Update: Obama, “Lipstick on a pig” outrage is “phony”

After a tumultuous couple days in the media, Barack Obama has come out swinging against the notion that he was calling Sarah Palin a pig in this clip from the campaign trail. More of a misplaced joke than anything, however, here’s a report on it all from the Associated Press so you can decide on the issue:

From the Associated Press, here is Obama’s comments, the ad McCain released, and Obama’s response to the response:

I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt, I don’t believe he was intentionally speaking of Sarah Palin. However, with the continued mention of “lipstick” and such with her speech, that is the association in everyone’s mind. To me this simply looks like a poorly delivered joke which should have gone unsaid. I’m sure it was not in the script as anyone thinking about it for a minute would have realized it wouldn’t be taken properly.

What do you think? Was he or wasn’t he speaking of Palin?

Update by Michael on September 12, 2008:

Here is some interesting footage collected and shown by The View on the Lip Stick remarks. It more or less backs up Nate’s diagnosis. Women’s issues are going to become increasingly important as the race progresses and we are probably going to see more political commentary by shows such as The View.

  • IndiMinded

    You should put up McCain’s attack ad, I think it might be the silliest, most blatantly dishonest attack ad of the whole campaign season.

  • Bob

    Why can’t they just talk about the issues and their policy differences? There are plenty of differences between them, and these sort of distractions make both parties look petty.

  • To me this simply looks like a poorly delivered joke which should have gone unsaid.

    Which part? Obama referring to policy? or Palin referring to women who support their children’s sports activities as canines with lipstick? 😉


  • Odonata28

    I am not sure which is worse: being compared to a canine or a pig. Aren’t pigs suppose to be really smart?

    I agree with Bob that we need to stay on the issues, but I can tell you why they are not. McCain campain is weak is several of the areas that Americans consider important. I don’t know? Which do you think McCain campain would rather talk about: the economy or lipstick? Hmmm….How about the fact that I can’t afford the lipstick I want to buy because of the economy. Now, that would SOMETHING, wouldn’t it?

  • katina

    McCain has not talked about the issues once, the only thing he has done sling mud. To take a comment and say Obama is Sexist is absurd. McCain is not worthy to be The Leader of the Free World..

  • Dreadsen

    Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt.

    McCain said Clinton’s proposal was “eerily” similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993.

    “I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”


    As long as it’s done in the name of the GOP it’s fine.

    Now watch Sean Hannity even after Huckabee defends Obama and tells him how old of an expression that is proceeds to string things together in order to PERSUADE someone into thinking other wise. Also look at how he strung the two sound bites back to back. Fair and Balanced news at it’s best.

  • Dreadsen

    Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt.

    McCain said Clinton’s proposal was “eerily” similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993.

    “I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”


    As long as it’s done in the name of the GOP it’s fine.

    Now watch Sean Hannity even after Huckabee defends Obama and tells him how old of an expression that is proceeds to string things together in order to PERSUADE someone into thinking other wise. Also look at how he strung the two sound bites back to back. Fair and Balanced news at it’s best.


  • IndiMinded

    Here’s a link for that McCain’s attack ad on this issue, for anyone who wants to see it. It really does take Obama outrageously out of context – stating he’s talking about Palin when he’s in the middle of a rant on policy.


    On an related note, another recent attack ad quotes factcheck.org to attack Obama – and ironically factcheck.org now mentions the ad on their homepage as being false and misleading. Didn’t the McCain camp have integrity like just a week ago?


  • IndiMinded

    Oh, sorry, I missed McCain’s other new ad, Education, which accuses Obama of having no accomplishments in the realm of eduction, except trying to pass bills to teach sex ed to kindergartners – which is also a flat out lie. Which is to say, there is no truth to it. Factcheck.org is just so helpful. You can watch that video here, compliments of McCain! 😀


    Seriously, all this straight talk is making me dizzy

  • Dreadsen


    Did you see that they distorted Katie Couric just like Factcheck.org?

    CBS asks youtube to take down misleading McCain ad which claims sexism


    And there is no shame at all for these types of tactics from the loyal supporters. I know a McCain supporter who feels really disappointed and almost depressed looking at the dirty attacks. He still says he’s going to vote for him but he says he feels worse and worse about it every day.

