Obama's Lipstick...

On September the 9th, in Virgina, Barack Obama spouted a nasty insult towards America and its policies. When he talked about reform and improving our current system, he proclaimed: "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig..." It was certainly a disgusting comment, but it was all the more nasty because of who it was specifically aimed at.

Almost everybody knew why this comment was especially pointed -- because Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin had made a joke that the difference "between hockey moms and pitbulls" is... "lipstick." Her joke at the Republican National Convention, fresh on the minds everyone following politics, had been a topic of discussion for days and repeated over and over in the news outlets.

The connection was obvious and unambiguous. Right before the comment was made, he was rudely mocking that McCain-Palin would be 'shaking up Washington.' Since reform is a trait that McCain and Palin are known for, he was trying hard to disparage and downplay it. By the greatly elevated crowd reaction, it was clear that everyone in the audience, and everyone who heard his nasty comment, immediately connected it to Sarah Palin. He was taking a stab at Sarah Palin directly, implying that the addition of this woman, or 'lipstick,' to the White House makes no difference.

By making this comment, it is quite obvious that either Barack Obama is exceptionally stupid or he actually meant the insult as it was delivered; there are no other reasonable conclusions. Since everyone else knew immediately this was an insult being cast directly at Sarah Palin, could the Democrat front runner actually be so stupid or out-of-touch that didn't realise that himself?

If we assume that he didn't intend the message in the way that everyone else clearly understood it, then we can only conclude that he is far less intelligent than would be expected of a Presidential candidate. In fact, any person off-the-street would be more intelligent when it came to this specific event. This does not bode well for a candidate who is trying to make the impression that he can handle the politics of such an important position as President, given zero executive experience and a track record of poor judgement and bad personal associations. Add to this that he is a 1st term freshman senator with no legislation, and it's amazing that he would even be 'considered' viable by any American.

If we alternatively assume that he intended the message in the way that everyone clearly understood, then we positively conclude that he's both an insulting misogynist and liar (as he claims that's not what he meant by the comment). But then, we are also further forced to wonder if that's the real reason why he didn't pick Hillary Clinton as VP.

Either way, this comment is just terribly horrible - and it speaks volumes about Obama, his bad ideologies, and his lack of judgement.


Additional Commentary:

If we go one step further and absorb the comment's meaning in the context he used it, we also see exactly what he is posturing in this metaphor: that his idea of 'change' actually means 'fundamental change.' Why is this? Because the comment he made means 'exactly' that.

This comment states that no matter how much you improve a 'thing' it is still going to be that same 'thing;' this was Obama's point. To him, it's not about reform and improving our constitutional republic because it will still be the same 'thing' - a constitutional republic. He wants a 'completely' different system. What kind of system? Well, let's look at his ideologies to discover the answer...

Obama is the most liberal, furthest-left member of the Senate. This means he is as far towards socialism and totalitarianism as one can go in this country (as far as Senators go, and there are plenty of far left Senators). It also means that he believes in a 'liberal' interpretation of the constitution, or in other words, that the constitution is a document that is simply open to change though interpretation; as such, he does not support the principles of the U.S. Constitution as it stands. If you combine these two items, we see clearly the direction that he wants the constitution to change -- towards a large government which embodies totalitarian socialism.

When we combine this and his pattern of associations with radicals, far-leftist organizations, racists, America 'haters,' and corruption including domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and people such as Tony Rezco and Reverend Wright, we get a very clear picture of who he is and what he wants to do.

Given his shady background, radical associations, and hard-left ideologies, Barack Obama may not even be qualified to be an American, let alone an American President. Add in his lack of political experience, terribly poor judgement, and complete absence of executive experience and it makes you wonder how this unsavory and wholly unqualified individual could be the poster child of the Democrat party.