home

Late Night Election News

Here's an late-night roundup:

  • NY Times: Al Gore and John Edwards are holding back on endorsements. Gore, in particular, is waiting in the wings to play mediator if the race doesn't tip soon towards Hillary or Obama.
  • AP: Hillary says she can beat Obama and McCain. For her, it's not "Yes, we can" but "Yes, we will."
  • AP: Obama on Hillary: "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters." Here's the video. Sexist? Very, says Lambert at Corrente Wire. [More...]

’Cause you know how women are….

Driven by feelings…. Worried about their [sex] appeal… Prone to tears… The whole phases of the moon thing…

And did you catch the dogwhistle in “periodically”?

NOTE Apparently, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O’Donnell noticed as well. Even if the boys on the bus didn’t — or approved.

I'm not going to top that one (or touch it) so I think I'll end here.

Update: Comments over 200, thread now closed. Thanks for your thoughts.

< Lightening Up: Hillary and Obama and a Little You Tube | Another Unfounded Media Attack on Bill Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Wow, I guess Obama must be really (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:53:25 PM EST
    feeling down based on the rate he's putting out nasty mailers. Does he really think he's run a negative free campaign?

    Don't know about him, but (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:56:14 PM EST
    his supporters at DK certainly do, according to an endorsement diary I just read.  

    Parent
    His DK Supporters Think He Is Going (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:01:53 AM EST
    to win the GE 65% to 35% and bring in a 60 seat Senate on his coattails too.

    Parent
    Plus enact a solid program by (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:05:27 AM EST
    reaching across the aisle.

    Parent
    Ok...I will be kind (none / 0) (#97)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:06:59 AM EST
    and go to the corner.

    Parent
    Feels like the campaign (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    of a spoiled child.  Just a vibe I get, you know, "woman's intuition".  I must be feeling down. ;-).

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:57:32 PM EST
    It takes quite a bit for the "girls on the bus" to take Hillary's side on anything.

    Did we really need yet *another* reminder . . . (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by GV on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:58:17 PM EST
    . . . that the best democratic candidate for this election would have been Al Gore?  

    ironic (none / 0) (#183)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:18:22 AM EST
    what is Al Gore going to feel about seating or not seating Florida delegates at the convention?

    Maybe, the world is really coming to an end.  Maybe I am in a strange dream and shall wake up.  Al Gore may definitely feel he has been in a really, really strange dream the last 8 years.

    Parent

    Super Delegates Loyaltly trumps race (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:04:57 PM EST
    Read or listen to Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, a super delegate on NPR All Things Considered who says how many black super delegates have been threatened at home that if you do not switch to Obama you will regret your reelection.  Cleaver says " You do not abandon your friends".

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096400&ft=1&f=1001

    That was an incredible piece. . . (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    Reverend Cleaver is quite an interviewee.

    Did you notice that he specifically mentioned that John Lewis was politically threatened?  Or the parable he told about holding a seat for his friend at the State of the Union address?

    Oh -- and just before the Cleaver interview?  David Falkenflick on the Clinton / MSNBC imbroglio.

    Parent

    I wonder if Lewis (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:21:49 PM EST
    seeing how DIVISIVE this would be, backed off as a result.

    Parent
    Cleaver expressing the importance (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by standingup on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:53:03 AM EST
    of loyalty is not surprising.  He made it clear in an article in The Hill last April that Obama was not guaranteed the endorsement of all members of the CBC.  The CBC asked Obama to do a fundraiser for them and he failed to find time for them.  On the other hand, Hillary and Bill held events to raise money for them.  

    Cleaver said that some caucus members would overlook Obama's failure so far to hold a fundraiser for them but added that others would be disappointed. He predicted many CBC members would end up endorsing Clinton.

    "Mrs. Clinton, as we expected her to, definitely stepped up," he said. "I think you're going to see a sizeable number of CBC members joining her campaign, not just because of the fundraiser, [but] because of her history of stepping up, not just with money but on issues."

    Loyalty may trump with good reason in this case.    

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:36:59 PM EST
    Made my day. That was just brilliant interview. I wish everyone would listen to this and learn about core values.

    Parent
    Undoubtedly sexist (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST
    An outrageous comment from Obama.

    About that comment... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Firefly4625 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:15:00 PM EST
    A reader at Taylor Marsh transcribed this exchange between Norah O'Donnell and Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC today:

    Nora O'Donnell: "He said, 'I understand when she's down (emphasis hers), that she makes these kinds of attacks. It's getting a little personal."

    Andrea Mitchell: "It's getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female (emphasis hers) candidate as being "down" and "striking back." I don't know, that's a little edgy, don't you think?"

    Nora O'Donnell: "Yeah. And I think there's gonna be a lot more comments about that."

    Parent

    Good for them (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    Maybe they have gotten sick of the sexism finally.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:22:27 AM EST
    I really didn't think those two media creatures had it in them.

    Parent
    Thanks, Lambert (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM EST
    was looking for links on their comments.

    Parent
    IF Obama should loose Wisconsin (none / 0) (#65)
    by felizarte on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:50:23 PM EST
    it might cause him to make more comments that would eventually lead to his implosion.  He would have proven that he is indeed arrogant  (I would use petulant) as some posters have suggested. And Hillary would look poised, steady and tough!

    I wonder if the MSM will again give him a pass on this.

    Parent

    huh? sexist? (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:12:50 PM EST
    could you explain?

    Parent
    Corrente did (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    read the post.

    Parent
    touche' (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:24:22 PM EST
    sorry, I really should have done so.

    This is hilarious.

    PERIODically! Woo woo - dog whistle!
    Aw sweet jeezus....
    the man said the word periodically. Its back to the kitchen to bake cookies for half the population!!!

