Obama Says McCain Is Offering Fake Change: 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It's Still a Pig'

Mentioned a few days ago that Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's mild affect masks a bit of a killer, and that she's perhaps the Obama campaign's deftest surrogate on the attack.

But I was still kind of amused by her brief interaction with Mitt Romney in the press file just now.

McCaskill was stepping out of her chair at the end of an MSNBC interview, and Romney was up next. She and a staffer unplugged her various wires, and she handed Romney the earpiece the guests use to hear the host.

"I spit on this before I put it in," she said to Romney, with a sweet smile.

Do Not Insult Us Sarah - you don't know what you're talking about. Republicans would love to see a black man in office, but not your man. I couldn't have said this better.

“Senator Obama’s words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists.

Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years.

The old phrase, “a man of high ideals but no principles,” is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.”

another article:
"The public was treated to a different verse of the same song when Obama’s unbelievably corrupt friend Tony Rezko was convicted on 16 counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, soliciting bribes, and money laundering. Rezko’s primary business since 1990 was the buying and selling of political influence. It’s how he came to be first in line for government grants to convert run-down buildings into low-income housing, which he then let deteriorate into slums.

Obama entered into his own land deal with Rezko in the summer of 2005. Rezko bought the property adjacent to the Obama’s dream home and sold him a strip of land on which to build a fence. Obama paid a fair price, but by this point the Chicago papers had run more than 100 stories about the federal investigation into Rezko’s influence-peddling. Obama called his decision to deal with Rezko a “bone-headed move,” but claimed he didn’t know about the corrupt behavior. If so, he was the last person in Chicago.

Now Obama wants us to believe that he didn’t know about Bill Ayers’s terrorist past when he was working with Ayers in the 1990s. As a leader of the radical Weather Underground, Ayers participated in multiple bombings that he says he does not regret. He spent 11 years as a fugitive from justice. Obama and Ayers first met in 1995. In an interview for a book published that year, Ayers described his political views: “I am a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist.”

And regarding Sarah Palin. She has not complained about anything despite the cruel and ignornant stuff that is said about her by the liberal media or idiots like you. She has been so professional and gracious about everything unlike your man who is the biggest cry baby in this election. He sure can dish it, but can't seem to take it.

Why don't you look at the facts about Obama before speaking anymore. Obviously you have no clue what he is proposing or saying or you wouldn't be voting for him if you really knew.

Good stuff written by Thomas Sowell

Senator McCain’s health care plan is built around giving households more control over health care coverage decisions. He would convert today’s income-tax preference for employer-paid insurance into a refundable tax credit that workers and their families could direct to the insurance plan of their choice.

Obama and Biden are trying to scare voters by suggesting, first of all, that McCain’s reform would leave some households worse off than they are today. In fact, most Americans would come out well ahead under the McCain plan, as independent estimates — and common sense — indicate. A middle-class household in the 25-percent tax bracket — that’s married couples with incomes between $65,100 and $131,450 in 2008 — would have to get more than $20,000 a year in employer-paid premiums to be better off today than under the McCain plan. (The average employer contribution to family coverage was $9,325 in 2008, according to this annual survey.) A distributional analysis of the McCain plan by the Tax Policy Center shows all income groups, including the poorest fifth, better off with the McCain tax credit than under current law in 2009.

Senators Obama and Biden have also tried to claim that millions of Americans would be pushed out of employer-based plans under the McCain reform. But this claim is also false. McCain’s proposal would give workers the option to take their credit and apply it to insurance outside of their workplace. In some cases, this would be a rational decision, as it would give a worker portable insurance they could keep even as their employment and life circumstances change.

But there is no reason to believe large numbers of employers would suddenly drop coverage altogether. Job-based insurance would still be very desirable for most workers, as the premiums paid by firms would remain exempt from payroll taxes. For this reason, employers looking to attract and retain the best workers offer attractive health-insurance plans.

As Senator Obama has criticized the McCain plan in recent weeks, one has to wonder whether he even understands his own plan. Indeed, it is Obama’s plan, not McCain’s, that represents the real threat to employer-sponsored insurance.

Part of an article from the debate last night:

“The sky-high gasoline prices Americans paid all summer were effectively an energy tax, brought to us by policies limiting energy production supported chiefly by Democrats like Nancy Pelosi.

Barrack Obama, too, talked up the foreign-policy considerations of dependence on foreign oil. Yet he also made sure to empathize with families for whom $3.80 gas strains the budget. The irony that Senator Obama’s party shoulders much of the responsibility for those high prices.

