“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.    

Chicago--The front of the “Perspective” section of the Sunday, September 07, 2008 Chicago Tribune featured an interview entitled “Q&A with Tio Hardiman: Organizing a Response to the GOP”.  In it, former community organizer Tio Hardiman defends community organizing.

About community organizers, he admits “some have organized against particular candidates”.

This is a shocking admission.  Most nonprofit organizations that employ community organizers have tax exempt status.  To engage in overtly political actions such as taking part in a campaign to support or oppose a candidate is blatantly illegal.  Such an organization could, and should, lose their nonprofit status.

To be fair to Hardiman, he refers to this as something others have done and does not admit to breaking laws himself.

I am not shocked that this sort of illegal activity happens; I am just shocked that somebody so openly admits that it happens.  Since I have worked in the Chicago nonprofit community for many years, I know how politicized things can be.  Politicians rely on social service organizations to reach into communities and those organizations rely on politicians to access tax payer dollars.  It is a circle of corruption. 

This is the corruption world that spawned Barack Obama.  This is why I fear the corrupt world he will lead us into as President of the United States.  

Watch out, John McCain.  Your divorce records may soon become a major campaign issue.  How do I know this?  Let’s look at recent history.

In 2004, State Senator Barack Obama entered the crowded Democratic primary for the open Illinois Senate seat.  Even though Obama was the only African American candidate among several white candidates, he failed to excite much attention even though Illinois Democratic primary voters are disproportionately African American.  Blair Hull had been leading in polls and was expected to handily win the primary.

Unexpectedly, Hull’s divorce records became public.  It seems Hull’s wife had accused him of hitting her leg.  Hull quickly became branded as a wife beater, and Obama finally began getting attention as Hull’s prospects faded.

Flash-forward a few months.  Democratic nominee Obama now faced Republican nominee Jack Ryan.  Ryan is an attractive, photogenic, self-made millionaire who left his business to work at an inner-city school.  Before Ryan’s campaign really got off the ground—surprise!—his divorce records unexpectedly became public.  Ryan’s ex-wife said he twice took her to a sex club.  This unsavory disclosure led Ryan to drop out of the race.  Obama was able to take his time consolidating support while the GOP searched for a new candidate.  After a string of unsuccessful attempts to entice a new candidate into the field, including former Gov. Jim Edgar and football legend Mike Ditka, the party eventually found out-of-state candidate Allen Keyes.  By this time Obama had become a nationally known candidate and was unbeatable.

Yes, Obama’s meteorite rise was due to both his opponents having their divorce records made public in the middle of a campaign.  Obama has never been directly linked to this tactic, although at least one of the reporters who dug up this information was linked to somebody close to Obama.  Was this a dirty trick?  Perhaps, but Obama has gotten by without of hint of dirt under his nails.  Watch out, John McCain.