    And he used the word "feeling".
    Sexist????

    Are you guys on drugs or something?

    Yeah, its sexist alright. Men don't have feelings?  Obama has never said a word about his own feelings?

    Please, tell me this is a joke.

    Parent

    Please go away (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    Your embrace of obvious sexism is not appreciated tonight.

    Seriously, you will start a  flame war, WITH ME.

    I ask you in the most polite terms, please leave this thread.

    Parent

    You won;t mind (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:19:03 PM EST
    if I write about that comment tomorrow I hope.

    I want to cool off first.

    Parent

    Sure, go right ahead (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:29:39 PM EST
    It's pretty incredible.

    I was wondering if it somehow ties into his own relationships..does he resent that his wife is "the boss"?

    Here's another good article from December by Marc Ambinder in The Atlantic on Obama and Hillary's relationship, Teacher and Apprentice.

    Parent

    I am no fan of that type of (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:32:29 PM EST
    armchair psychoanalysis but it would be absurd to deny that within every man there are sexist tendencies just as there are racist tendencies in all of us.

    We battle against them as much as we can.

    I am flabbergasted by the comment.

    Parent

    Kathy? (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:40:09 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#202)
    by tek on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    just watched the clip of Obama making the sexist comment. No wonder this guy loves Ronald Reagan, he's doing a great acting job! And then I love where he says people aren't interested in Hillary's attacks they're interested in sending their kids to college, getting jobs, etc. Right, and Hillary has no ideas on how to help them do that.

    Anyone else think it's interesting that the silver-tongued wonder has trouble using good English and enunciation when he's not speechifying? "folks are lookin' for" the girls are upstairs "doin' what de do." That I really couldn't believe.

    Folks? Folks? Obama plagiarized that one from Dubya.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:16:44 PM EST
    Because your stubbornness will piss me off.

    I attribute it to your candidate support.

    It is funny how racism was attributed to Hillary's comments in response to a question about LBJ/MLK but an OBVIOUS, and I mean OBVIOUS, sexist remark emits blank stares from the Media, the A-List make bloggers and people like you.

    I am getting pissed off just writing this comment to you.

    Parent

    i was very very clear, mutliple times (none / 0) (#38)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    that the Clintons, in my opinion, do not have a racist bone in their body.

    It was not racism that they were engaged in. They tried to make Obama the black candidate. I wont bore everyone  with my explanation of that, but it was not racism.

    Parent

    Please leave this thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:29:29 PM EST
    I really can not take another round of apologias for sexism tonight.

    Parent
    I saw this before, and I am puzzled (none / 0) (#211)
    by slr51 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:45:27 AM EST
    .. this 56 yo white woman never even thought "sexist". It amazes me that anyone would.

    The word periodically is the an excellent fit for the nature of the negative attack ads by both sides. Unless you could think of a word that says: just after negative news is made public relative to the one campaign and/or just before another "must win" primary or just after another loss.

    I don't know what word would cover all of that - but periodically works well.

    Pouting and demanding that there be absolutely NO reasonable discussion of the interpretation of words is childish and diminishes your ability to influence. I expect it will only serve to drive away readers who are on the fence and trying to hear both sides, thereby decreasing any potential influence you might have had on their decisions.

    Parent

    I didn't catch it. . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:08:57 PM EST
    when I read it first, but bullet-pointed like that -- wow.

    Parent
    I am sure that (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:14:31 PM EST
    Tweety, John Aravoss, Josh Marshall and the rest of the male dominated A-List of bloggers will be telling us that Obama is right

    IF one thing has become painfully clear in this campaign, it is that sexism and misogyny of the most overt kind is perfectly acceptable.

    IT is shocking and disappointing.

    Lucky for them I do not get to do pure vents here or the balst force of my critiques would be nuclear sized.

    Parent

    Darn it! (none / 0) (#40)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:28:17 PM EST
    Could use the entertainment. Big bowl of popcorn, a 12 pack of Coca-Cola and a nuclear blast post.

    :gimmee:

    Parent

    same (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Nasarius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:46:25 AM EST
    My initial reaction was "that's insultingly personal, stupid, and nasty". Frankly, it's revolting enough even without the sexism. Has Hillary said anything close to that about Obama?

    You know, it wouldn't even be so bad if it weren't for the continuing flagrant hypocrisy. *That* more than anything else is what truly bothers me about Obama. He's somehow convinced massive numbers of people that he's some kind of transformative figure, while playing the same old dirty games. Incredible.

    Parent
    Bloomberg News (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:10:21 PM EST
    brings up another attack Obama can expect, about his ties to a former member of the Weather Underground, William Ayers.  That's one attack I won't support.

    A ridiculous line of attack (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    Makes Rezko seem positively substance filled.

    Parent
    If Lee Atwater were alive (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by badger on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:52:36 PM EST
    he could turn Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers into Obama's Willy Horton ("While John McCain was in a North Vietnamese Prison and Obama was in diapers, Obama's friends were declaring war on America and blowing up the Pentagon" - their mugshots are easy to find on the web, and are from the Chicago PD too)

    I'd agree the connection is virtually meaningless (so was Willy Horton), but it's an easy, cheap shot and not that easy to defend.

    I just think the people who believe Obama is rubber and Hillary is glue are deluding themselves.

    Parent

    Does McCain have your number? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:30:03 AM EST
    You could make a million off that. Or, like Mark Penn, several. :-D

    Parent
    Totally (none / 0) (#49)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:39:49 PM EST
    ... but it will fill 3 months of news cycles in the McCain Media.

    Parent
    Yep, if the media (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:27:05 AM EST
    can kill Gore's campaign with the "invented the internet" meme, there should be a lot of pseudotraction with Rezko....

    it all falls under my "I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused" attitude.

