Pigs in a Poke

Last week I was having lunch with a friend whose credentials as a political consultant are quite impressive. He knows national politics. He's done political work all over the country, especially the places known as "battleground states." He said, "The media will be going after Sarah Palin. They will do the dirty work for the Obama campaign."

I thought of the scathing criticism the media received for its sexism, inaccurate reporting, and just plain bias in the days following McCain's announcement of Palin as his running mate. I thought of polls showing that the majority of the public already believes the mainstream press is in Obama's corner. I said, "They'll have to go after her in a fairly covert way."

He said, "They'll do it in an overt way."

He was right. I was wrong.

All Bull, All Bias

In a segment Wednesday night, September 10th, ironically called "No Bias, No Bull," CNN's Campbell Brown left no doubt. She's fully in Obama's camp — all bull, all bias, all the time. It wouldn't be worth examining if it weren't being repeated in various ways throughout the mainstream media. This is just an example of the techniques they're using to push their candidate.

You're probably familiar with the back-story, but let's quickly review it. On Tuesday, Senator Obama, speaking of the McCain economic plan, said:

That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it'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.

Innocent? Maybe — except for this. When the words "you can put lipstick on a pig" came out of his mouth, the partisan crowd erupted. They went nuts. They were clearly not responding to one of the most overused cliches in politics, but to something else.

What could that be? There's only one answer. When Governor Palin gave her speech to the Republican Convention, she said

I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

When Obama said "lipstick on a pig," the crowd thought of lipstick on Sarah Palin. There's no other good explanation for their uproarious response. Did he know that would be the picture in their heads? Well . . . he is a skilled communicator and knows how to get a crowd going. Earlier in the day, he had heard a crowd chanting,"No more pit bull! No more pit bull!

On the other hand, the lipstick thing is a cliche used over and over again by Washington politicians. It could have just popped out. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't realize the effect his words would have, that had to change as soon as he saw and heard how the audience reacted. He had to know they weren't doing cartwheels over his use of a weary cliche.

Hair Trigger Campaigns

Predictably, the Republicans, jumped on it. Campaigns today jump on every opening. After McCain's choice of Palin was announced, the Obama campaign issued this statement:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience is clearly a legitimate campaign issue, but complaining that a sitting governor was once the mayor of a small town, is one of the silliest attack lines ever. If they had said, "Six years ago, she was Mayor of a town of 9,000," that would be legitimate (though it raises questions about where Obama was six years ago). But to say she's a former small town mayor, as if that proves something by itself, is ridiculous.

Later, Obama and Biden released another statement, far more gracious. When asked to explain the first, Obama said, "I think that, uh, you know, campaigns start getting these, uh, hair triggers and, uh, the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments."

Both the Republican and Democratic teams have the same hair trigger responses. They see an opening, then pounce. That's what happened here. The Republicans said Obama owed Palin an apology, and that night put together a campaign ad called "Lipstick" which they released to the media the next day.

The Republicans do new campaign ads almost daily because it's a way of driving the discussion on the news channels and talk shows. Most of these ads are made to run on the internet, not television. The real purpose is to direct the discussion of the campaign. Since everyone knows this, it's only partly effective.

This whole thing would have ended early in the day Wednesday, except that Senator Obama decided it was in his interest to keep it going. He talked about it several times on Wednesday, including to David Letterman on national television Wednesday night. He said, "This is sort of silly season in politics."

True enough, but it's a silly season he himself decided to fuel and perpetuate.

CNN, at Obama's Service

Campbell Brown: Hey there, everybody! Tonight, playing the victim card. It's the new Republican strategy, and it's getting to Barack Obama. Today, he's pushing back hard. What's it all about?

"Victim card" and "race card" are convenient labels with which to discount someone else's complaint. They have become quick, easy ways to make your opponent look shallow and cynical. If you think about it, her saying the Republicans are playing the victim card is a meaningless statement — but only if you think about it. To take it seriously as a criticism, you would have to discount all the civil rights movements throughout history.

By Campbell Brown's standard, Obama started "playing the victim card" way back in the primaries when he repeatedly spoke of all the terrible things the Republicans would do to him during the Fall campaign. He was actually "playing the victim card" in advance!

Campbell Brown: Well, by now, you have probably heard that Obama made a remark yesterday saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

Notice she gives Obama's original lipstick quote, but without context, without mentioning the Palin convention speech, and without saying anything about the crowd's reaction.