    This is the tradition of the GOP. This is misrepresenting facts in order to cheat people out of their votes. The American people should be able to sue for false advertising and fraud.

  • Dreadsen

    Oh yeah i saw that one. That is the one i think caused all a huge chunk of the press to backlash.

    Time Magazine: Now he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I’ve ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won’t abet its spread by linking to it,


    Washington Post: As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They’re Undone


    CBS calls out lies on Sarah Palin and goes into details. They wouldn’t have done this if they didn’t keep repeating the same lie well after it was exposed already. Now the entire press is firing back. Here is CBS


  • Jeremy

    Sure guys, and I’m sure the 100 years of war quote wasn’t taken completely out of context either.

    Not saying that McCain is any better, but this throwing stuff out of context from both parties is making me sick. I wish both parties would do just as Todd said at the beginning of this thread, which is speak to the issues, defend their stances on these issues, and stand firm on them.

    By the way Dreadsen, wasn’t it you crying hypocrisy just a week or two ago about the entire Republican party on the experience issue with Palin? Looks like things are coming full circle and you yourself are in the group that you detested just a little while ago. Want to back the 100 years out of context quote and then cry when something is taken out of context against your candidate eh?

  • Evan

    I think that this shouldn’t even be an issue. With the war going on and the economy gong down the drain. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON MORE IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE THAT!!! Besides John McCain made the same remark in one of his speeches.

  • Dreadsen

    No Hypocrisy there. 100 year was not taken out of context. The neo con ideology with Iraq is to build 50 or 60 bases( at this point i think these are built) around Iraq and get a status of forces agreement to make Iraq like South Korea, Germany, Japan,etc. Which McCain said himself. USA has built an embassy in Iraq larger than any other embassy on the planet earth. It can house 5000 people ( almost the size of a city) and has shopping malls. That is called an Occupation.

    Which is part of the reason why we keep getting attacked over there. To think that the usa can have a peaceful occupancy of that area with out someone trying to attack our troops is terribly wrong and shows a misconception of the culture over there. And the attempt to do so even if possible would mean fighting for far longer than 20 or 30 years at the very least. I also used the 100 year statement in the past to draw a comparison to how Rev. Wright was terribly taken out of context and looped on tv for weeks. Look at the topic “Rev Wright coming after you”. I heavily pointed this out because while the neo cons were cheerleading Rev Wright being taken out of context they were upset CLAIMING (false claim) that the 100 year statement was. Whether it is or isn’t taken out of context they didn’t have the moral authority to complain about it.Even though the 100 year statement was also used by Ron Paul, Bob Bar, Chuck Hagel and other republicans to state their opposition to McCain’s stance on the war.

    By the way where did i ever say that Obama was my candidate?

  • IndiMinded

    The 100 years comment was certainly taken out of context, and repeated until it made everyone sick of hearing it. But the difference is that while it was taken out of context, it still bore direct relevance to what it was being applied to – and when there was a fuss about the context, Obama had the decency to talk to the press in a frank manner about how he was using those remarks and why he thought it was fair. And he actually half convinced me. If McCain comes forth to justify these things I’ll hear him out – but since many of them seem to be blatant lies, I’m skeptical.

    Also, the 100 years comment happened months ago. All three of the examples I gave are worse distortions, if not outright lies, and happened in the last week.

    I’m not saying both campaigns don’t pull some shady business, Obama’s earned his share of red flags, but all things are not equal here.

  • “McCain is not worthy to be The Leader of the Free World..”

    My mercy, I thought he was just running for President. *LOL*

    Ok, here’s my take. It’s an old expression, the pig and the lipstick. BUT after the major reaction to Palin’s lipstick joke – which is also an old joke – it’s a buzz word related to Palin. Thus the assumption that Obama was taking a jab at Palin. I agree with some I’ve heard on the news channels, if you really watch that moment you can almost see that he realizes halfway through what he’s stepped into, it was just too late to get out it. I don’t think he meant to do it, but immediately knew how it sounded and what the fallout would be. Just too late to shove the words back in his mouth. A gaffe, if you will. Like the sweetie comment.

