>Could be, Alan. I dunno for sure. If I was certain then everyone would be certain.

Now you know that isn't true. ;)

>
>>>I keep trying to respond to this and the UT / my net connection keep spazzing out.
>>>
>>>I stand by my previous analysis. This was intended to reference Palin as a pig in a way which left the door open to plausible deniability. When you look at at the totality of the prior Dem posts, the lead-in to the speech, there is no other probable conclusion. Sure, there's the possibility that it was intentioned otherwise but an objective weighing says otherwise.
>>
>>I have to ask once again, if Palin was the pig, then what was the lipstick. Doesn't it make far more sense that the culture was the pig and Palin was the lipstick?
>>
>>>
>>>IMHO, I am more willing than other conservative leaning posters to give the benefit of the doubt to slips of the tongue or poor choices of words. Really I am. But this went beyiond the pale and was a mistake on Obamas part.
>>>
>>>>>I'm sorry you find this offensive I just can't understand the robotic agreement with improbable explanations if they come from a politically friendly source.
>>>>
>>>>When I lived in Iowa I heard this expression used with exactly the meaning Obama gave.
>>>>
>>>>The problem (one of the problems) with the current climate of demonization is that anything which could possibly be taken in a bad light WILL be taken in a bad light. If it MIGHT have offended then it is deemed to have been INTENDED to offend.
>>>>
>>>>IMO, this is true for all the idealogues, regardless of point of view.