Campbell Brown: Here right now is our no bias, no bull reality check.

Is this CNN's copy of "the no spin zone"? If so, the barnyard scatological reference is even more ironic than ever.

Campbell Brown: No, he was not suggesting that Sarah Palin is a pig.

Brown could have said, "He did not say Sarah Palin is a pig," and she would have been accurate. But how can she possibly know what he was "suggesting"? That has to do with intent. Does she think she can know what goes on in the man's head?

We can't know what he meant to suggest, but whether he meant it or not, we do know what his words suggested to his audience — that Sarah Palin is a pig.

Think about how the word "pig" was used in the counterculture society which he made himself a part of starting in his late teens. Remember, too, how radical many of the people who are now his supporters were during those years. "Pig" has clear connotations to him and them. It refers to police and other hated establishment figures. It refers to chauvinists. It refers to people who hold sexist or racist views. The word is loaded for much of his audience.

Campbell Brown: No, he was not suggesting that Sarah Palin is a pig. Yes, the McCain campaign says that he was.

She reported them wrong before she even said what they said. Amazing.

Campbell Brown: Lipstick on a pig is a phrase that Obama has used many times. And guess what? John McCain has used it, too.

Is this a revelation to anyone who follows politics? Of course, McCain and Obama use that phrase. Obama's a great speaker, but no one that I know of has yet accused him using fresh language to express his ideas. McCain, too, loves old tried and true turns of phrase. Sure they've used the cliche. The point is, after the Palin speech, its meaning changed for Obama's followers.

Campbell Brown: And, no, just because Sarah Palin is the only woman in the race, that does not mean she owns all language involving lipstick.

Who, where, when, or how did anyone suggest that Sarah Palin "owns all language involving lipstick"? Think about those words for a second. It's hard to imagine a more meaningless statement, yet she said it with condescension and even a touch of righteous anger. I can only imagine that she said it in order to raise the ire of women.

Campbell Brown: Last night, when we heard about the story, we thought it was too silly to put on the show. We tried to focus on other issues. Today, though, it is worth discussing, because charging sexism, which is what the McCain/Palin campaign is doing, has serious implications for the campaign, and frankly, for women, women who are truly victims of sexism.

If it was too silly to run Tuesday night, what changed? Yes, the Republicans put out an ad overnight, but she didn't mention the ad. I submit that the real change happened when Barack Obama changed his approach to the criticism. In effect, he gave the liberal press a handle on the story. Here's the way to look at this thing. Here's the perspective from which to attack it. His comments became for them a talking points memo.

She says she must discuss it now "for women, women who are truly victims of sexism."

And Sarah Palin is not? Just look at the comments sections of liberal blogs. Some of these people suggest her only worthwhile purpose in life is to have sexual relations, which they suggest in vile ways. Yes, she is the victim of real sexism.

The mainstream media and Hollywood celebrities expose their sexism every time they question Palin's qualification to be President and not Obama's — even though her resume is at least as strong as his, and she's only running for Vice President, while he's going after the big prize.

Later, Brown talks with CNN reporter, Candy Crowley. They lament that the attack on Obama has "thrown him off his game."

Candy Crowley: And part of the problem, and I think you see that strategy sort of evolving in that sound bite, and that is, this is ridiculous. What matters are these issues, that the stakes are high, so they believe that, once you can get back to the issues, education, health care, the war, that the Democrats have the advantage. But he's been so pounded lately, and so really frankly kind of stunned by the whole Palin phenomenon, as Obama calls it, that they just really have seemed flat-footed.

If the Democrats really have the advantage on all these issues, why aren't they ahead? I think, for instance, that the issue of Iraq has turned from an advantage to a disadvantage for the Democrats. In Palin's stump speech, she keeps talking about Obama giving up in Iraq just when victory is in sight. Americans don't like this war, but they don't like losing either, especially if it means turning and running just as we're approaching a hard won victory. And when Americans are confronted with the consequences of losing, this issue will turn even more in favor of McCain.

Candy Crowley: I talked to a Democratic elected official today, and he said, my heavens, the poll numbers for Republicans and President Bush are below freezing. Everybody hates the Iraq war, the economy is a mess, and we're tied. And they think part of the problem is, they do want him to hit back. They want him to be tougher. Remember, during the primary, when Hillary Clinton kept saying, I have been tested, I understand what's coming at me, you need someone like me?

Campbell Brown: Right.

Candy Crowley: Well, this is what they have feared. This is what Democrats now say, he just needs to get out there and start slugging.

