Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Checking Out for a Bit

So, my wife and I are leaving for a much-anticipated vacation tomorrow...far from the buzz of Blackberries and, more importantly, far from the good people at Politico, TalkingPointsMemo, The Atlantic, et al., who have joined together to get me unbelievably agitated every morning the past three-plus months.

And it couldn't have come at a better time. This "lipstick on a pig" story is such complete and utter bullshit, yet it's going to dominate the campaign for two or three days and then enter the campaign shorthand as "Obama called Palin a pig." The McCain knows that getting called on lies has only a short-term drawback...getting the lies out there are re-told at family BBQs and church gatherings is the most important part.

That said, it makes their job significantly easier when the traditional press (particularly the wire services) plays along so willingly. From the AP's dreadful Nedra Pickler today:
""You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant. (emphasis mine)

Hmmm...clearly drawing a connection even if that's not what he meant. What the fuck does that mean????? Seriously. God damn seriously.

Add to that NYT's Adam Nagourney's stunning bit of mind-reading (as pointed out by Josh Marshall)
“That’s not change. That’s just calling the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig – it’s still a pig.”

At that point, Mr. Obama paused for just a moment, no doubt imagining the whoops that were going up at the McCain headquarters where they were no doubt monitoring the speech, and aware of the extent to which both campaigns are seeking to seize on anything even approaching a slip of the tongue.

So he added: “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.”

Wow. Why is Nagourney wasting his time on the campaign trail when he could make tons of cash on the late-night infomercial circuit?

Of course, he follows that bit of mind-reading with this sentence:
For the record, Mr. Obama did not even mention Ms. Palin until a few minutes later in his speech. Still, within 45 minutes, Mr. McCain’s campaign – well aware of the competition for the women’s vote and how this might be interpreted among women voters – leapt onto the remark.

So, clearly Obama wasn't actually making the connection to Palin. Yet, since McCain said he did and Drudge front-paged it, the story writes itself.

I hate this shit. Really I do.

So, I'm checking out for a couple weeks. I'll be sipping cappuccino and eating prosciutto outside of this place.


And I will do my very best not to think of this goddamn election for a little while. My heart, I think, will thank me.

2 comments:

Henry said...

I'm not a fan of misleading word use either, Dan. I sent Pickler a note today (copied below). You can, too. Her address is npickler@ap.org.

---

Dear Ms. Pickler, please be more careful with your reporting. In your 9/10/08 article "McCain camp: Obama's 'lipstick' remark disgraceful," you wrote that:

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant."

Perhaps what you meant to write was that his comment made some audience members think of Palin's joke, also about lipstick, even though Obama did not intend it. But "clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke even if it's not what Obama meant" implies something else entirely.

Please report more accurately. Thanks for your time.

Henry

Henry said...

Oh, and by the way, have a great trip you cappucino-swilling man of leisure.