    More than the 100 year war thing, what comes to mind for me is the total fit Obama threw over Bush’s comments – not even referring or naming Obama. This is a better comparison, I think. And we all remember that.

    I actually believe Obama would rather this be about the lipstick jab, because if you listen to the whole soundbite you first hear his repetition of a political cartoon – for the third time. Seems his rhetoric is now coming not from his speechwriters, but from cartoons.


    Dreadsen, your recent confession takes a lot of the bite out of your comments. 😉

  • Stalin

    I don’t think that Obama meant anything by this comment. I don’t think he is THAT dumb. However, it was a poor choice of words. I do think that the McCain camp overplayed their cards on this one. They are being a little too sensitive…but I guess I can’t blame them for being hypersensitive after all the Palin attacks…

  • Rayven

    All the Palin attacks. I seem to remember a certain RNC where there was alot of attacking going on.He was talking about McCain economy policy. That is quite clear.Giving a visual image so they can remember. This claim a totally distraction.
    McCain and Palin remind me of bad Disney movie . When are they going to talk about issues . I am sick of theses silly political games and distortions.

  • bdjnk

    What had me baffled in this whole hullabaloo was the ‘lipstick on a pig’ saying itself. So I looked it up.

    The original quote is from Proverbs chapter 11 verse 22: “[Like] a golden ring in a swine’s snout, is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.”

    And what it means, is that despite a desirable appearance, the thing in question is actually something disgusting. It is an analogy to point out the importance of the true nature of a thing.

  • McCain has become quite the politician since he got his party’s nomination… he has proven time and again that his strategy for winning is based on personal attacks and distracting people from the main issues

  • Babs

    Wow, bdjnk, how did you trace this back to the Bible? Where did you look it up? That’s interesting. I did look up the passage, the version on the net goes “22 A woman who is beautiful but lacks discretion is like a gold ring in a pig’s snout.”

    I’m not sure what this has to do with an old lipstick joke, though. That’s why I’m asking, where did you look the phrase up at? I’d like to see it.

  • Babs

    This is the closest I can find on a trace back, around 1732:


    While it is CALLED a Proverb, it is not FROM Proverbs.

  • ed read

    I am not democrat nor republican.
    It is very clear to me that MacCain´s campaign is baed on gossiping, blackmail, and cheap & dirty comments about menningless things in order to distract the people of the U.S. from real, serious issues, which he is obviously very ignorant about. He exploits his Ex-POW in order to serve himself, not his country. If the people of the U.S. choose to elect him, those people will show to be as ignorant as MacCain and will deserve the consequences, namely, discrimination, big revenues for oil companies, very expensive health care, low salaries, fewer jobs, etc.
    Poor american people, living in two states: dazed & confused.
    How come a puppet like MacCain manipulates them.

  • Ella

    As far as I can see, the only crime he is guilty of is of misquoting Palin’s insinuation that the only point of idfference between a pit bull and a soccer mom was “lipstick”

  • Todd

    Let’s focus on the biggest lie which has been repetitively told by one party more than any other party in history.

    That lie ? Democrats insistence that this economy is in shambles and that they are the best thing for it.

    The Historic U.S. unemployment rate


    Clinton’s lowest was 3.8 %, highest 7.3 %
    Bush lowest was 4.2 % highest so far 6.3%
    (Carter 31 years ago —-lowest 5.7 % highest 7.8 %)

    Historic U.S. Inflation Rate


    under Clinton–lowest 1.5 % highest was 3.3 %
    under Bush—-lowest so far 1.5 %, highest so far 3.3% (EXACTLY THE SAME)
    under Carter LOWEST 6.5 % HIGHEST 13%

    (we are constantly told about Bush and housing)

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MORTG.txt (Carter 1977-1981)

    under Clinton—lowest 6.9 % highest 8.3 %
    Bush so far —- lowest 5.8% highest 6.9 %
    Carter—–lowest 8.6% highest 18.1 %
    (the country was going crazy)




