They're taking what he said and making it into something else.

     They're lying about what he said.

       This is a tactic; a cheap, sleazy tactic I could never support.

      You know? Seems like I typed these words once before. Maybe twice? Maybe over, and over, and over, and... about what Hillary "said..." about what Bill "said..." Even about what Barack "said..." And possibly even about John McCain. But typing these words is, GACK! ...once again necessary. I'd rather face a thirsty swarm of Adirondack blackflies. Come to think of it... I typed that once before too.

      The whole "lipstick on a pig" shtick has that "de'ja'vu all over again" feel, simply because it seems it's still Groundhog's Day. The names of the "victim" and the supposed "villain" have switched around, but it's the same damn intentional sewage spill, assisted by the media... again. It also reminds me of those "B" (at best) movies where the bad guy dumps something greasy and gooey onto the road so he can get further ahead of the hero chasing him. Yet when the bad guys, or gals, and the good guys, or gals, use the same cheesy tactic, one wonders if all we're left with once the story ends is evil.

      This column will royally tick off O'Bama-ites, but I see little difference between Barack attempting to cue his followers by saying "don't know what she meant by that..." into accusing Hillary of using RFK's assassination as an example to encourage someone to kack Barack... or any of the various politically expedient bleak reinterpretations of what she/he said used by both Dem contenders... Once again, I see little difference between all that and turning a worn cliche' pointed at the economy under Republicans and into a supposed sexist remark.

       None of this is right: no matter who does it. As this trend continues I keep hearing that old movie quote, only the guy yelling is screaming at the candidates...

"You're going the wrong direction! You're going to get somebody killed!"

      And if we continue to vote for those who debate each other's supposed character, rather than issues, more people will die; in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in American and in the world: for only if we can begin to assess who we think has the correct stance concerning, and handle on, important issues can we get even close to knowing who we really should vote for. If character were a good way to decide who to vote for then our best presidents would be close to saints. Instead, they're usually more like very clever and capable poker players

      All of this redefining what someone has said is cheap political theater. My fear; and there seems to be plenty of proof so far I'm right, is a good portion of the American public is gullible and ignorant enough to accept these politically driven rewrites; and this way to decide who should be president. And, I hate to admit it, even claiming "uppity" has the assumed "n" word after it is suspect. Sure seems like it to me, but I must be consistent here.

      One can twist anything into something it's not. I used to enjoy doing it in my Lit classes when we were interpreting poems and prose. Besides, the correct: better, response to such remarks wouldn't be to attempt to enforcing politically-correct speech on everyone, but to respond by mocking "uppity" with some version of, "Sorry, mashtah, McCain, Is not 'uppity.'" It would create laughter and drive home the point. "Uppity" would eventually disappear because the absurdity of the comment would be highlighted.

       To be honest, I blame poor DemocratIc campaign skills for, yet again, getting us into "another fine mess." Barack, his handlers, and especially his followers, helped set the following standard: taking what was said and twisting it into something it wasn't is "fair game." I'm not claiming Barack and his followers were the only ones. I am claiming they did it far "better." I especially like the "let the candidate step back and let the supporters do it" method. Cute. Handy. Cheap. Shallow. Cowardly.

       Do I blame them? No. Look, after all, the tactic helps to win nominations; but winning the initial skirmishes by using this tactic could very well lose the war.

      Besides, I don't care what Barack and his followers think of John's character, or John and his followers think about Barack's. That's simply politically convenient noise. I want to hear them talk issues: and I wanted this back when it was Hillary vs. Barack. I think they both failed in this regard. And I agree with most Left of center talk show hosts that this attempt to define your opponent is a convenient way not to talk about the issues. And after the past eight years Republicans have every reason one can imagine; and probably some we even haven't yet, to avoid talking about issues. So twisting words into yet another to character assassination is obviously convenient way to avoid issues. Why? Because an issue-based campaign would probably equal defeat for them.

      But John McCain wasn't the first to start this cat fight in the 08 election cycle. It started during the Clinton-O'Bama wars. Neither were all that interested in issues. Both preferred various methods of shifting the meme' in their favor by defining the character of the other. Now it's coming back to bite Dems in their lipstick on a pig ass.

       And as we all know, payback is a...

       Payback is a...

       Damn, can't type that, or I'll be accused of bashing women.

       Well, we'd better get our act together if we wish to get our economy out of the r...

      Rats, better not type that, or Native Americans might get pissed.

     ...and into the bla...

     Damn, damn, double damn!

     See what I mean?

     This "ain't" no way to run our political discourse: unless derailing it is the objective.

                           -30-

     Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.