I find this whole "lipstick" controversy much ado about nothing.That being said, I find it more than a little ironic that Matson is now calling it a distraction when it was he who conjured up the image in his 09/05/08 cartoon, four days before the Obama "lipstick on a pig" statement.Ever since her pitbull/hockey mom joke at the Republican National Convention, there's been a strong connection betwen Palin and lipstick. It's been used in a positive way at subsequent Republican rallies with signs like "Lipstick Power!" and "Read my lipstick!" Matson tried to co-opt and redefine that connection; so did Obama. It's not unlike McCain trying to co-opt and redefine "change" to his advantage.For those who claim that it was as innocent a comment as when McCain called Hillary Clinton's healthcare policy "lipstick on a pig," bear in mind that unlike Palin, there has never been a connection between Clinton and lipstick in the public's mind.If you're still not convinced of the difference, compare Obama's audience reaction (uproarious laughter) to that of McCain's audience when he used the same expression about referring to Hillary Clinton months earlier. Obama's audience knew exactly what he was saying. It's all about timeliness.If I were Obama, I would have said, "Sure, I was alluding to Governor Palin. But I wasn't calling her a pig. It's a figure of speech. Lighten up, already!"I agree with R.J. Matson that the whole thing is a distraction. Perhaps he should have foreseen this coming before he posted the earlier cartoon.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.