McCain squandered an opportunity to clarify his differences from Obama on nuclear power. The facts are these: Both candidates claim to support nuclear power, but McCain actually seems to mean it. He supports opening the Yucca Mountain waste repository, a critical step in guaranteeing the expansion of nuclear energy. Meanwhile, Obama vows to shut down Yucca, though provides no alternatives. He’s trying to have it both ways. He can say he supports nuclear, as do increasing numbers of Americans. But he sends an unmistakable signal to the anti-nuclear environmental lobby that, without Yucca Mountain, nuclear power isn’t going to expand on his watch.”

Obama showed why at this late date he is the favorite to win come Election Day. Without any hesitation, Obama stated that we have to prioritize and that energy tops the list. (The fact that Obama said in the first debate that energy would be the first item on his agenda he’d abandon will no doubt be tossed down the memory hole by his cheerleaders in the mainstream media.)

Thomas Sowell wrote this article today:

“Senator Obama’s words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists.

Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years.

The old phrase, “a man of high ideals but no principles,” is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.”

What in the world are you people doing, Obama keeps saying he is for change, but have you ever heard what that change may be. Check his voting record, he voted "present" on the economic bill. He has no clue what he is doing and the person that stated the Republicans have ran our country, you are very wrong! The democrats want Obama in so that they can change this U.S. to a socialist country. Do you want to be told what to do and how to do it? That is the Democrats theory. Both CEO's from Freddie Mac & Fanny Mae that got us into this economic trouble are on Obama's election committee! What does that tell you about Obama! Wake Up.

Her speech wasn't that great. It was snide and snippy. And yes, I do know how tough it is to give speeches- I was a debater back in school.

Biden clearly owns her when it comes to foreign policy- just watch the interview with Gibson. It's simply terrifying to me the way she seems to be short on facts and has an overly simplistic understanding of foreign policy.

EVERYONE knows the Georgia started conflict in South Ossetia, and she said that she it was an unprovoked attack by Russia. Gibson even tried to hint to her, saying, "You believe it's unprovoked?" once more, and she repeated an affirmative. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. And the way she kept on saying "Charlie" was pretty annoying, and she seemed overly defensive at times.

Like when Gibson asked her if she had met a head-of-state, instead of being honest and saying, "Well no, but I've had experience negotiating with people in my capacity as governor, I believe I can adapt to that role too", she goes on about how most other vp candidates in history likely hadn't either.

I am a woman, for the record, and I was not offended by Obama's comment, but I WAS offended by the McCain campaign's overzealous attempt to blow this matter out of proportion and play victim. Sure even if they thought it might have been sexist, there is NO NEED to play this up to the extent that it's eclipsing far more important issues if they truly believed in "Country First!". Enough of the Swift Boating crap already.

Stop screaming sexism at every turn. Why should people not be allowed to use certain words just because she's a woman, is it? Isn't THAT sexist, now? I mean COME ON. The word lipstick by itself is NOT a word like say "political lynching" that carries sensitive connotations.

If she is going to whine and cry over an insult after she had taken some not so nice potshots at Obama, I don't think she can deal with Ahmadinejad, Putin or Chavez who certainly may have some sharp barbs, this time, clearly directed at her without question.

About the pig comment, stop being so sensitive, i think he would have said it to ANYONE, i repeat, ANYONE who stands on the same grounds as McCain/Palin does...Obama was clearly refferring to how Republicans have ran the office the last 8 years and has done a horrible job so we do need change.

Let's get back to politics and off of a stupid saying because we're trying to see who'd better suit America.

You can't call something bs if you've never even given it a chance, you're just damning it to hell automatically. As sad as it is, I believe race does have alot to do with what is going on here, not too mention McCain used the qute to and noone's climbing down his throat about it...

Alot of you republicans are, simply, going republican because you don't want to see a black man in office/in charge. We've seen what Bush did, he's pretty bad. McCain's campain includes many of the same people that helped Bush get in office, which means they have similar ideas, which equals horrible.

So in that case, i believe we will be entitled to the same bs we had the previous 8years.

On the flipside, we have a man who promises change, has no affiliations with what Bush has done, and has a clear head on what should be done.

McCain's sugar-coating the same garbage we heard for 8-years now and that's not the type of "change" I'm interested in seeing.

Does anyone really believe that Barack Obama would have made the lipstick on a pig comment to a black woman if John McCain had chosen one as his running mate?