    Parent

    Me neither. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:43:17 PM EST
    But talk about rehab.  The man now teaches in the Education Dept. of Univ. of IL, Chicago campus.

    Parent
    Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:25:02 AM EST
    A far leftist, now given safe refuge in academia!  Unheard of.

    Parent
    Huh (none / 0) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:51:06 PM EST
    Such a dweeb, does not even know at our age, we are not periodically mad, we are mad all the time. HUH.

    Parent
    I was thinking the same thing. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:53:17 PM EST
    LOL LOL LOL (none / 0) (#76)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:54:10 PM EST
    And you know why? (none / 0) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:28:32 AM EST
    Because past menopause, our hormones are like men's were all along.

    Parent
    Ahhh,,, (none / 0) (#190)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:59:11 AM EST
    Now I finally understand why the post-menopausal me seems at such odds with the really nice premenopausal me. Except, periodically of course. Thanks for explaining.

    Parent
    Aha, I wondered when that (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:47:24 AM EST
    would go national from Illinois blogs.  See earlier posts here when I heard it was going to go national.

    It is a stupid attack.  That doesn't matter -- it will make quite a McCain attack ad, as a voice intones the anarchic words of Ayers and Dorn, emblems of the "excesses of the '60s" that they are.

    Parent

    Have to really wonder (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:12:54 PM EST
    if he cares about women's rights (e.g. to choose) with such a lousy attitude toward women.

    This is my no. 1 concern. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:12:16 AM EST
    "Present" doesn't paint a clear enough picture for me, despite the explanations.  

    Parent
    Present (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:22:58 AM EST
    doesn't paint a clear picture of anything he plans to do, in any context.  He spreads his beliefs out so thinly.

    We really don't know anything about this man, pertaining to who he REALLY is.  We only know the fantasy.

    Parent

    don't worry... (none / 0) (#24)
    by jor on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:21:05 PM EST
    .. hillary already sent out a flier questioning his stance on his right to choose -- event after Planned Parenthood said Obama was 100% behind a woman's right to choose.

    Parent
    He has a history (none / 0) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:06:45 AM EST
    of saying one thing, doing another.  So we don't know how he'll behave in the presidency.

    Parent
    man... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:32:45 PM EST
    I have to admit, it didn't jump out at me at first.  But after reading it again - j&$%s, he might as well have said she attacks when aunt flo is in town.

    I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt thinking down meant behind.  But periodically.....sort of takes that benefit away.

    HIllary's 60 (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:01:57 AM EST
    She is well past the age of PMS. Not that that is any excuse - next thing you know it'll be "mood swings."

    Parent
    or (none / 0) (#109)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:23:42 AM EST
    "hot flashes"

    Parent
    I like this nice quote in the Baltimore Sun. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:46:46 PM EST
    Then, the always confident senator, couldn't help but offer himself some more praise: "It's true. I give a good speech. What can I do? Nothing wrong with that," he said.

    I've read about how his dad had a huge ego according to his classmates and I'm beginning to thing Obama took after him.

    Reminds me of Mitt Romney saying (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:49:27 PM EST
    how pleased he was at having the opportunity to vote for himself.

    Parent
    Everyone running (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
    or who has ever run for President has a huge ego.  This is a given.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#81)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST
    I'm sure the GOP will have this in their list:

    Hillary: "Ambitious"
    or Obama: "Articulate"
    ----------
    McCain: "Hero"

    What was that Alien vs Predator slogan? Whoever wins, we lose.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM EST
    I think he has a point though.

    Parent
    I know, he gives a terrfic speech. I just like (none / 0) (#91)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:02:36 AM EST
    people to at least pretend to have a little modesty. Like andreww says below, anyone running for President has a decent sized ego.

    Parent
    Huge Ego a necessity (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:03:55 AM EST
    But isn't patting oneself on the back so arrogantly just a little tacky? Or is it just that at this point I dislike the man so much I can't be fair anymore? Probably.

    This latest comment, that does seem overtly sexist to me combined with the one just recently about Hillary's "claws" coming out just screams misogyny to me. And I make no apologies for disliking that!

    Parent

    Video Link to "Feeling Down" Comment (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:26:25 AM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNpeGPdhEw

    This would make a good update... It's a very clear video that comes across just as bad as you'd imagine from the quoted text.

    ugh. (none / 0) (#116)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:28:27 AM EST
    Yea - that is not good.  At all.

    Parent
    Reminds me of "Likeable Enough" (none / 0) (#118)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:29:51 AM EST
    Darn! (none / 0) (#166)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:50:45 AM EST
    I forgot that one. Add it to my list upthread.

    Parent
    Oh wow, that was (none / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:36:19 AM EST
    on Olbermann?  I missed that (cuz I don't watch Olbermann anymore <sigh>).

    Does anyone know if they turned it into an "Obama, great guy? or greatEST guy?" spiel?

    Or did they talk about what he really said.

    Parent

    I don't get this (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:33:29 AM EST
    I guess I'm just an unrepentant sexist because I don't see these comments as being sexist at all.  I consider them.

    1.  Patronizing
    2.  Condescending
    3.  Flippant

    Why is it that every time that Obama makes any sort of personal jab, it is sexist?  This was a political jab.  It was vetted by his team.  It was snarky but I find it extremely hard to believe that they were trying to be sexist.

    I'm so tired of the secret code stuff.  I remember a few years ago some politician used the word niggardly. It took several days for some people to realize that the word niggardly was unrelated to the racial slur.

    If Norah O'Donnell can see it... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:48:58 AM EST
    you know there's something there, there.

    watch the video and trust the women on this one.

    Parent

    It plays on the old meme (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:52:46 AM EST
    that a woman can't be president because she might be on the r?? and push the nuke button.

