obama look foolish.
4. Obama has NEVER called McCain or Palin a pig.
These are the facts. I don’t suppose you’ll HONOR them, but then what does the McCain/Palin known about honor.
Apparently nothing.
Posted by: Campaign to elect McCain/Palin '08 | September 11, 2008, 9:46 am 9:46 am
Ok, let’s be civil and give Barack Hussein Obama the benefit of the doubt–that he really didn’t mean the ‘lipstick on a pig’ comment was directed at Sarah Palin (don’t believe it, but ok, let’s go from there)
Do we REALLY want a president who makes such language gaffs representing us in the foreign arena? He made this huge blunder, which, despite whether or not he intended it, offended a great many people.
What will happen when he’s talking with foreigners leaders, some of whom will need interpreters because language is an issue to begin with? Will he make such blunders and ruin relations with those folks? Harvard grad aside (you’d think Harvard would have taught him better), he just doesn’t have the command of language necessary in this volatile world.
The ‘lipstick on a pig’ offended many unarmed, reasonable, Americans. What happens when he verbally messes up and offends armed known enemies of America?
Scary.
Posted by: Even giving Obama the benefit of the doubt | September 11, 2008, 9:57 am 9:57 am
Who’s a Pig?
Brain Exercises to keep aging brains limber;-)
1.
“Spots” are to a “Leopard”
AS
“—–” are to a “Tiger”.
Sen. McCain slaps the word “change” on a policy that has not “changed”, but has remained exactly the same. This is like…
“putting lipstick on a pig: Its still a pig”.
In this analogy.
1. The Pig is….
a. rolling in the mud
b. not “kosher”
c. the former Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska
d. a bird, a plane…..an animal that can fly!
e. McCain’s old policies.
2. The lipstick is…
a. a pitbull
b. a hockey mom
c. the former Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska
e. bright red
f. the word “change”
Please choose the answer that best fits. You have until the second Tuesday in November.
Posted by: niccolo m@cchiavelli | September 11, 2008, 10:01 am 10:01 am
“Weather or not the term “lipstick on a pig” is a common expression is certainly a sexist expression.”
Not really, no. The point of the expression is that you CAN’T change what a pig is by putting lipstick on it (i.e. there’s more difference between pigs and women than just lipstick). By comparison, it would be sexist to say, just to pull an example out of the air, that you COULD turn a pitbull into a hockey mom by putting lipstick on it (there’s no other differences between them).
That’s not to say the expression can’t be used in a sexist way at all. If someone says “I was going to get a new dress for my wife, but what’s the point of putting lipstick on a pig? It’s still a pig.” that would be sexist. But applying the expression to John McCain calling his policies ‘change’? Not sexist.
But if you ignore all that, and you really think it is sexist, why weren’t you yelling when John McCain was using it?
Posted by: Aengil | September 11, 2008, 10:11 am 10:11 am
All the McCain supporters who continue to pretend that Obama truly meant to call Palin a pig, answer this then:
When McCain used the EXACT same phrase, “lipstick on a pig”, on Hillary Clinton, was he also calling Hillary a pig?
You can’t have it one way or another.
Even Meghan McCain says her father uses the expression, and the video evidence of McCain using “lipstick on a pig” on Hillary is on You tube.
Spare us the faux outrage. You’re only pretending to be offended because Obama said it. Here’s a news flash: MCCAIN SAID IT TO A WOMAN FIRST and that woman was HILLARY.
Posted by: Gee Whizz | September 11, 2008, 10:21 am 10:21 am
TO CATCH A PREDATOR
——————-
In his new Ad slamming Obama’s vote in favor of legislation allowing for “AGE APPROPRIATE K-12 sex ed”, Sen. John McCain is apparently going after a new segment of the American voting public…
America’s Pedophiles.
The legislation encouraged local communities to develop their OWN policies on teaching kids – especially vulnerable kids in kindergarten – how to recognize and protect themselves against sexual predators.
In opposing this legislation, Sen. John McCain is clearly opposed to teaching kids how to avoid pedophiles.
ergo…
Sen John McCain is more interested in helping pedophiles than he is helping kids.
Sen. John McCain – the Pedophile’s candidate for President!
Posted by: Pedophiles for McCain/Palin '08 | September 11, 2008, 10:22 am 10:22 am
All the McCain supporters who continue to pretend that Obama truly meant to call Palin a pig, answer this then:
When McCain used the EXACT same phrase, “lipstick on a pig”, on Hillary Clinton, was he also calling Hillary a pig?
You can’t have it one way or another.
