Wednesday, September 10, 2008

How does that lipstick taste Barack?


Obama is showing how shallow he really is. His image built by our media became larger than life sometime early this year and he started believing it was real. Nobody could have lived up to it and now he's stumbling. I've been waiting for this. It was inevitable, but I was afraid it might not happen until after November when it would be too late. Now, however, it looks like his "Lipstick on a pig" remark may prove to be the pinprick that popped the hyper-inflated Obama balloon in the eyes of America.

It was inevitable. Nobody could have fleshed out the image media created for him and Obama is realizing that himself. I can see it in his eyes today. It's over. Obama can speak well when he's scripted, but when he has to think on his feet, he's not very good. That's becoming painfully obvious to starry-eyed Democrats who thought they'd found the reincarnated JFK.

JFK could not have lived up to the media hype of his image either, but he was killed dramatically before it popped - so the myth continued to build. He was just as flawed as any of us, maybe more so , but one doesn't speak ill of the dead and the myth grew.

When RFK picked up JFK's mantle, he too died dramatically and the myth grew larger still. After him there was only Teddy - who seems to have been the least able of the Kennedy brothers to even try living up to the now hopelessly hyper-inflated Camelot legend. I have little affection for the "Liberal Lion" of Massachusetts, but nobody could possibly have filled out that role.

Now here's Obama trying to do it. He wants to be JFK and MLK all rolled into one. He chose Caroline Kennedy help him pick a VP running mate and look how that turned out. Biden vs. Palin October 2nd? I'd have to offer long odds to find somebody willing to bet on Biden. Then Ted passed the mantle to Obama in that big convention ceremony. Ted failed to embody the myth and so will Obama.

All this is good for us conservatives of course. Obama beat Hillary for the nomination and now he's self-destructing. Looks now like President McCain and Vice President Palin next January, but there's a month and a half before the vote and that's still an eternity in politics. Anything can happen.

Exciting, no? It doesn't get any better than this for us political junkies.

8 comments:

MONROE MANN said...

Hooah! Well written and write on target baby! McCain/Palin!

-Monroe Mann
Iraq War Vet

Anonymous said...

I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain only because of Palin. I wasn't going to vote for either of these disasters, Obama or McCain, until McCain picked her for his VP. At least if he leaves us, we will have a wonderful "go-getter" in place who has proved she can get things done. I wish she was at the top of the ticket.

Harvey in North Baldwin

Emily Mann said...

Mr. McLaughlin:

Please send me a copy of the post in which you discuss John McCain using the exact same analogy - which is also an old saying - to undermine Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Did you accuse John McCain of being shallow and not being able to think on his feet? This is more political junk rather than meat for political junkies.

Emily Mann
ecfmann@gmail.com

Tom McLaughlin said...

Hi Emily. Haven't seen you for a long time and I hope you're well. I believe we can call what you wrote an "Emily Post," no?

I just found out this morning that McCain used the phrase too. Perhaps I'll write something about it beyond this, but I won't promise you.

Even if Obama wasn't consciously referring to Palin when using the phrase, which is possible, he seems to have bobbled his words since. I think he said he was referring to what he claims are failed policies of the Bush Administration that McCain plans to put lipstick on. Then, on Letterman, he said Palin is the lipstick and the pig is McCain's failed policies. At best, he's confused. At worst, he's trying to cover up. Neither makes him look very good.

When McCain used the phrase, he was evidently referring to Hillary's new health care policy resembling the one she failed to get passed back in the '90s.

I saw the clip in which Obama used the phrase and, judging from their reaction, many in the audience clearly believed he was referring to Palin as the pig. What was in his mind only he knows. I suspect he was aware that what he was saying could be interpreted two ways and he said it anyway, reserving plausible deniability if it backfired. In politics, however, perception is reality. If voters perceive him to have been insulting Palin, their votes will reflect that and the only one responsible for that (mis)perception is himself.

I believe he's a shallow man, especially after reading several biographies of him recently, including "A Bound Man" by Shelby Steele; "Obamanation" by Jerome Corsi; and "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Fredosso. All three are excellent and I recommend them.

I also think Hillary and Bill were right (did I just say that?) when they claimed the media was giving Obama pass after pass - when he said stupid things and they ignored it, and also by ignoring his very questionable associations with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezco.

One more thing: I'm a columnist, not a reporter. These are opinion pieces and I have a bias. I don't pretend to be objective, only reasonable.

Tom said...

...one thing with JFK, and this is a view from outside the forest (up here in Canada) is JFK did do a good job, albeit bend to the establishment per se.

I mean, with the October crisis, Vietnam war, and putting a man on the moon were no small items to deal with.

Time does make some larger than life, but hopefully the legacy will encourage others to do better.

Daniel said...

Some argue that although Obama used the "lipstick" phrase, McCain did so even earlier... but what they fail to notice is that Obama's comment came just hours after Sarah Palin's speech . Whether Obama meant it or not, it clearly shows lack of judgement on his part, ANY clearly thinking individual would certainly not use the same phrase in these circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Tom,
I believe you may be a racist. I think when you write your articles you should discuss more of each side rather than just one. It gives people the impression that you may be against blacks or other races beside white.

I have taken this very offensively and I hope you will change your ways of writing to not upset the people who read your articles.

Thanks.

Tom McLaughlin said...

I've been called racist more times than I can count - also homophobic, misognynist, sexist, etc. I don't pay any attention to those charges anymore.

For the record, I don't believe there are any such things as races. Biologists insist there is only one human race and other so-called races are only social constructs. That's my view too. I refuse to categorize myself on government forms as anything but human. I put in a box on the bottom of their lists, put "human" beside it, and put a check in the box.

Government is racist because they insist on categorizing us that way. Democrats want to preserve that system because it's their stock in trade. I don't recognize it.

I won't be changing my style of writing. If it bothers you, don't read it.