It does seem that he might have realized the implication right after he said it, or as he was actually saying it. He hesitated a bit during the delivery.
Bricker: Of course there is a sliver or a possibility. So what? There’s a sliver of a possibility that McCain has had sex with a man or that Obama snorted cocaine while in Congress. There is a sliver of a possibility that you are actually Obama.
It was never clear what, exactly, he said, and until that event, I had never heard word “maccaca” used in any derogatory fashion at all.
The Obama supporters here are saying, “Nope, no way,” and I don’t think it’s as certain as that. If they said, “I doubt it, but I agree it could have been that way,” I’d have no problems. Ironically, many of the same people who are now insisting Obama’s use was not intended to be an insult were the same people who were certain Allen’s “maccaca” was an insult, because in some obscure areas, it is.
Okay, there’s a possibility that he meant it to refer to Palin’s addition to the campaign. And I’ve always said there’s that possibility. Obama can be cheeky. But so what, and how is it sexist? Just cuz she wears lipstick? She even admitted that in her speech. At worst he called her a pig, but that’s not sexist. This is a completely irrelevant discussion to me.
The fact that the McCain campaign is already pulling out the gender card makes me think that McCain is the sexist here, and is willing to do anything to demonize his opponent-- even put his running mate’s gender at the forefront of an arguement. No integrity, no message.
I’m shocked you’ve come to the opposite conclusion.
Sarcasm != capital letters
What wasn’t clear about it. It was “macaca”, plain as day.
But after it was explained to you, then that should have been all you needed to fight your ignorance.
Well, it was directed at the guy, and he was chiding him. And those “obscure” areas happen to be where Allen’s mother grew up, and from whom he learned to speak French.
So did John McCain when using the same phrase to make fun of Hillary’s health care plan.
See post #69.
Barack Obama has specifically said that the way his words were twisted is not how he meant them, even pointing out that if it were true that he was referring to Palin in using that phrase, that she would be the lipstick, not the pig.
I don’t recall ever weighing in on that debate. The search function doesn’t appear to be working now, or I’d confirm that. Or you could simply take me at my word.
:rolleyes:
How the hell was he supposed to stop people from airing the ads? He denounced the ads, which was all he could really do. Take off your Obama-goggles for a second.
Strangely, and just in time for this exercise in diversionary parsing and revisionism, our friends at NRC/McCain-Palin have some new ads out that have gotten the attention of Fact Check hereand here. Given that the falsehood and deception about Sen Obama is coming out over the “I’m John McCain and I approve this message” banner, while the falsehood and deception concerning Sen McCain and Gov Palin is presented as anonymous E-mail chatter and comments by TV faces unconnected with the DNC or its candidates there doesn’t seem to be any equivilancy. Unless the defenders of Sen McCain’s honesty, honor and integrity are prepared to brand Fact Check as some sort of pro Dem propaganda house, the most recent revelations would appear to fasten one more screw in integrity myth’s coffin.
The inescapable fact is that the McClain campaign thinks the electorate is stupid, will uncritically swallow anything it puts out, and is incapable of critical analysis. As the last few national elections demonstrate, they might well be right.
Yes, but it was that it was SUCH a common expression, used by both candidate, that made Palin walking into a LONG-telegraphed punch so funny. All Obama had to do was lengthen the pause he normally gave between the two sentence fragments.
Palin has been using that joke since she first read it in Hockey Mom News. If she were reading anything else she would know that lipstick is a word often used in politics, and never positively. And if she didn’t know, her handlers should’ve. Obama used his same stump speech but knew that Palin had given one of his standard jokes a new edge. Not his fault she tried to appropriate the word.
You can roll your eyes at me all you want, it doesn’t make my position ridiculous in the least. John Kerry organized a group of veterans to defend McCain’s record in 2000. John McCain wouldn’t even allow the Kerry campaign to so much as use his image in ads denouncing the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies. And if you think John McCain is so powerless that he couldn’t have used his position in the senate to put pressure on his party to denounce these ads and prevent them from running, then what makes you think he is qualified to be President of the United States.
Barack Obama has put the word out, quite clearly, that he will not tolerate that kind of advertising from outside groups, and he’s gotten the Democratic Party to go along with that edict. If John McCain is not capable of even trying to do as much, then again, I submit, he hasn’t got the integrity to be President of the United States of America.
The only observation I would make here is that in 2004, the Swiftboater comments came from people unconnected to the Bush campaign, and yet the majority of active posters here had no heartburn in assigning the responsibility for their tactics to Bush.
Based on that, it’s unclear to me what basis you use for saying calmly that “…the falsehood and deception concerning Sen McCain and Gov Palin is presented as anonymous E-mail chatter and comments by TV faces unconnected with the DNC or its candidates…”
I believe you.
I know you think me worse than the muck beneath your feet, but I don’t return that view. I think you’re strongly partisan, but very honest.
So you would not be one of the people referred to in my phrase “…many of the same people…”
Well, there’s a difference between anonymous email chatter and television ads. Television ads are bough and paid for by someone. It’s presumably possible to track down who that someone is. If you’re a presidential candidate and someone starts running ads that claim to support you but you don’t like their content, you ought to be able to figure out who is running them and make them stop, and if you can’t make them stop, loudly and publically denounce and reject them.
The same is not true of anonymous email chatter. For one thing, it’s hard if not impossible to figure out where it originated. For another thing, TV ads already have somewhat of an imprimateur of authority. They’re on TV! Whereas if Barack stands up and says “hey, you know that rumor that’s going around in emails that Sarah Palin had a sex change? I denounce and reject it” then he’s going to be (rightfully) accused of trying to spread the rumor while at the same time appearing to fight it.
I’m not sure what is meant by “comments by TV faces” in this context.
Sorry, I was off-line for a while. Obama has developed an entirely restructured tax plan, as has been shown to you upthread. But here’s what McCain’s ads have been talking about, from the past. (Do follow the link, it’s interesting.)
From FactCheck.org::
Take a look at the Fact Check video. It is some network chick saying she has gotten lots of E-mail about Gov Palin supposedly cutting Alaska’s special needs education budget. I don’t watch enough happy talk TV to have any idea who she might be. I don’t see a connection to the Obama Campaign and Fact Check doesn’t report one; only that the claim is false. You really need to take a look and subject it to your own personal critical thinking.
And Bricker, while the Swiftboat people may not have been on the Bush-Cheney organization chart, any contention that they were not in cahoots, coordination, cooperation with the Republican party machine is not only a bit deliberately obtuse but deals with an issue that was beaten into submission years ago. The question is not Sen McCain’s integrity in 2000 or 2004 but today when his official ads (and public statements) can be rationally argued to be a bizarre mixture of fluff and willful or reckless misrepresentation.
I followed up with his web site. What is missing however is how a UHC will be paid for, with the kind of tax cutting that he is proposing. Where is that money going to come from?
Sorry for the hijack, but this thread is all over the place anyway.
From people making more than $600,00 per year.
You’re kidding right?
Well, I agree – even if the cahoots were of the “Now, cough once if you want us to stop…” type.
My point was that you seem absolutely certain that none of the current spate of Palin-falsehood-mania is originating with the same shut-eye conniving of anyone on Obama’s team.
How do you know this?