A friend of mine, Lee Z. Roberts, has written an article that I thought summarized the Obama Lipstick Fiasco quite well. Despite Bill O’Reilly’s attempts to excuse the Senator by trying to logically show that Obama knew it would be bad for him, certain words come to mean certain things, especially when considered in the context of the times.

Lee, thanks for letting me use this, I appreciate it!

I have some thoughts on the present situation in the political arena and thought I’d write them down.
 
Simple words hold the power to turn our minds to a moment that is forever etched in our memories.
 
If we hear the word “Sputnik”, the generation of five decades ago remembers the anxiety the Russian satellite brought to mind.
 
If we say “Dallas” and “Kennedy” in the same sentence, those of us that lived through that day will immediately remember where we were when we heard the news.
 
If we hear “Tear down this wall”, we immediately link those words to President Reagan in Berlin in 1987.
 
If we hear the word “Monica”, we know the picture that comes to mind and with whom.
 
If we hear “9/11″ spoken there is no hesitation in our thinking.
 
We only need to say “Hillary” and the reference is there in our minds.
 
Some words and phrases will forever be etched in our minds and when they become part of history we know what they mean when we use them.
 
On September 3, 2008, when words were spoken by Sarah Palins referring to the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull, thirty-seven million Americans immediately attached the word “lipstick” to her. “Lipstick” equals Palin, Palin equals “lipstick”. The use of the word “lipstick” in any reference, especially in the days immediately following her speech and even more dramatically in any political reference, was a direct link to her.
 
When on Wednesday, September 10, seven days after Palin’s name was forever linked to “lipstick”, Obama used the cliché phrase “lipstick on a pig”, Palin’s “lipstick” remark was so engraved in our minds that any use of that word now referenced her in our brain. Everybody knew it — and he knew it.
 
I would hate to think that as our future president, when negotiating with foreign leaders, that he would drop a word bomb like this in a conversation and then plead ignorance. It’s doesn’t take much to start a fire-storm. And that’s what he purposefully did.
 
On that same day Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan, appearing at a speech by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, said that Palin is “someone with zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick.”
 
Obama knew who his reference was about just as Carnahan did, but to make sure we made the connection, Democrat Carnahan unashamedly made the connection to Palin by name.
 
On the same day South Carolina Chair person Carol Fowler said that Palin’s “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” She might as well of gone on to say with “lipstick” on, of course.  All three of these statements were made on the same day. Coincidence? I would say not.
 
Intelligent people know they could get away with this one time by referring to McCain and Petraeus using “lipstick on a pig”, but that phrase was all but used up when Palin only said “lipstick”.
 
Any reference to “lipstick” following her speech would have an immediate connection to her. I talk to many many people by phone each day. I thought I would ask what was the first thing they thought about when I said “lipstick”. Without exception they all said Sarah Palin. That’s proof enough.     
 
Let’s see how often “lipstick” is used in the remaining days of this election process to refer to anything. I bet we won’t be able to count them on one finger. I bet Obama wishes he hadn’t been so unschooled.

Lee Z. Roberts

Thanks for sharing, Lee!

TD