    Slightly different words, same meaning.

    Parent

    And who is he trying to (none / 0) (#199)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:11:44 AM EST
    convey this message to?  

    As I said to begin, the comment was patronizing and perhaps condescending.  That doesn't make it sexist.  If he becomes the nominee you can be certain he will suggest that McCain is too emotional to be trusted with the keys to the nukes.

    This isn't paddycake.  It's politics.  And right now it seems that a large number of Clinton supporters want to talk about being fair and nice and that just isn't how the game is played.

    Parent

    Yes, you are. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:55:54 AM EST
    Seek enlightenment. I suggest a women's studies course at your local community college.

    You will be amazed. And you will be a better person afterwards.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:34:58 AM EST
    That's what I need.  A class to tell me how to act.

    It's funny how in 40 years of living I have never once been called a sexist.  Not by my friends, co-workers, or girlfriends.  

    Thanks for telling me I would be a better person by taking a women's studies class.  Clearly your knowledge of me as a person helps you to make that claim.

    When I first heard this comment I thought it was just a zinger in response to a petty TV ad.  Now I realize that he was secretly being sexist.  Because the way for him to neutralize support for Hillary is clearly to be sexist.  No way her support would react negatively to sexism.

    It amazes how people can find outrage in so many minor issues in life.  Just like accusations of racism by the Clinton is silly outrage, so is this.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#203)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    What a comment.

    Parent
    Have you ever heard or sd. to (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:41:22 AM EST
    a male he was "down" periodically, and thus reacted in a certain way?  

    Parent
    actually, it is part of (none / 0) (#136)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:54:58 AM EST
    his standard speech to refer to his campaign being up, then being down (the same message when we are...). Seems perfectly understandable that, when referring to her camapign, he would say, when she is down...she attacks. And yes, given the dynamics of this race, it has happened periodically.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Parent

    you know, Michelle Obama stated (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:57:06 AM EST
    she didn't care for HRC's "tone."  I'm having the same problem with yours.  

    Parent
    you comparing me to Hillary now? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:58:24 AM EST
    :)

    Parent
    We know Hillary (none / 0) (#142)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:00:22 AM EST
    and Tano, you are no Hillary in this incarnation and possibly the next 5-10, so keep working on enlightenment.

    Parent
    I wrote three responses to him (none / 0) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:59:16 AM EST
    and deleted...thanks for responding to him.

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:05:05 AM EST
    I also erased several replies

    After seeing the video, it's clear that Obama was speaking very deliberately.  He knew what he was saying.

    Parent

    It is a total waste of time, but (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:01:09 AM EST
    I am really pissed at present.

    Parent
    The League Of Women Voters Came Down (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:02:46 AM EST
    hard on Obama changing his tune on public financing.

    Gave him chapter and verse on how what he is saying NOW is not what he committed to in the past.

    Fainting spells (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:05:36 AM EST
    I don't know if you'all have seen this, but I was over at NoQuarter.net and it pointed me toward the following web site....apparently people near the front row at Obama rallies tend to faint.  I'm linking you to a Dori Munson page.  He gives the location where you can find the fainting spells.....

    Link

    I report, you decide.

    Yes I've been hearing about that (none / 0) (#152)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:22:14 AM EST
    I watched all those videos and it started to remind me of one of those televangelists...

    Hard to prove that it's on purpose.  People do faint at rallies (for any candidate) and maybe Obama is just very predictable in how he responds and grandstands in those situations.

    Parent

    Always seems to be (none / 0) (#157)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:40:45 AM EST
    right there kind of in the front few rows of his 18,000 person rallies.

    Guess it's just a coincidence. ;-)

    Parent

    But he says (none / 0) (#160)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:43:46 AM EST
    the exact same things...

    Parent
    Ahhh (none / 0) (#159)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:42:50 AM EST
    This is really creepy. What in the heavens name? I tell you he really scares me. From Jesus Christ Superstar
    I don't know how to love him. What to do, how to move him. I've been changed, yes really changed. In these past few days, when I've seen myself, I seem like someone else. I don't know how to take this. I don't see why he moves me. He's a man. He's just a man. And I've had so many men before, In very many ways, He's just one more. Should I bring him down? Should I scream and shout? Should I speak of love, Let my feelings out? I never thought I'd come to this. What's it all about? Don't you think it's rather funny, I should be in this position. I'm the one who's always been So calm, so cool, no lover's fool, Running every show. He scares me so. I never thought I'd come to this. What's it all about?


    Parent
    Now I'm getting worried about you! (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:49:42 AM EST
    But he scares me so... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:58:31 AM EST
    now that really says it. I wish I could do a video of his speech spliced to the old movie: JC Superstar. Thanks for the concern. Will be going to Germany for 3 weeks so I will miss the TL, will just have to read at other time zone.

    Parent
    Hey, if I could find a cheap internet (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:00:52 AM EST
    cafe in Dublin whilst doing my motherly duty, I expect you to follow suit!

    Parent
    I love Dublin (none / 0) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:07:19 AM EST
    Me too. (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:08:37 AM EST
    Not exactly a hardship to visit an adult daughter there.

    Parent
    feelings (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by CathyinLa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:52:18 AM EST
    Nothing more than feelings whoa oh oh feeel ings.

    He can't say it's about being 'down' in the polls, not when he blames it on her feelings.

    I wish she could confront him directly on this in one of the debates, that there is this disconnect about his being relentlessly positive while portraying her so dismissively as part of the past, where a polarizing woman who lashes out when she's feeling down, periodically, whose husband's administration should be compared with Richard Nixon namely when speaking of inconsequential presidents in interviews about the party of ideas republicans.

    I didn't start disliking Obama until he started this.

