[Deckard]

The difference is that we have a woman in this campaign who has now specifically referenced lipstick. The moment she did that, any subsequent references to pigs and lipstick became loaded. We can't pretend she didn't say it, or that the reference doesn't now carry the danger of being viewed as a personal attack, and even a sexist attack. That might be unfair, but it's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that it would be disingenuous for anyone to pretend that the pig/lipstick jibe now didn't work on two levels, even if one was unintentional (which btw, in all likelihood it wouldn't be, because every politico/journo heard Palin define herself by that rottweiler/lipstick comment at the convention).

You and I and everyone else here accepts that a pig/lipstick reference in 2008 should be just as valid as one in 2004, but that's not the point. The point is that the Dems will have it used against them in 2008 because of what Palin said. And that's why the Dems need to tread careful.

If I credited him with as much intelligence, I'd almost be tempted to put the original 'rottweiler with lipstick' line down to Rove. Actually, I don't doubt his deviousness, but I suspect this is just one of those unforeseen outcomes....