Am I the only person that noticed that the fish comment was directed to Palin because her nickname is Sarah Barracuda? Seems like Obama is rattled and is now resorting to petty name calling. He could have used many other phrases that didn’t have certain key words that refer to Palin.

--Dom: "Anyone who can read can deliver a speech... She just spoke it off a teleprompter."

How many speeches have you given? Obviously, you don't realize how difficult it is to deliver an effective speech. Anyone who can read CANNOT deliver a GREAT speech. If you want a crappy speech, then yes, anybody can do that.

As for speaking from a teleprompter. Where have you been? Hiding in your little cave? The teleprompter totally got off queue throughout most of the speech. It wasn't stopped for applause. She gave part of the speech off her memory/on the fly.

As for Obama's reference to a pig, yes it's an old saying. However, given the HUGE media hype of Palin, hockey moms, and lipstick, it was clearly a reference to her and NOT McCain.

--Bob: "She was absolutely nasty in her acceptance speech."

She was rightfully standing up for herself after a full week of relentless attack from the media and Democrats. What the hell would you do? Sit back and let people smear you? Yeah, right.

--All

Have you guys neglected the fact that Obama followed the Democratic position 97% of the time versus McCain with 90%? What kind of change is Obama going to bring. NONE! And this whole idea of universal health care by the government is a load of BS. It's going to put the whole system in more of a mess than it already is.

I'm new to much interest in politics. Just one question, a lot of people seem to think Sarah Palin isn't qualified enough to be V.P. How is Obama more qualified to be President?

thats a question noone wants to answer because they want to keep McCain's covered.

What a bunch of dorks ugh

hey ...can anyone really answer this question please, and I'm talking to republicans using this cheap line to get into the white house once again...Why is it okay if McCain says it when addressing Hilary, and not okay when Obama uses it? Oh, by the way, he cleary las calling McCain the pig and Sarah the lipstick, and also, McCain the old fish, and sarah the 2008 paper, keep in account she did just come into the picture out of nowhere.

Women stop being so numb-minded, McCain did the same thing, the only difference is, the White House truly knows and believes Obama can be our President, so they'll take any cheap shot they can take.

But back to my original question, what's the difference between Obama using it and McCain using it?

Barack the Vote '08!!

As a follow up to Sharon's comments which were right on, I also am sick of hearing what a great speech Palin gave. Anyone who can read can deliver a speech. However, she did not write it, a Bush writer did. Stop calling it her speech. She just spoke it off a teleprompter.

John McCain's daughter Meghan is not taking offense to Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" line like the rest of her father's campaign, pointing out Wednesday morning that GOP presidential nominee has been known to use the phrase.

"I've heard my dad say that, the term 'lipstick on a pig,'" McCain said during an appearance on Fox promoting her new children's book about her father.

Obama is too clever not trying to water down the popularity of 'Lipstick' which BY NOW pertains to Palin. Of course he will deny it. Of couse he tried to be funny although he sounded more of jackass that a comedian...ever checked those clips some Democrats were not laughing nor smiling at all. Haha no wonder Biden is biding his time smiling towards the 2012 primaries. Palin might not be qualified but look who is talking...Hillary for 2012!!! Kenyans get your son!

I totally agree with Sharon. If she can dish it then she should be able to eat it. She was absolutely nasty in her acceptance speech--a new comer who wanted to claim her spot--she did and now it's blowing up in her face. There's much more where that came from Sarah so toughen up.

Check out NPR's clips of McCain using the same expression. Frickin' hypocrites.

The McCain campaign is their own worst enemy. If they were just waiting for the Democratic campaign to take a swipe at Palin based on gender, I'm sure they could have waited for something better. The Republican campaign has repeatedly said that all Obama can do is speak well, and he won't be able to deliver. Do they really think that the American people are stupid? By using the "Lipstick comment" as their attempt to turn people against Obama, their basic agument would be this: "Barack Obama is a well educated, calculating, and excellant speaker, but that's all he is, he can't deliver once in the White House" With that said, the Republican Campaign would like us to believe that the man whom they have dubbed has only one thing going for him, and that is his ability to speak well on all occasions, blatently called Palin a "pig" I have copied the transcript here, inserting Palin's name.

"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington. That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on Sarah Palin, but she's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

If you read it, with her name in it, it makes no sense. We are supposed to believe that Obama, the excellant speaker, was making a coherant argument, threw in a random sentence about Sarah Palin, and then went back to the original arument? The McCain camp really needs to focus on the issues and stop crying wolf.