    No one has ever spoken out against about Jesse Jackson Jr.'s remarks about "Mrs. Clinton's"
    tears not being for things that matter like Katrina but just another one of those woman thangs, her appearance.  Which, of course, was not what made her choke up at all.

    Obama supporters had the most ridiculous list of non-offensive things, right there with the legitimate offenses as to make them seem mentally ill.  Like Hillary said in that choke up moment, "I just don't want us to go backwards."  Like this is the same kind of "backwards" Trent Lott had in mind when he praised Strom Thurmond.  It's likely that Hillary in New Hampshire in that moment and even now believed and believes that only she can beat the Republicans , that's who she doesn't want taking us "backwards."  

    If we compilled a list of the sexist thing said by surrogates, the candidate the media and on and on, I think we'd easily have a similar list in size and breath that the Obama supporters had on the wretched Clinton campaign.

    I've been watching politics a long time and I have never seen this kind of protective instinct about a candidate to the point that all sense of what's fair or normal and perfectly legitimate in campaigns is a new fangled gadget to them.  Can't question a candidate of hope?  Oh no, can't do it.

    Andrea Mitchell and O'Donnell had a lot to say (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Grey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:55:25 AM EST
    AP: Obama on Hillary: "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters." Here's the video. Sexist? Very, says Lambert at Corrente Wire.

    Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell said far more than I ever thought they'd say, which is why I backed up my DVR and transcribed it.

    Norah O'Donnell: "He said, 'I understand when she's down (emphasis hers), that she makes these kinds of attacks. It's getting a little personal."

    Andrea Mitchell: "It's getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female (emphasis hers) candidate as being "down" and "striking back." I don't know, that's a little edgy, don't you think?"

    Norah O'Donnell: "Yeah. And I think there's gonna be a lot more comments about that."

    Down and claws and likeable enough LOL (none / 0) (#194)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:43:37 AM EST
    ..what I find amazing is that Dems or maybe Obama followers believe he will be able to rally the Dems to him later if he became the nominee, it wont happen many will peel off for many reason.  I am hoping Hillary with this new campaign leadership sweeps as many of the remaining States as she can so Dems dont loose the WH in 08.  A back room full of White Males like Gore and Black Males like Clyburn deciding for an Obama nominee is a no brainier kiss the biggest demographic in the Party at least some large chunk of it goodbye.  And if McCain is smart enough to put his own first on the ticket a moderate from the NE a former Governor say who is no Bush groupies, that will be a Powerful draw, after all the offense heap on women during this Primary.  And where are the Women those not of color that are in the DNC Leadership are there any is that maybe the problem? Look we have ballots out in my State and one of my women friends yesterday voted for other than the Party endorsed white male and for the unendorsed women.  Her choice of course, maybe it's the right thing to pull people back to the center split completely to rebalance the respect of the individual demographics, and see if you can rejoin together, or split quietly in the ballot both.

    I believe Clyburn spoke on this yesterday he is alarmed that it is pitting a black progressive coalition against the majority of the remaining base who believe them to be unfairly marginalized and that they will retaliate against black and male candidates.  I believe he is correct in his assessment from what I am hearing its personal now for many.

    I believe Clyburn spoke on this yesterday he is alarmed it is now perceived that the identity groups a black progressive coalition is now pitted against the majority of the remaining base who believe themselves to have been unfairly marginalized and that they will retaliate against black and male candidates.  I believe he is correct in his assessment.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#198)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:08:16 AM EST
    And where are the Women those not of color that are in the DNC Leadership are there any is that maybe the problem?

    So you specifically want white women in the DNC leadership?  Black women aren't good enough?  

    Parent

    Yes specifically (none / 0) (#206)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    one expects to see diversity in Political Leadership that reflects the base, white women are the largest demographic the absence of someone who looks like them, represents their intrest also, is surprising for a Party that touts a big tent.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#209)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:42:13 AM EST
    according to the DNC website Kathleen Sebelius is the chairwoman of the Democratic Governors Association and a key organizer for the DNC.  

    Unfortunately for you, she supports Barack Obama.  

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#212)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:49:24 AM EST
    shes allowed to have poor judgment her father was a great beloved governor for Ohio, well a least there is one out of how many do you know?

    Parent
    How many that I know what? (none / 0) (#213)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    I don't understand your question.  Women that support Barack Obama?  

    Parent
    Al Gore and John Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    awaiting to mediate brings a smile to my face.  I'd really rather have either one of them as my candidate but I must settle for them being my mediator ;)  Oh Well!

    Let Hillary send him an equal missive (none / 0) (#5)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:02:08 PM EST
    about men with small...well, you get my drift. ;)

    They'll come back with a "Femi-Nazi" comeback, but there's no pleasure than to see them nervously cross their legs when she shows up. :evil grin:

    Sometimes with men you have to speak a language that's universally understood. For where ever there's capital B's, there's guys who were docked limping without a third leg.

    :sssss:

    Is a mailer not an ad? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:02:16 PM EST
    Hollering at Republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics didn't help health care get done," he said. "The American people don't want to play the same games. They don't want the cheap shots. They don't want the negative ads. What they are looking for are solutions and bringing people together."

    As an accountant at a decent-sized retailer in the past, mailers were a big part of our advertising budget.

    He can come across as so arrogant sometimes.

    have y'all seen Hillary's latest (none / 0) (#20)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    attack ad in Wisconsin?

    Claims Obama wants to cut SS benefits and raise retirement age?!?!?!

    Claims her health insurance "covers" everyone while his leaves out 15 million - and no, she does not explain that those last 15 million are covered by being forced to be covered, under penalty of law.

    Claims he is using "false attack ads" when he responded to her call for debates by pointing out that they had 18 debates already.

    ...gettin' ugly out there...