Even Meghan McCain says her father uses the expression, and the video evidence of McCain using “lipstick on a pig” on Hillary is on You tube.
Spare us the faux outrage. You’re only pretending to be offended because Obama said it. Here’s a news flash: MCCAIN said it to a woman first and that woman was HILLARY.
Posted by: Gee Whizz | September 11, 2008, 10:23 am 10:23 am
Even giving Obama the benefit of the doubt – Hate to break the news to you, but YOUR candiate has used that exact saying on at least 4 different occasions. McCain’s daughter stated yesterday McCain uses that phrase all the time. You may want to watch it in your glass house….
Posted by: Huh?.. | September 11, 2008, 10:25 am 10:25 am
Sen. John McCain says he has a plan to catch Osama bin Laden, but…
he can only implement this plan if elected President.
Pres. GW Bush has NOT been able to catch Osama bin Laden. Apparently Bush is not doing what McCain would do. Apparently Bush doesn’t know McCain’s plan to catch Bin Laden – or he’d have caught Bin Laden already.
Which raises the following questions:
Why doesn’t Sen. McCain:
1. Tell Pres. Bush his plan?
2. Tell Pres. Bush his plan?
3. Tell Pres. Bush his plan?
———————————-
Is Sen. McCain really a patriot?
He says he’ll follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, he claims he knows how to catch Bin Laden, but then he won’t be bothered to walk up to the White House, ring on the doorbell, and tell Pres. Bush how to do this?
Posted by: Al Quaeda for McCain/Palin '08 | September 11, 2008, 10:32 am 10:32 am
I don’t care what you Obama worshippers say.. Obama is MEAN–mean to children (promotes infanticide), mean to women (duh–look at his comment yesterday), mean to our soldiers (believing their sacrifices aren’t worth it–he wants ‘out’ despite the ramifications that would have on the innocent Iraqi people), MEAN to hard-working people who want LOWER taxes, not higher, MEAN to parents who want school choice for their kids….
Rational, perceptive, thinking Americans can see through to his selfish purposes–to just elevate HIMSELF. No worries. MEAN guys don’t win.
Posted by: Mean guys don't win | September 11, 2008, 10:34 am 10:34 am
Whenever the Obama campaign started to lose ground to Hillary Clinton, they rushed to play the “race card” against Hillary or anyone who spoke in her favor, including her husband.
Now, Obama is losing ground rapidly to the McCain/Palin ticket.
When held to accountability on sexist statements, the Obama campaign and Obamabots whine and cry about the opposition playing the “sex card.”
And, once again, Obama and his handlers have to “explain” what he meant as opposed to what he said.
As usual, the Obama mantra implies “Do what I say, not what I do.”
Hypocritical, two-faced, and sleazy politics…
Obama-style…
Anybody But Obama…
Posted by: Jayhawk | September 11, 2008, 11:07 am 11:07 am
“Good luck keeping track of all the indignities (and the McCain campaign would prefer that you didn’t try to keep score).”
The faux indignation is bad enough.
Try keeping track of the McCain lies. And even when they get caught lying, they keep on repeating the lies.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a campaign this shameless and dishonorable.
Posted by: Paul | September 11, 2008, 11:27 am 11:27 am
Obama’s gang is doing the Rep. a favor with attacking Palin and family. Look at Obama’s history. Obama has a lot of pent up anger with his fatherless, unsettling young years and the constantly changing caretakers while growing up. This shows when he does not get his way. Watch his for his nervous grin and laugh and stuttering. He could go off any time and we will see the real Obama with not much more stress.
Posted by: dadminnesota | September 11, 2008, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
dadminn: “He could go off any time and we will see the real Obama…”
Are you really trying to say you think its more likely Obama will have an emotional explosion than McCain?
McCain’s own Republican colleagues don’t call him Senator Hothead for nothing. And one of them said he was supporting Bush eight years ago because in this senator’s view, McCain doesn’t have the temperment to be anywhere near a trigger.
Posted by: Paul | September 11, 2008, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
Special comment by Keith Olberman on 9/11! Courage to Speak Truth!
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/special-comment.html
Never again should a President you want to have a beer with be allowed to lie the American public into a False & Phony war and ignore the real war as George W. Bush was able too! National Security strength, I don’t think so, after all 911 happened on the Republicans’ watch, but they distorted that message too and you would think that Democrats are weak on national security! Politicans who lie to the public are engaged in a betrayal of the public trust and such distortion should be deemed unethical and in some cases, criminal!
And, it is an outrage or should be that the government can give millions of dollars to CEO’s from the failed Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and yet, cannot give a second stimulus check to American citizens in these hard economic times?
