He’s trying to claim he didn’t mean it that way, but please. The wording is way too obvious. Everyone understood exactly what he meant right away.

Here’s the video:

Transcript:

L-L-L-Let’s just list this for a second. John McCain says he’s about change too. Exce… an-an-and so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington! That’s not change. That’s… that’s just calling some… the same thing, something different. But you know, you can… you-you can put, uh, lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.

That’s not at all similar to Sarah Palin’s pit bull statement, is it? The whole dramatic pause after the lipstick-on-a-pig statement while everyone applauded enthusiastically was just coincidence. And come on, haven’t you all heard that expression before? It’s as common as the day is long. That’s the Obama camp’s excuse, anyway:

The crowd rose and applauded, some of them no doubt thinking he may have been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”

“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,'” Obama continued, “it’s still gonna stink after eight years.

…

Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs insists the senator was not referring to Palin. “That’s an old expression,” Gibbs says.

Now, let’s just suspend reality for a moment and pretend John McCain said that shortly after Michelle Obama said something along the lines of, “What’s the difference between a working mom and a pit bull? Lipstick,”. How soon do you think the RAAAACIST!!!!! howls would start?

In any case, is this the only way he can attack Sarah Palin? By debasing himself with a dirty smear? Of course, this may be because he has no basis of fact upon which to attack her. He can’t name any specifics to back up his point about John McCain, and he can’t name any specific instances of the “change” he will bring. It’s just a cheap insult and the same old talking points. No original thought. Nothing to add to the conversation of any substance. Is that because he lacks substance? Hmm.

It’s one thing for Obama to say, “I disagree with Sarah Palin’s or John McCain’s policy in this specific instance because of ‘X, Y, and Z’.” No one would have a problem with that. But he doesn’t do that. He either doesn’t have specifics to back up his attacks or he doesn’t want people to know exactly the kind of “change” he’ll be bringing. Maybe both. His entire campaign is cloaked with ambiguity and obscurity. All empty rhetoric, no actual plans for the future.

Senator Obama, a five-year-old can point their fingers and call someone they dislike names. It’s time for you to enter the world of big-boy politics. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Hat Tip: My colleague Greg Scott at Stop the ACLU