    After that comment form Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:20:04 PM EST
    the LAST thing I want to hear from Obama supporters is complaints about the "tone" of the campaign.

    Parent
    uh... (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jor on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    ... hillary is the one attacking. She almost always attacks first. Seriously you guys are whiners.

    So much for hillary being vetted and being able to stand up to the right-wing-noise machine. IF you are going to get worked up over this, god pray what happens when the repubs come after her.

    Parent

    Seiously (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:23:34 PM EST
    Your condoning of that obvious sexist remark tells me all I need to  know.

    I would rather not hear from you in repsonse to me anymore tonight.

    I am seeing red right now.

    Parent

    Oh c'mon. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:36:09 PM EST
    Please. Dont kid yourself. Barack and Michelle Obama have been calling Hillary "divisive" and "polarizing" - two tags that republicans put on her to bring her down, since like last august or something.
    www.attacktimeline.com
    All the candidates have been attacking her since god knows when. So now that she is fighting back, somehow she is the one who is attacking first. What nonsense.

    Parent
    so I do not think it is fair to not allow hi to respond to your comment.

    If you are still around Tano, please return. I am calmer now.

    Parent

    jor I mean (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:53:59 PM EST
    thank you BTD (none / 0) (#100)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:11:48 AM EST
    I am very sorry to have made you upset. I did not mean my comments in a trollish manner. They were a sincere reaction. I take racism and sexism very seriously, which is why I defend the Clintons on the racism charge, while trying to explain at length what I feel are legitimate criticisms. I would do the same for sexism, or sexual stereotyping. I just honestly felt that these instances were simply the use of everyday words - that all of us use all the time, and not in the least sexist.

    Anyway, as to ads. My objection, when posting the comment about the ad, was not to its negtivity per se. But to the dishonest characterizations. We all know, and have argued endlessly, about Obama's thoughts on SS. He proposed to raise the tax cap. He did not propose the things Hillary said.

    And I find it disingenuous at best to claim her health insurance covers everyone, as opposed to his, when the completeness of the coverage is arrived at through governmental coercion.

    Parent

    Not trying to be snarky or anything (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:24:19 AM EST
    But what are your feelings on Social Security and Medicare?

    Yeah, it's a moldy argument, but we have a lot of forced programs on us right now, and I think Healthcare is such an important aspect of a healthy economic climate (no pun intended) that it behooves the government to enact it, especially with the coming downturn. My 2 cents.

    Sorry if this strays a bit off topic.

    Parent

    There Is No Crisis (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:47:41 AM EST
    Next to crime issues, Social Security is one of my most important issues, since I'm less than a decade off from reaching that age. I want Al Gore's lockbox. I've been paying in since I was 16 years old and I want my benefits. I earned them.

    There is no crisis. We can pay the benefits. Obama last year made comments feeding into the "crisis" scenario of the Republicans. It's been a black mark against him for me.

    For links, here's a start. Check out the old Move On ad (pdf) explaining there is no crisis.

    Obama has been a disappointment on social security. Hillary has been firm. There is no crisis.

    Parent

    i love 'em (none / 0) (#120)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:30:06 AM EST
    I would prefer a single payer system.

    I do not really spend much time on the mandates issue except for the fact that the Clinton people are always raising it, and making it out to be such a drastic difference.

    As Obama has said, maybe some day, for the efficiency of the system, mandates may be the way to go. Wouldnt bother me - I would certainly buy affordable insurance if it were available.

    My issue is with the politics of it. I think it makes little sense to roll out mandates when the affordable insurance is still only a promise. It will make the sell that much harder, make the policy much more vulnerable to the attacks that will come.

    Put out the benefits first. Create the environment whereby everyone really can afford health insurance. Then mandates, to scarf up those gaming the system, would be an easy sell.

    Parent

    But, if the healthy opt out, (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:37:10 AM EST
    the people left will not have affordable coverage.  

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#124)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:40:36 AM EST
    Obama took a centrist approach to health care.  Nohing more.  

    Parent
    why is it centrist (none / 0) (#128)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:45:08 AM EST
    to provide affordable health insurance to everyone who want it?
    No one is left out.

    Opting yourself out, when you could afford to participate, does not equal being left out.

    Parent

    It won't be affordable (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:58:35 AM EST
    if peope can opt out.  McCain, by the way, is also offering to open the congressional pool to everyone.

    Parent
    i think they will (none / 0) (#127)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:43:36 AM EST
    Obama's plan has been costed out by economists as expert as anyone elses. Although we hear the theoretical argument, like you make, no one has really claimed that Obama's plan, taken as it is, would not acheive the goals that it lays out, for the price advertised.

    Parent
    Does "coercion" somehow make her (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:15:02 AM EST
    plan less than universal health care?  

    Parent
    well, actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:24:56 AM EST
    in truth, the coercion would make it more universal, not completely universal.

    But clearly the impression given, and one she always gives, is that his plan is not going to help as many people who need the help. But his plan, in fact, covers everyone who wants to be covered, and they all will be able to afford it.

    So his plan is as universal as hers, except for people who voluntarily stay out despite being able to afford it.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:16:43 AM EST
    for your conciliatory tone in responding to BTD.

    Parent
    Uh...she doesn't attack first (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:55:54 PM EST
    that's the problem.  Obama is the one who's been using the attack ads.  John Edwards is on record saying that Obama even called HIM up complaining about Edward's supposed attack ads on HIM when there was none of the sort.  Need proof, go to YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxAlsvPAj_k

    Put that one in your hat.

    Parent

    Peruse (none / 0) (#51)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:41:42 PM EST
    This List. Its become almost cliche to point this out.

    Parent
    Tano (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:47:49 PM EST
    You can come back and respond now.

    I am calmer.

    You have every right to rebut this comment.

