Video: The Palin smears, explained
posted at 7:32 am on September 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Greta van Susteren hosted Brooks Jackson of Factcheck to explain and debunk some of the more resistant smears about Sarah Palin traveling through inboxes throughout the Internet. Jackson’s contempt for the top three lies about Palin comes through pretty clearly, perhaps none so much as the “bookbanner” smear:
At the end, though, he scolds the McCain campaign over its reaction to the “lipstick” comment, agreeing with Barack Obama that it referred to McCain’s policy rather than Palin herself. That seems to me to be venturing into opinion and not “fact” checking … but your mileage may vary.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
A primary reason I like Palin is she doesn’t whine. For all his faults, GW didn’t whine either. McCain doesn’t whine. Obama … HE WHINES. Yesterday, in reply to Lipstickgate, he said, spare me the false outrage. LOL! Excuse me any moderators listening, but the balls on that guy to say that. He’s the king of faux outrage and whining.
Paul-Cincy on September 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I don’t fear that. Bring it on because if that scenario happens and violence is the result I think it will be the end of the Democrat party.
420sniper on September 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Yeah, I think demanding an apology was a mistake too, even though it seems obvious she deserves one. If they start demanding apologies for every stupid thing Obama says, they won’t have time to eat or sleep.
Jim Treacher on September 11, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The lipstick thing reminds me of something a black co-worker told me one time. We were looking at the cover of a telephone book. It showed a drawing of two kids listening to two different kinds of phones It was a while back, and it was th anniversary of AT&T. The white kid was listening to a regular phone, and the black kid was listening to one of those phones made with two cans and a string. My friend said “See? That’s racist. Why wasn’t the white kid listening to the can?” and I said “I’m sure it wasn’t meant to be racist” to which he replied “You know, he may not have meant it intentionally, but you don’t understand what it’s like to be the object of racism. He may not have meant it to be racist conciously, but racism also affects the subliminal mind.” In other words…well, you know.
So, my point is, Hussein Obama meant the lipstick thing as a jab at Palin, of course it was subliminal.
SuperManGreenLantern on September 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM
It was opinion — and he’s right. In Uh-bama’s analogy, clearly Palin was the “lipstick” applied to the “pig” of McCain’s policies.
What Uh…bama is lacking is some lipstick of his own to pretty up that stupid non-flying pig of a meme that “McCain = Chimpy McBushitler”… No one buys that but the BDS crowd, who are unreachable by Reason, anyway.
Claire on September 11, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Obama’s environmental policies are like a watermelon, green on the outside, socialist red on the inside.
I somehow doubt the communication department of the Obama campaign, the MSM that is, would be explaining to us what McCain really meant if McCain were to use a watermelon analogy to criticize Obama.
So I fail to see how the pig analogy was harmless and should be ignored. I need smarter people than me to explain the double standard.
420sniper on September 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I didn’t react with outrage or surprise. At first I thought that it was just a coincidental and poor choice of words, but after i heard the ‘old fish’ comment and the reaction from the crowd, I knew that something was up. He played it real cool when he scratched his cheek with his middle finger (in April) and the crowd’s reaction was obviously good; this time he had the same cool demeanor.
O’Reilly said that there is no history of mean-spirited attacks by Obama. I guess he’s now in the tank for Barry after he got all up in his face during that interview.
No wonder I rarely watch that pompous windbag.
Christine on September 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Another question, considering all that has happened. While Hillary’s pride let her accept?
MarkTheGreat on September 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Sometimes lipstick on a pig is just lipstick on a pig, not a Freudian innuendo about where pitbull’s shop for cosmetics.
I agree that McCain’s campaign used it as a false accusation, and I wish at least they would stop with the hysterics. It would do us all some good.
trailboss on September 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM
FWIW…got your 6.
jerrytbg on September 11, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Guess BO must be a new improved Jesus, don’t recall the original begging for votes.
sleepyhead on September 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM
got your 6. – Jerry
Thanks, bro.
Tony737 on September 11, 2008 at 2:31 PM
From the http://www.FactCheck.org site…
I believe this is the same foundation that gave $49+ million to the avowed, unrepentant terrorist William Ayers to essentially radicalize the Chicago public school system. Ayers promptly hired Barack Obama to help him run the project. Go to the http://www.FactCheck.org search page and type in William Ayers Barack Obama. What you find may well dispel any previously held notions of this organization’s objectivity. Despite their pious protestations to the contrary, it appears that FactCheck is less than impartial and their connection to the Obama campaign is less than arm’s length.
Skull on September 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
That frustrated me as well. I was starting to trust the site a little, until he made the ‘opinion statement a fact’.
Now I just can’t quite trust them.
VERIFY! But i thought that’s what they were doing…???
shooter on September 11, 2008 at 2:42 PM
The lipstick comment wasn’t about Sarah Palin. Most red blooded Americans know if she was an animal it’s be a fox. But the comment was uncouth and incredibly politically bad. He didn’t choose his words carefully enough. But he’ll need to learn to be able to speak off prompter and not make these gaffes. He’s trying to be president for Christ’s sake.
Micheal on September 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2