“Lipstick on a pig,” said Barack Obama during a recent speech, raising a national debate about his intentions.  Was this a simple mistake by Barack Obama or was he making a veiled reference to Sarah Palin?

Defenders of Obama sound reasonable enough.  Even though Palin famously made the “lipstick on a pit bull” remark during her Republican Convention speak and now “lipstick on a . . .” is clearly associated with her, Obama was indeed using an old adage.

However, in almost every major election, Democrats at some point accuse Republicans of communicating in code, just as Republicans are now accusing the Democrats.  Here are a few examples:

·        The elder George Bush made an issue of the Massachusetts prison furlough program in his race against Michael Dukakis in 1988.  The GOP used a clear example of the flaws of this system by discussing the case of furloughed criminal Willie Horton.  Discussions of the prison furlough program in general and discussions of the Willie Horton case in particular were loudly lambasted by Democrats as racist.  Democrats accused Republicans of appealing to the supposed inherent racism of the American public by the mere mention of the prison furlough system or the mention of a criminal who happened to be black.  In essence, according to Democrats, Republicans were sending a subliminal code to the public to stoke their racist fears.  Accusations of coded racism are a recurring theme among Democrats for many years now.

·        In one of the most bizarre incidents to grow into a national debate, Republican several years ago put out an ad criticizing their Democrat opponents.  As part of the ad, the word “Democrats” flashed across the screen from right to left in a split second.  Since r-a-t-s are the last four letter of the word “Democrats”, those letters appeared first.  Democrats accused Republicans of calling them “rats”.  Of course, the letters zipped across the screen so quickly nobody watching noticed, so Democrats claimed this was a case of subliminal advertising, another coded message sent to the American public to sway an election.

·        Earlier this year, Republicans found they cannot even refer to Obama by his actual name.  Since Obama’s full name is Barack Hussein Obama, they claim that using his own middle name is yet another appeal to racist fears among Americans, yet another coded message.  This complaint occurred even though Democrats have mocked Republican candidates in the past because of their names.  I clearly recall Michael Dukakis derisively referring to “George Herbert Walker Bush” and “J. Danforth Quayle” in an effort to make these Republicans seem more patrician and distant from ordinary Americans.

Democrats believe in codes.  Since they clearly think that coded messages and inferences are part of campaigns, is it reasonable to think that Obama is aware that his words could be interpreted this way?  Is it reasonable to suspect that Obama may have intended his “lipstick” remark as a slap against Palin?

I think it is.