    Parent

    sorry? (none / 0) (#68)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:52:08 PM EST
    Talking about a different comment? I was responding to a sub-comment, not Tano. I don't want to tangle with Tano! :-)

    Parent
    jor (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:53:38 PM EST
    I asked jor to step out. He very kindly respected my wishes.

    But I think he has every right to respond to your comment.

    Parent

    Oh certainly (none / 0) (#86)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:00:22 AM EST
    I don't know what he can say though; I'm not claiming Hillary isn't attacking, just saying Obama isn't really a victim here either.

    But, I'm curious to see what his answer would be. Jor? I'm not being sarcastic, either. More knowledge is better.

    Parent

    Does the ad actually say he wants to or (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:22:39 PM EST
    that he would consider it? When he was on This Week, he was asked specifically about both of those and he said nothing is off the table.

    I think the 15,000,000 number has been backed up by many experts.

    Parent

    Been ugly. She's responding to his ugliness (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:34:04 AM EST
    Claims Obama wants to cut SS benefits and raise retirement age?!?!?!

    Can you show me where he has said he doesn't want to do this?

    He calls SS "in crisis" - RW talking point.

    He has not categorically denied he wants to cut benefits or raise retirement age - Hillary has.

    He says "everything is on the table."

    Way to attract older voters, dummy.

    Parent

    Health care debate (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:48:39 AM EST
    Pointing out a legitimate difference is not an attack. As most health care economists agree  the mandate or lack thereof makes a big difference. Paul Krugman on Feb.4 summarizes MIT's Jonathan Gruber's analysis  in this regard. See below. Gruber is one of the best health economist in the nation. His model suggests that an Obama type plan costs more and leaves more than 15 million uncovered. Discussing such important policy difference is not a negative attack.

    "So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?
    From Krugman
    To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That's what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America's leading health care economists, does in a new paper.

    Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured -- essentially everyone -- at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."

    Parent

    hmmm... (none / 0) (#25)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:21:19 PM EST
    ... yea... if that is really what he said (about feeling down), not cool.

    i am curious if any other reporters got the same quote.  

    because one or two words there would change the quote.  something like, "When she's feeling SHE's down..."

    but don't get me wrong.  I am not trying to play the "what he really meant" game.  The quite just seems kinda' odd to me.  but again, if he really said it, its not cool.

    Follow the link from Jeralyn. The (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:25:13 PM EST
    Baltimore Sun and a CBS reporter quoted the same thing.

    Parent
    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:25:52 PM EST
    video is double ouch (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:54:09 AM EST
    Here's the VIDEO (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:29:00 AM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNpeGPdhEw

    Showed it to female relatives.  Negative, negative reaction to this comment by Obama.

    Parent

    As bad as it seemed in print it was horrible (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:41:47 AM EST
    As bad as it seemed in print it was horrible to see:

    He was so thoughtful, so deliberate.  He was picking his words.  It wasn't a slip-of-the-tongue.

    It was a carefully crafted sexist statement. WoW.

    Parent

    Thanks for your reaction (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:24:37 PM EST
    I hope you are right.

    I like Obama very much. The comment seems utterly out of character.

    I do hope it is a misquote.

    Parent

    Not a misquote (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Firefly4625 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:46:44 PM EST
    Here's a link to the transcript of the entire conversation so you can see the quote in context - from The Page Time. Scroll down to near the bottom of the page.

    http://thepage.time.com/obama-transcript-of-friday-qa-with-reporters/

    Parent

    CBS (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:57:09 PM EST
    A female reporter (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:00:57 AM EST
    led with it.

    Telling.

    Parent

    That's what I thought (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:05:15 AM EST
    BANG

    Parent
    It's completely in character. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:57:51 PM EST
    The JJJr attack on "the tears that melted the Granite State," with the implication that she was faking tears, crying over her hair, and didn't cry for Katrina victims.
    The refusal to congratulate her victories.
    The Snub.
    The "claws come out."
    Michelle's saying she can't run her own house.
    The willingness to benefit from the media sexism.
    There are more.

    Obama is a sexist.

    Parent

    wow, that's a list (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:03:32 AM EST
    I forgot some of those. Do you think more of this will slip out now that he's in for some rough water? He'll have to come from behind in a lot of the next few states. Comments like this won't help that at ALL.

    Parent
    I wish (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:43:59 AM EST
    But sexism is the last taboo - we aren't there yet. There are sexists who will deny it is sexist, and Obama fiends who will say it's OK for him when they'd be livid if anyone else said it.

    As long as the media is a frat boy club, there won't be any notice of or criticism of sexism against Hillary. Or anyone.

    I know from my own life how rampant it is. Enlightened men like BTD can not only see it but get furious about it.

    Others would rather ignore it or deny it. It's easier for them that way.

    Parent

    Or, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Firefly4625 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:10:09 AM EST
    he's using the sexism that exists in this society as the best way to beat her - because the media and his own supporters are letting him - helping him - do it.

    Not saying he's not sexist too - but I see him more as cunning and cynical. It's a simple matter of doing anything to win - especially when he knows what he's going to get away with.

    Parent

    It's guy talk to get guys' votes (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:56:08 AM EST
    and the white guys are liking it and him a lot more lately.  We're seeing the racial divide and the gender gap widen . . while we wait for that "unity."

    Parent
    Choosing to benifit from sexism (none / 0) (#102)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:12:50 AM EST
    is sexist.

    Parent
    Wasn't Obama the one who said (none / 0) (#55)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:45:44 PM EST
    the thing about claws coming out? It seems pretty in character. In fact, I think the claws comment was alot worse. There was no mistaking that one.

    Parent
    This one is worse (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:52:37 PM EST
    But I blogged that claws comment and it was clearly sexist too.

