The first speech was 55 minutes long. The second speech was 39 minutes long.

Newt Gingrich’s speech to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Senatorial Committee? Fifty-six minutes long.

It’s a fascinating performance, a formless ramble that veers from fear of European socialism to capsule reviews of education documentaries to the accusation that Obama is an orator “in the [Stephen] Douglas tradition,” which is a nice little dig considering that Douglas ended his career by supporting the Dred Scott decision and trying to open the territories to slavery. Would the party have been better off booking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin after all?

Hillary Clinton, Obama’s surprise choice for secretary of state, has been mooted as a wild card appointment to the Supreme Court, but she would have to abandon any remaining presidential ambitions – an unlikely prospect.

First, who has seriously proposed Clinton for the SCOTUS job? She’s 61 years old, and the liberal consensus is to find a younger, less politically charged nominee who can spend decades on the court. Second, who says that Clinton, who will be 69 on Election Day 2016, is thinking about another presidential bid? Not many people right now. But enough to make it into an article that gets linked by Drudge and read in the United States and kicks off speculation …

To even entertain McCain’s far-fetched attack, one would have to think Obama had a political death wish. Rather than attack Palin, however, Obama has spent the past few days praising her story and personal characteristics at each stop in Virginia, Ohio and Michigan. He has confined all his criticism to policy differences.

I was sitting at a press table in the Virginia gym as Obama rattled through two cliches to argue that the McCain/Palin ticket could not deliver change. First, Obama reached for a farm analogy: “You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “It’s still a pig.” Then he said, “you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”

The pig cliche went from Politico to Drudge before Obama had left the stage.

The McCain camp pounced with an emergency conference call, and the press corps unthinkingly dug into the story.

McCain surrogate Jane Swift accused Obama of talking about Palin and demanded an apology. Swift said she thought Obama was referencing Palin because she is the only candidate who wears lipstick. I guess that means no one can take offense at the fish analogy, since none of the candidates are wrapped in newspaper.

This entire non-event — a candidate uses a common cliche in passing while answering a question about “change” — barely merits any reporting. It definitely isn’t worth the lead of The AP’s traveling report on what Obama did today, for example.

Don’t take my word for it; even the journalist who jump-started this drama said so. Amie Parnes, who I’ve been sitting next to this week on Obama’s plane, added this addendum to her short lipstick post:

The McCain campaign is now saying Obama called Palin a pig, which he didn’t. They also note that “lipstick is a fairly common idiom he often uses,” as in a recent Washington Post interview. McCain has also used the phrase…(emphasis added)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder also swiftly debunked McCain’s ploy. But the distraction is already upending the news cycle. And I haven’t even seen a TV yet — since we’re en route to the airport.

This is the kind of blatantly false charge that works even when reported skeptically. Because, frankly, it shouldn’t be reported at all.

Campaign journalists don’t need to cover two sides to every lie — especially an outlandish gender card trick like this one.

For skeptical readers, I’ll note that I filed several policy pieces about Obama today, including one from the Lebanon event. I’m now wading into the pig ploy with the minor goal of providing some context from the road.

Actual sexism still infects American culture and U.S. politics, of course. But McCain and Palin undermine the fight for equality when they falsely and cynically stage fake offenses.

McCain’s decision to put a woman on his ticket was laudable and inspiring, (as I’ve written before), and regardless of the motives, it was good for the country.

McCain’s overall conduct is more significant than that one action, however. His cynical attempt to cloak his ticket in gendered victimhood is an offense to all women and men who value equality — and to any voters who still desire a campaign devoted to a truthful debate of the issues.