During a discussion in the day following the eruption over the Obama speech where he used the lipstick on a pig analogy I was stunned when Chris Matthews insisted that each guest tell him whether the guest could find Barak guilty of calling Sarah Palin a pig. I had never heard Chris demand this level of certainty with any other topic. Hey Chris, since slander is a civil matter the burden of proof to establish guilt is “preponderance of the evidence.” so let’s have a mock trial to see if we can prove guilt or will Barak not be liable.

There are 2 defenses for Barak on this charge.

• First Barak’s defenders say that he was referring to the mantle of change that the John McCain was adopting – i.e. John McCain can say he will bring change, He can put lipstick on a Pig (his change), but it (his change)is still the same old thing. They will point out that Palin wasn’t mentioned until later in the speech so it could not have been Palin that he was referring to.
• Second, Barak’s defenders will say that this is a common phrase, even being used by John McCain when describing Hillary’s Health Care plan. Plus Barak’s defenders will run all of the different uses of this phrase by other political figures.

Now for the prosecution – For the record, let’s restate what Barak actually said that day. “The other side, suddenly, they’re saying ‘we’re for change too’. Now think about it, these are the same folks that have been in charge for the last eight years. You can put lipstick on a pig.(pause for response) It’s still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough,”

The prosecution will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Barak was talking about McCain and Palin and then called them and pig and an old fish. There is only one reasonable interpretation is that Palin is the pig and McCain is the old fish. Further the delivery pattern of the comment indicates that Obama knew that the audience would get the joke and paused at the intended punch line after he referred to Palin as a pig.

• Barak was talking about McCain and Palin, not about the mantle of change the lipstick was going on.
• Barak said “They are for change…” Who is THEY? Is it likely THEY = McCain and Palin? Yes it is likely. Then Barak said, mocking whoever THEY were, “we’re for change too…” Who is the we in this sentence? Is it likely that we = McCain and Palin? We has to refer to McCain and Palin or the whole sentence doesn’t make any sense for a campaign speech. The only way that this is not McCain and Palin is if Barak suddenly cannot use the English language correctly.

We must conclude that the first part of the comment was focused on McCain and Palin. This indicates that there is a reference to the 2 Republican candidates and their description as the people that can bring change. Clearly Palin is in the conversation at this point. Which removes the defense that she is not mentioned until later in the speech.

• Then Barak focused on the persons that are “They” and “We” in the start of the comment “…these are the same folks…” No mention of change, only comment of the people. If the defense wants to equate Barak’s use of lipsick on a pig to McCain’s earlier use of lipstick on a pig then they will have to reconcile this important difference. It is at this point in the John McCain discussion on Hillary’s health care that he spoke directly about the health care plan. John McCain was clearly talking about the health care plan not Hillary.
• After the descriptions of “…these are the same people…” the pig comment immediately followed by the old fish comment. One damning point - Barak uses two analogies not one– Why? Is he talking about 2 people – that is the only conclusion that makes sense. So who is the pig and who is the fish?
• Let’s look into the “old fish wrapped in a piece of paper and call it change.” The big question is what is being called change? It could be the old fish and the paper, or it could be the piece of paper. If you were talking about the old fish and paper then the paper is change and the old fish is McCain or Palin. Does it make sense if the paper is change? Not really, so we are left with the conclusion that there is an old fish wrapped in paper and it is being called change.

I would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt at this point that Barak is referring to the McCain/Palin ticket as a pig and an old fish. Who is the pig and who is the old fish… I haven’t seen John McCain in lipstick and I would not call Palin old – that leads me to conclude that Palin is the pig and McCain is the old fish.

Is the jury still not convinced? Well there are 2 other telling items in the delivery of the comment by Barak.

• Why the pause just after the phrase “…you can put lipstick on a pig…(pause)” Why would Barak think that the punch line is at that point? In every other instance of delivery of this analogy the punch line is after “…it is still a pig!” If this was calling the mantle of change as the pig, there would not have been a punch line until the end of the pig comment.
• The other telling point about Barak using this phrase is that his use of this phase prior to this speech is non-existent. The addition of the old Fish combined with the pig comment makes this even more unusual.

Message to Chris Mathews: Barak Obama has been found guilty of libel in calling his opponent a pig. This libel is exacerbated by the reluctance to admit his libel and the lack of apology for his actions.