Lipstick on a Pig

October 2, 2008 · 1 Comment

Sarah Palin is lipstick…

… John McCain is the pig.

When the “controversy” first broke over Obama’s use of the old “lipstick on a pig – same old pig” statement, with the right wing blustering in fake outrage about the sexism of the statement, I didn’t think too much about it.  It seemed like more of the same ridiculousness at high volume you’d expect from the McCain campaign and O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck et al.

But at the gym this morning, it occurred to me why it’s stayed with me.  It’s true.  They just got the roles wrong.  You see they were trying to say that Obama called Palin a pig.

Obama should have said

“No, I wasn’t calling Sarah Palin a pig.  I was calling John McCain a pig.  You see, the saying refers to taking something that’s ugly (Bush’s failed policies) and dressing them up in different makeup and trying to sell them as something pretty.  And that’s what McCain is trying to do.  Remember when he was the ‘Experience candidate’?  Now it’s supposedly all about change.  Sorry, but McCain and his proposals are still pigs.”

But that would be too confrontational for the gentlemanly, cool, professorial Obama.

Now I suppose instead of saying that McCain is the pig, we could say that Bush’s policies are the pig, and McCain’s policies are the same pig with the lipstick of a McCain-Palin ticket, but that would lack the punch.  There’s something viscerally satisfying about saying that McCain is the pig, delicately sweetened with just the hint of guilty pleasure.  And anyway, if people couldn’t see the context of the Obama comment for what it was – a knock on the failed Bush policies, they’d miss the subtlety of the more refined argument anyway.

So Palin is the lipstick, McCain is the pig.  And you can put lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig.

So there.  I’ve said it.

Categories: Bush · McCain · Palin · Palintology
Tagged: , , , , , ,

1 response so far ↓

Leave a Comment