    (more people, black and white own homes under Bush, another lie told by Dems-The housing crisis has never been worse)


    under Clinton lowest 64% highest 67.4%
    under Bush lowest 67.4% highest 69 %
    Carter lowest 64.6 highest 65.8 %

    Clinton —lowest 42.3 % highest 47.2 %
    Bush —lowest 47.7 % highest 48.2%
    (Bush hates black people remember that baseless lie)

    That means under Bush
    (the man Obama likes to say McCain will be like)

    There will be better Mortgage Rates (History), Home Ownership, & Lower Unemployment Rate than Bill Clinton has had and Jimmy Carter ever could. He has the same Inflation Rate history as Clinton and way better than Carter



    Under Clinton the US deployed it’s military 20 times and in doing this bombed IRAQ, SUDAN, SERBIA, KOSOVO,BOSNIA AND EAST TIMOR . WE STILL HAVE TROOPS IN BOSNIA 15 YEARS LATER

    Under Bush the US military has been used 13 times and in doing so have bombed and invaded Iraq (force authorized by Dems) & Afghanistan (justified by Democrats and Republican’s) (we also sent 1 military plane to support the Somalian government in a battle with Al Qaeda)

    The U.S. and Iraq are about to sign an agreement ending U.S. troop involvement in Iraq in 2011. If it happens we will have been in Iraq 8 years—7 years less than Bosnia

    next time we hear Bush loves war, the truth is that the U.S military has killed more people under Bush but we have involved ourselves in more countries while under Clinton

    Guys I am conservative but it’s not out of brainwashing. I am one of the biggest political dorks you will probably ever know, I do my own research before I vote and I vote with my research and convictions in mind. I am no better than you and hope you follow your convictions also. But when I hear Democrats (including Obama) yelling about Bush screwing this economy and killing for the sake of oil I know what the truth is and Democrats ain’t telling it anymore than Bush did when we went into Iraq.
    You can look up your own stuff but every site I have given you are independent of either party. I believe Bush lied to get us into Iraq and for that you can have him if you want him but that still doesn’t take care of the terrorist problem. If you believe we should fight terrorist and that’s a judgment call for ya’ll to make, then we should all admit Iraq supported suicide bombers in Israel and that made him a terrorist who was no better than Bin Laden. That’s not what Bush said to get us into Iraq but democrats, saying Saddam he had no involvement with terrorist are also lying.

  • IndiMinded

    Todd, I can’t help but notice you forgot to mention our national debt. You know, the national debt that neither Obama nor McCain have any idea how to pay off? The national debt that realistically may not be paid off within my lifetime? The national debt that did not exist when George W. Bush took office?

    You know, Clinton may have scored slightly lower on those statistics you put up, but he didn’t have to sell our children’s future to achieve them. That’s a LOT of money to spend on a very slight increase in statistics. Honestly, are you sure it was worth it?

  • I concur with Stalin here. Poor choice of words for Obama– nothing intimately sexist, but then our common words and idioms are sexist when you boil things down.

  • Babs

    Todd, great statistics, and thank you. I make my decisions based on my own homework as well, and haven’t looked at these figures. I do see one figure that I have to wonder about – the home ownership numbers. Yes, they are up under Bush, and it begs the question whether or not this increase in home ownership was brought about by careless lenders who now have us in a horrible state of massive foreclosures. That one might not be a positive there.

    Indi, you make a good point on the surface, but the fact is that Clinton didn’t face some castastropic expenses in his administration that Bush has. Obviously, the cost of the war, and additionally the cost of things like Hurricane Katrina. So I think we have to balance that one out.

  • Todd


    If you would like to talk about the federal budget problem we can start here.

    This also blast Dems argument as you will see the war (defense department) is 3rd in debt spending, behind The Social Security Admin and Public Health (which by the way Obama wants to increase and claims Bush has decreased)


    The entire budget matter is very confusing. Since you called me out on a stat that I forgot to include I have been trying to find an actual $ to $ comparison between presidents. What I can find are graphs that show the debt hasn’t stopped going up since the last year of Carter (with Regan as the biggest increase) but what I cannot find is a clear picture which excludes inflation, GDP increase and debt payments. For example I found one chart that showed Clinton paying 5.7 trillion toward the debt this was equal to 1.12 % of the entire debt. Yet other charts show the debt rose approx 13% overall under Clinton b/c of the interest accrued on it.

    I do admit that under Bush it looks like the debt has/will increase about 22 % by 2011 but here is another problem in actually trying to find out how that affects our children’s futures, The GDP is increasing faster than the debt !

    Most all of the debt charts relate it as a % of the GDP so this begs the point if overall Gross Domestic Product is increasing faster than the national debt then which president actually screwed us the most.

    Reagan easily has the highest addition to the debt but at the same time the GDP increased more than any other time in history also.

    The common thread that I see is that the more the government spends the more the GDP is increasing however the fact that Clinton could even make a 5.7 trillion dollar payment on the debt and it just be 1.12 % of it begs the question of just how much is it hurting. Is That 5.7 trillion better spent on infrastructure, health care, war, rebate checks or debt payments that is the unknown due to the continued increase in the American economy.

    You also have to realize that the debt and government budgets in general use a future baseline which means that when they say Bush is cutting domestic programs 10% he is actually just spending 10% less than they planned on spending. So if I said I would increase your salary by 50% in 2 years and then only did it by 10% you would argue that I cut it by 40% when in fact it went up by 10%.

    So there if you can find an unambiguous budget chart post it, but keep in mind it has to be neutral and easy to read. I found plenty of bias charts so please be fair.

    By the way thanks for showing that what I said was true, it doesn’t matter if Liberals lie either you guys are going to continue to blast Bush in the face of the facts.

  • Todd

    My bad in the last post I said Clinton paid 5.7 TRILLION on the debt, I meant 5.7 BILLION

  • Todd


    The housing problem is a touchy one to try and debate and to do so would risk my being called a racist but it is what it is I guess.

    The cause of the current housing problem is very easy to see but very hard for a politician to say.

    In 2002, in an attempt to make political inroads with minorities (playing politics), Bush called for 5 million new minority home owners by 2008 at the same time he was doing this The Rev’s Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton were demanding banks open up lending to the minority members of our country. The inference in that was Jessie and Al were about to boycott the banks and actually said they were studying how to sue them for discrimination. The banks responded by giving loans to some folks who could not afford them or putting people in adjustable rate mortgages. When the rate went from 5.4% to 6% the monthly payment went up also. The result was that folks could not make the increase monthly payment and the house went into default. The lenders figured this was better because they could make the loans and if they didn’t get paid they would just take the property. What they didn’t figure was the amount of defaults which devalued property and houses in general. So even if they took the house back they didn’t have the value of what they gave away.

    The Bush administration pushed by Democratic politics decided to try to bail out the lenders to prevent absolute defaults, companies dissolving and a 50% increase in courthouse steps sales of folks houses. This propped up the lenders. The dems swooped in and claimed the money should go to the actual person holding the loan and argued Bush was pro business and anti people.

    Now the Dems are trying like hell to convince you that the entire economy is in terrible shape at the expense of the truth. They are doing this in hopes of winning the election, what they don’t seem to care about is the fact that the simple talk of a bad economy is killing the stock market and in turn making companies go into a shell on spending b/c they don’t know what is actually about to happen and they are holding their money.

    So in other words the African American voters are being played yet again although they own more homes the democrats have been telling them they don’t and idiots like Kane West say stupid things in front of 50 million viewers, which is like a free democratic commercial for Obama and the other less than truthful, Bush lied Democrats.

  • Clearly Palin isn’t a pig and it just goes to show the childishness of the Republicans to even suggest Obama meant it as such. And Palin did call hockey moms dogs with lipstick.

  • Dreadsen


    the argument is look at what we were told the reason for going into Iraq was. Do you think the country would have supported that if the public knew that we were going to invade and occupy a country because they allegedly supported a suicide bomber in Israel? Hell we should be occupying Syria and Lebanon. But that is not what we were told.

    Also it is ignoring the real reason terrorism began. First they tried fighting us over there by bombing embassys or ships,etc. All of this was after we started putting permanent bases over there. That didn’t work so then they started attacking us over here. So the logic is send more people over THERE add more bases OVER THERE to stop them from coming over here. When the reason why they came here is because we went over there in the first place. The more we add to the arabian peninsula the more in danger we will be.

    Remember we had support from almost all of the Arabic nations when 9/11 happened. Including IRAN. ( i know you know this already). Now look our credibility and our reputation was ruined losing more and more allies with our foreign policy.
    As far as Clinton goes did you see the opposition to Clinton’s Bosnia are the same people who are all for Iraq?
    When Bosnia by no stretch of the imagination was exhausting our Military once we were gone. And i don’t think our troops are getting attacked over there right now. The culture is different there than in Iraq. And of all the Military operations Clinton gave the go on the international community supported him.

    Lets not base the opinion of the entire African American community on Kanye West and Jesse Jackson. They are easy targets and Kanye made a very ignorant statement. He based his observation similar to Charlie Sheen’s 9/11 argument. Now they had a fair argument on the response of Katrina. But after Bush responded and told them they could have what ever amount of money they wanted did you see who opposed such a promise? I don’t think they were Democrats.
    But the Republicans seem to pander to White people very strongly. Why don’t they make an attempt to get their message to Black voters? OR at least give them a philosophy of how conservatism can benefit them and how assistance destroys them. In history how many civil rights bils or womens rights bills have been drafted by Republicans? And when those bills were drafted who were the majority of the people who voted against them? I mean no wonder the Dems can dupe the black vote. Have you listened to the rhetoric of a lot of The Republican talking heads on the radio? Or Some of the things Hannity or Laura Ingram have said? There are blacks who have been living by conservative platform their own life and they still vote the other way for those very reason. Why would a minority trust anything someone like them have to say even if it IS true?

  • Dreadsen

    Oh one more thing.

    Clinton created 23 million jobs.

    Bush created 5 million. How does that all figure in?

  • Dreadsen


    I looked at your statistics.

    The Historic U.S. unemployment rate


    Clinton’s lowest was 3.8 %, highest 7.3 %
    Bush lowest was 4.2 % highest so far 6.3%
    (Carter 31 years ago —-lowest 5.7 % highest 7.8 %)

    Clinton came in to office when the unemployment rate was at 7.3% and he made it decline his entire time in office all the way down to 3.9%

    Bush came into office at 4.2% and it went up from there into the 6% range in 2003. It stayed in the high 5’s then it took a little bit of a dip in the high 4’s ( still higher than clintons) and NOW it is back in the high 5’s and climbing.
    So bush had a constant increase in unemployment for the majority of his years. And looking at the site he maintained a rate of unemployment which was higher than Clintons.

    So the numbers you ( and sean hannity has been presenting) gave us on this were misleading. As far as THIS statistic right here it is proof that the economy was better under Clinton.

    “Historic U.S. Inflation Rate


    under Clinton–lowest 1.5 % highest was 3.3 %
    under Bush—-lowest so far 1.5 %, highest so far 3.3% (EXACTLY THE SAME)
    under Carter LOWEST 6.5 % HIGHEST 13%”

    Actually no. Bush’s lowest was 1.59. Clintons was 1.55.
    But as we saw from the above statistic i pointed out you have to go by the average of the years. not picking one peak and one valley.
    Clintons average inflation for his 8 years was 2.59625
    Bush’s average inflation for his 7 years was 2.35625
    So for right now Bush is better. But if i only average out Bush’s first 7 years vs Clintons 7 years since we don’t know what 2008 numbers are we get.
    Bush’s average 2.69
    Clintons average 2.48

    Bill Clinton as of now wins again.

    Now the mortage rate now will continue to drop because no one is buying houses. They rose when Clinton was in because there were more jobs and everyone had more money. So no need to go into that one.

    Home ownership. Well we can’t base that off of the one statistic you provided. because now we have to figure in how many of those were sub-prime mortages or predatory lending.
    There was a huge spike of people for the last few years who didn’t have credit to buy a used yugo but qualified to buy a 200,000 dollar house. So that doesn’t mean times are good looking at that.

    Now here is a statistic you didn’t provide

    Jobs created during presidential terms


    Clinton 23 million
    Carter (since you keep including him eventhough he sucks)10 million
    Bush 5 million.

    Now i thought this was funny in the Obama O’Reily interview when O’Reily gave some hand picked statistics. Obama said “You know the saying there a lie, a damned lie and then statistics.

  • Presidents, regardless of party, do not create jobs. The private sector does. I’m betting the total amount of jobs created directly by George Bush is zero, along with Bill Clinton. If a President does “create” a job, it simply means government got bigger and more bureaucratic, which means we all lose.

    Perhaps you could discuss economic conditions during a presidency which led to private sector job growth, that would be more accurate.

    McCain and Obama are going to “create” jobs as well, which is laughable.

    A president can simply create economic conditions which benefit the private sector, and then get government out of the way so it can prosper.

  • Dreadsen


    So would it be safe to say that George Bush simply created economic conditions which led to private sector growth and got the government out of the way which in turn created 5 million jobs?
    I don’t think any of us think the President themselves are actually doing this hands on. It’s their plans and policies which help trigger the addition or the reduction. Well that’s what we think at least.

    I saw something interesting in the light of this discussion.
    I was listening to a someone on talk radio and they said that every year there have been banks closing and THIS year and last year there were actually less banks closing across the country than many other previous years. And there was one year well before this happened that had maybe quadruple the amount of banks closing than now.
    I equate that to shark bites. Remember when there were shark bites on the news all the time across the country? Well that same year if you counted all the recorded shark attacks it was actually less than all the previous years. But because the media was actually reporting each one it created the perception that there was an unusual high level of Shark Bites.

  • simon6071

    Obama says,”You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s still going to stink after 8 years.”

    Simon says,” You can put a suit on a monkey. It’s still a monkey. You can choose an ass to pull a race chariot with a horse and call it smart. It’s still going to be a stupid move in the race.”

  • Todd


    The purpose for the stats was to show exactly what your own argument showed. Even the avg. #’s when compared between Bush and Clinton would indicate that the economy situation is not what today’s dems say it is. It is in fact comparable to Clinton’s years, the same years the country looks at as prosperous.

    As far as the housing problem which IS the problem with the country, I should not have put West into the same category as Jessie and Al but the fact is Jessie and Al were black leaders who were more or less threatening banks into making more minority loans. The result was more loans to unqualified people. That resulted in foreclosures.

    Any company would (and many have) given into the corporate blackmail that Jessie and Al live off of and the name of that game is keeping your company out of the headlines, especially the racist ones. So they gave the loans we now see the results

  • Sheri

    Shame on Obama ;

    As a democrat for over 30 years, I am embarresed that our Presidential Candidate would make such a remark. Of course he was addressing Gov. Palin. He thought he made a funny, but sad to say, he didn’t.

    I was around during the woman’s movement. I watched women burn their bras, and fight to have a little more say, and earn better wages to improve their lives. So Obama being our first African American Democratic Nominee for President, and the struggles that African Americans had “in some cases stil have” should have been a little more sensitive in his speech, especially for women, and Africa Americans

    What makes me more upset regarding this comment, is that the Democrats “also people that are voting for Obama seem to always overlook his rude comments, lies, and ego psychology, that he enjoys. All this is overlooked just to get him elected, where has our pride, and honer gone ? How would Obama like it if somebody said something on camera bad against African Americans ?

    Obama shame on you for this one !

  • simon6071

    With the help of huge amount of campaign money donated from Muslims overseas giving Obama exclusive access to TV campaigning in the last round of the race and buying out the liberal mass media to hurl bottles at the McCain/Palin team during the race, the Obama /Biden team won.

    Now Obama tells America that the U.S. economy is going to get worse before it gets better. With the numbrer of layoffs of American workers keep on increasing at an alarming rate due to the dominos of recession started by the spike of crude oil from OPEC at the first half of 2008 and fueled by corporate tax increase advocated by Obama,it is undoubtly that Obama will prove to be correct in his prediction which is a tricky one as he does not attach any timeline for the change for the better.
    If the U.S. economy gets worse for four years during the Obama rule and gets better after he finished his term, will Obama still claim credit for makling the correct prediction?