At last, they've found a flaw in Obama. He's just too doggone nice.

This helps him in a couple of different ways. It confirms the image he's been trying to portray, that he's a new kind of politician ushering in a new era of politics. Better yet, it gives him political cover as he continues to strike out at McCain.

The amazing thing is that Obama's made a career out of "slugging" Republicans. Look at his speech to the Democratic Convention and compare it to McCain's speech to the Republicans. In the most watched speeches of their lives so far, Obama was by far the more aggressive. The real frustration Democrats are feeling is that their attacks don't do as much damage as well as they would like. In that sense, it's a re-run of John Kerry in 2004. They've created a myth that Kerry didn't hit back when attacked. The truth is, he lashed out as hard as he could, but the Republican attacks hit home and his didn't.

The "No Bias, No Bull" Panel

Brown, a liberal, gave her liberal perspective, then brought Crowley, another liberal, to the table and she gave her liberal perspective. At last, we get to a panel where we will hear various points of view. First she introduces a conservative, Tony Blankley, former press secretary to Newt Gingrich, now with the Heritage Foundation, and, not by accident, the lone male in the discussion. Next comes Donna Brazile, whom she introduces as "CNN political contributor." She fails to mention anything about Brazile's background as Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager.

Finally, she introduces, "CNN senior political analyst, Gloria Borger." "Senior political analyst" sounds like the kind of position an unbiased journalist might hold. In fact, you could easily get the idea from the introductions that there's only one partisan on the panel — the conservative. Boy, would you be wrong!

Brown starts the discussion with Borger.

Campbell Brown: Gloria, you can't overstate I think how hard the McCain campaign has been hitting this sexism card. John McCain brought up the lipstick comment in an interview today with Telemundo. He was asked what he hates most about the campaign.

They played a video of McCain answering the question. He said, "Probably the negativism, all these negative ads and personal attacks, Senator Obama's recent comments about lipstick on a pig."

Campbell Brown: That's really what he hates most about this campaign. So, Gloria, that's what they're really banking on, this sort of politics of victimhood, aren't they?

Here she goes again, in effect crying out that her candidate, Obama, is the victim of people playing the "politics of victimhood." And she doesn't even notice the contradiction in her position.

Gloria Borger: This is just hardball, tactical, and yes, even really cynical politics by a campaign that has decided it wants to win, Campbell. And they're going after these women voters. We know about six of 10 of the women voters who supported Hillary Clinton are now for Barack Obama. But they're looking at those other four in 10, and they're saying, gee, if we could get a few of those, and we have got male voters with us, then we can win this election. So, they're changing the subject. They don't want to talk about the economy, because that's Barack Obama's issue set. And they're talking about this because they think it's a way to get women.

McCain is cynical. For him it's all about winning. He wants to change the subject away from the issues. But for Barack Obama, it's all about issues. . . . Nope. No bias there.

Brown shows her bias again as she questions Blankley, who rather weakly defends McCain while agreeing to Brown's most damaging charges against him.

Then it's Donna Brazile's turn.

Donna Brazile: Well, Campbell, they're playing the same card — the two cards that the Republicans have always played, to distract the American people from the real issues facing the country, bread-and-butter issues, and then attack your opponent. Rick Davis, Mr. McCain's campaign manager, said this campaign is about personality, not issues. And, clearly, this is part of their tactic. Early this summer, they accused Senator Obama of playing the race card, and now the gender card. I'm sure, next week, they will accuse him of playing some other card. But this is the same old deck of cards that we have seen played throughout the last 20 years.

Apparently, Ms. Brazile has not been listening. No one has accused Obama of playing the gender card. Campbell Brown and CNN have spent the whole show accusing Republicans of playing that card. And how could she possibly think Republicans have been playing the "gender card" for the last 20 years? That would be like accusing Ronald Reagan of being an unwed mother. Some things just aren't possible. Palin is the first female candidate on a Republican presidential ticket. How could they have played the gender card before this election?

Pig in a Poke

A poke is a small bag. In the late Middle Ages, a time when meat was scarce, con men would try to sell a pig in a poke, sell the pig before it's seen at all, or before it's seen well. Sometimes they were able to pass cats off as pigs, and cats aren't much valued for their meat.

Alas, deception didn't end with the Middle Ages. We're still being sold pigs in pokes. But, as far as I know, this is the first use of lipstick in the deception.

Posted: 9-12-2008
Note: At original posting, all links were active.