Republicans say No to a second stimulus while the Democrats say Yes to a second stimulus!
Is the Republican Congress working for CEO’s or are they working for you, the people?
Posted by: Angellight | September 11, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
The Boston Herald puts it this way:
“Let’s start with the obvious and inarguable: Of course Sen. Barack Obama’s comment about “lipstick on a pig” was a reference to Supergirl Sarah Palin.
You know it, I know it and the partisan crowd that literally rose to their feet and cheered when they heard it know it.
And it’s nothing new. Democrats shot the lipstick line at Gov. Palin on their official Web site last week with a posting entitled “McCain’s Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig” – accompanied by what I’m sure was intended to be a flattering photo of the Alaska outdoorswoman.
And – coincidence or something more? – the same day Obama made his crack, a Democratic congressman introducing Joe Biden said of Sarah Palin, “There’s no way you can dress up her record, even with a lot of lipstick.”
If there was anyone in the audience still too dense to get it – say, an employee of CNN, perhaps – Obama immediately followed up with a reference to the McCain/Palin campaign wrapping “an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change.’ ”
A lipstick-wearing pig and an old fish? Gee, who could he possibly be talking about?
So please, my Obama-supporting friends, let’s stop the nonsense about how Obama’s lipstick talk was, as he put it yesterday, an “innocent comment,” or that the reaction is “phony outrage.”
You want phony outrage? Flashback to Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad. Remember it? The helpless children asleep in bed, the insistent ringing of the phone, etc., etc. And some Obama supporters immediately cried “racism” because, they claimed, the ad played on white fears of black home invaders.
Or, even more laughable, that the first three letters of the word “night” in the kid’s “Goodnight Moon” pajamas were highlighted for nefarious purposes.
Now that was phony. What has happened to Sarah Palin in the past 10 days is, for many women, far too real. And for whatever reason, on Tuesday Obama chose to personally join in the, ahem, “fun.”
I say this as someone who is by nature an eye-roller when it comes to charges of sexism and racism. I tend to greet these accusations with a Freudian reminder that “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
But this time, the overt sexism towers like a Berlin pillar over an Obama campaign speech.
Smart people are asking why Obama would do something so dumb. He couldn’t have meant to say it, they argue, because he had to know it would exacerbate his biggest political problem – women voters abandoning the Democratic ticket.
I agree. This wasn’t a political plot. It was a Barack Obama point of personal privilege.
What we’re seeing is how Barack Obama performs under pressure. And so far, it isn’t pretty.”
And, that’s the way it is…
Anybody But Obama…
Posted by: Jayhawk | September 11, 2008, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
Jayhawk: “So please, my Obama-supporting friends, let’s stop the nonsense about how Obama’s lipstick talk was, as he put it yesterday, an ‘innocent comment,’ or that the reaction is ‘phony outrage.’”
Too funny – Republicans now taking things from the press as Gospel. First of all, was this in a column or an actual news report.
Second, regardless of who repeats this nonsense, it doesn’t make it stop being nonsense. In other words, you can put lipstick… oh wait, can’t say that anymore.
The simple fact is Obama was discussing McCain’s economic policies. McCain was the only name mentioned.
And additionally its a saying that both McCain and Obama have previously used this campaign season.
Let’s see – what other old sayings might now trigger faux indignation.
Can’t say, “digging in heels” anymore. Sounds too much like a reference to women’s shoes.
Can’t refer to the things by female pronouns anymore, because that could be confused as a reference to Palin. Come to think of it, McCain himself violated this one in his acceptance speech, when he referred to the nation as a female pronoun.
Can’t refer to milking an issue – because it could be construed as a reference to mammary glands.
Can’t refer to sacred cows, unless you word it like sacred cows and bulls.
Can’t say that McCain will pale in comparison to sane politicians (you know, the ones who don’t sing “bomb bomb Iran) because the phrase pale in sounds like Palin.
And the list grows.
Posted by: Paul | September 11, 2008, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
Paul, just watch the grin and the tension in his neck and forehead. He uses that fake grin/smile and laugh when it is about to happen. We know McCain’s temper and a controlled aggressive temper is what the U.S. needs. We do not know what Obama does when it explodes. With the tension of the campaign and not winning it will happen. Every candidate for as long as I can remember has exploded sometime during the campaign.
Posted by: dadminnesota | September 11, 2008, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
I wish that Obama would own up to all his associations, mistakes and flip flops.
He keeps laughing instead.
It really isn’t funny.
He reminds me of a naracisst. Has he been vetted by any therapist?
Posted by: Al from NJ | September 11, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm