tacitly calling Sarah Palin a pig
, he not only displayed the insight of an eighth-grade bully, he also demonstrated the nimble skill of a master of the political art. Ever wily, Obama has mastered the art of insulting his opponent, without seeming to. Like a Judo master or a man farting next to a dog, he is adept at shifting the blame, feigning innocence, and undercutting the hate of his words without removing the stinger.
A simple example will illustrate the point. Imagine, if you will, Senator Obama making the following statements:
âSarah Palin is a fat, greasy pig.â
âIf you put lipstick on a pig, itâs still a pig.â
Of the two ways he could have presented his argument, he chose the one that, while still conveying the necessary information (ie, Sarah Palinâs love of rolling in mud and feces to compensate for her lack of sweat glands), doesnât directly accuse his opponent.
He also gets bonus points for âriffingâ off of her oft-repeated statement that she, in fact, is a trained pit bull that was slathered with lipstick. Why this is an improvement over a pig is debatable, but the point stands.
In fact, the only suggestion I would have made to Senator Obama is that he could have gone a little less subtle, and still gotten away with it. To my mind, the ideal statement would have been:
âIf you put lipstick on a pig that happens to be named Sarah, itâs still a Palinâ¦I mean pig.â Followed by a broad wink and some minor snorting noises.
Youâve got to remember Senator: youâre addressing the American public. If they canât pick up the subtext in