Obama either called her a pig, or, if not, then he called McCain one. Any doubts, listen carefully to the tape.

Entelechy on September 15, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Actually he was calling out McSame on his message of “maverick” and bringing “change” to Washington. Then went on to say his admin would be the same as Bush’s. Then tied McSame,s rhetoric to Bush’s policies as putting lipstick on a pig. I don’t know if you got to see the whole speech or at least the 2 minutes before the PC “offending comment“ (the link was in a previous thread on this subject), because you would see the audience responding no differently then when BO made the lipstick comment. The clip here at HA started just before lipstick/pig.

It was just winding down…and now it is in the news again as pundits argue, again, whether Obama meant to call Palin a pig, or really is just a poor off the cuff speaker…

Either way, it is all good for McCain…

McCain’s nemesis is well, McCain.

Idiot. He just gave himself a swift uppercut.

Somebody shut him up before its to late!

LOL! Nah, don’t spoil the fun. It’s always entertaining to watch McCain splay himself at the feet of liberals.

FINAL DRAFT

Anyone who thinks Obama didn’t called Palin a pig, has not played close attention to this election.

He called her a “pig”. It was almost clever, but it was just plain stupid.

The question I have is:

Why did he find it necessary to call her a “pig”?

He called her a “pig”. I was almost clever, but it was just plain stupid.

The question I have is:

Why did he find it necessary to call her a “pig”?

inferred: (4) to hint; imply; suggest.
 
Maxx on September 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM

 
Maxx, I sympathize, but what you’re seeing at reference.com is a dictionary editor waving the surrender flag and caving in to an incorrect popular usage. So many people nowadays use “infer” when they mean “imply” that most editors don’t even try to fight it any more.
 
Here’s a good explanation of the distinction at bartleby.com.

inferred: (4) to hint; imply; suggest.

Maxx on September 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM

It’s been misused so often that the damn dictionary duly records it. Thus it is now bereft of meaning, as it has been assigned two, meanings that are in opposition to one another.

Same damn thing has happened to “comprise”.

And GET OFF MY LAWN!

He called her “lipstick” which is typical of a man who sees women as “sweeties”. She is the lipstick on the McCain campaign pig but the campaign is still a pig according to him.

If I were a woman, I think I would be more upset to her being relegated to being the campaign’s “lipstick” than being seen for the person she is. Crass.

That dog won’t hunt.

“I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.”

Sound familiar?

He could have answered it differently .. but I don’t think it’ll cause too much trouble.

There will be, however, an ad showing McCain’s commercial accusing Obama of calling her a pig, followed immediately by a clip of him saying “no” in response to the question of whether he thinks Obama called her a pig. I’ll be surprised if it’s on not wrapped by close of business today.

cgoode777 on September 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM

I’m sure the charge was made by the McCain campaign, as opposed to John McCain himself. The two are very, very different.

That dog won’t hunt.

“I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.”

Sound familiar?

He could have answered it differently .. but I don’t think it’ll cause too much trouble.

There will be, however, an ad showing McCain’s commercial accusing Obama of calling her a pig, followed immediately by a clip of him saying “no” in response to the question of whether he thinks Obama called her a pig. I’ll be surprised if it’s on wrapped by close of business today.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The speaker or writer implies.
The listener or reader infers.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.

The Monster on September 15, 2008 at 5:37 PM

inferred: (4) to hint; imply; suggest.

We’ve seen this strategy before. Heck, I’ve used it myself (high school debate). Here’s the best example I can think of:
http://www.hycyber.com/VERSE/friends_romans.html

…The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest —
For Brutus is an honorable man,
So are they all, all honorable men —
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me.
But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept.
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And sure he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know. …

Summation of vacuous + vicious = Obama/Axelrod.

He knew exactly what he was doing. He and Axelrod probably talked about it for hours.

Elizabetty on September 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Indeed. Axelrod is a sinister figure, who’ll cost O. the election. The two, together, are a summation of vcuous = vicious.

Our country is looking for change, but not their kind.

Barry: “What??? There’s a woman with a fish nickname on the ticket too? A barracuda is a fish? I had no idea! I’m just a stand up comedian these days. I don’t really follow politics or campaign language.”

Yeah I give him credit for slipping that one under the radar. Even if most of America got distracted by the pig insult, I’m sure the Barracuda knows Barry was twisting the knife there with his choice of metaphors about “McCain.”

McCain’s ad was right and McCain was right in his statement above. Of course Obama didn’t DIRECTLY call Palin a pig, he only inferred it. McCain’s ad did not say that Obama called Palin a pig, it only inferred it.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The speaker or writer implies.
The listener or reader infers.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.

Oops.

Bob’s Kid on September 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Let’s hope so. Let Obama’s camp be the whine ‘n cheese party, while McCain and Palin give the appearance of being adults proposing solutions.

Time for McCain’s camp to put away all the “Obama said X about Palin” ads and start running some “Obama said X about [key issue]” ads.

The public will hear plenty about the gaffe-ticket’s self-inflicted oratorial idiocies thru the various media channels. Camp McCain needs to focus on hitting him hard, fast, often, and sans mercy on the issues.

That will give voters something substantial to chew on about Obama, and not just rhetoric and smear/response games.

I’m wondering if Ayers, Wright, and Rezko will ever really be an issue or whether McCain will defend his lack of judgment.

I’m not wondering. McCain already blasted some state GOP ads that attacked Obama by bringing up Wright.

“No enemies to my left” is John McCain’s motto.

Forward to 12 minutes.

Obama either called her a pig, or, if not, then he called McCain one. Any doubts, listen carefully to the tape.

Entelechy on September 15, 2008 at 5:22 PM

He knew exactly what he was doing. He and Axelrod probably talked about it for hours.