    That makes two.

    Parent

    Far more than two -- see list (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:57:55 AM EST
    upthread.  And it's not always what he says, it's how he says it (i.e., "likable enough").  I can tell you that a lot of women friends can hear it. . . .

    At least it's him delivering the hits more lately, when before it was mostly done for him by his wife.

    Parent

    I deleted my own comment to jor (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:25:37 PM EST
    Because I don't want to discuss this issue with him tonight.

    if you take out 1 word... (none / 0) (#35)
    by jor on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:25:46 PM EST
    ... "feeling", it no longer is sexist, but basically completely objective.

    I guess, this is what it means to be able to take the republican noise machine. To whine over 1 word.  

    Please go away (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST
    I am asking you to please go away.

    Do not do this here. Not now.

    Parent

    I would vote for Hillary or Obama, whovever (none / 0) (#132)
    by hue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:49:44 AM EST
    wins ... he may have misspoke with "feeling down," as in down or behind in the race and launching attacks. She only went negative when she got  behind.  

    And not "feeling down" emotionally as in being sad or blue.

    Even pols can't always say what they meant.

    Is that an "what Obama meant" defense?

    Parent

    IN a word: yes. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:53:39 AM EST
    Don't worry about the Republicans (none / 0) (#53)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:43:29 PM EST
    but the Neandertal wing of the Democrat party if they still think they can operate like in the 50s, where women were seen and not heard. You expect Republicans to be like the Masters' board room, not Democrats.

    This blog is too polite -- no chance to get a licking in (used to really partisan show downs).

    :bored: :hungry:

    Where's that Mind guy?

    Parent

    No (4.66 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:45:21 PM EST
    This blog is just right for this primary season.

    If civility were not enforced, we would be like all the other blogs where discourse has gone down the toilet.

    I was on the dge just a few minutes ago and at another blog I would have unleashed a torrent of abuse that would have been harmful to all, including myself.

    No, this blog has it right.

    Parent

    Amen BTD (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:48:31 PM EST
    I sometimes write letters to some nonexistent person, never sent, or talk to myself while driving to work... God help anyone who heard it! Helps me organize myself and get the kneejerk chaff away from the true insights.

    But this blog has its head above the muck, thanks for that.

    Parent

    Thank Jeralyn for that (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:59:46 PM EST
    Anyone who knows me and my history knows my instincts are completely the opposite.

    It is all Jeralyn, and thank Gawd for her.

    Parent

    Well, OK, if you insist (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:27:23 AM EST
    Thank you Jeralyn. :-) This really is a good collection of cooler heads.

    Parent
    Thank you BTD! (none / 0) (#163)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:47:59 AM EST
    For being a man who gets it. <3

    Parent
    I thank her daily! (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:22:36 AM EST
    For awhile I thought she had successfully induced behavior modification, but that turned out to be incorrect (example:  docudharma).  But I'm not complaining.  

    Parent
    Explain to me... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:52:57 PM EST
    Why are we the only ones talking about this stuff and late at night, not a peep anywhere. Am I missing something? I mean this is big stuff last night and tonight.

    Parent
    You know why (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:58:36 PM EST
    And I have said so before and will say so again tomorrow.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#75)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:54:04 PM EST
    but I crave a good o' drag out 1000 post flame fest. Maybe there's an open one to sink into some Obama maniacs. The one I goto that's really free to post is filled with Ron Paul types, and they got boring quick.

    Gimme link to kick butt. :D

    Parent

    I heartily agree. TL strikes the right balance. (none / 0) (#98)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM EST
    Are you... (none / 0) (#77)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
    ... referring to me?

    Because if so, I already said that if that is what he said, it was not a cool comment.  At all.  I did question at first whether he really said it.  But I said if he did, then it wasn't cool.  

    Meaning it was bad.  Meaning I don't approve of it.

    But I am sure you will try to spin that somehow.  

    Parent

    Not you (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:57:40 PM EST
    If it was a reference to you, then I object strenuously.

    Parent
    Yeah...Brain food... (none / 0) (#90)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    Seriously b-o-r-e-d. Only site that has active posters at 2am, to spar...hmmm...debate with. ;)

    Parent
    we're late night owls here (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:01:44 AM EST
    though I'm about to turn in. I'm so glad we've developed late night commenters.

    Parent
    Heh, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:09:12 AM EST
    We're both night owls, single women about a decade away from SS, liberals, and we both live in Central Denver (I'm in Baker neighborhood).

    We should have a drink sometime.

    Parent

    Don't give Stellaa and me too much (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:05:18 AM EST
    credit.  We're on pacific time.

    Parent
    I'm on Eastern and I'm trying hard to stay up (none / 0) (#151)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:19:43 AM EST
    for Keith O's repeat in 45 minutes so I can see what he said about this.

    Parent
    According to TV Guide, they don't replay (none / 0) (#153)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:23:17 AM EST
    his show on Fridays. Oh well, I wish that video didn't cut off but we can look for the transcript in a few days.

    Parent
    you can get Olbermann on the web (none / 0) (#156)
    by hue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:38:51 AM EST
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

    The delegate race (link)

    He didn't hear it as sexist. he used that video in the context of day to day campaign back and forth.

    Parent

    Well that just stinks. I guess he doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:41:26 AM EST
    want to risk his number one diary position at DKos.

    Parent
    On Lewis (none / 0) (#46)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:36:57 PM EST
    I guess I missed something. Enlighten me, did he switch his vote to Obama or not?  Any quotes from him on this if he did not switch?

    Apparently not (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:38:28 PM EST
    He says no. NYT reporter (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:48:33 PM EST
    is sticking with initial report.

    Parent
    HE changed his mind (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:51:11 PM EST
    I think both the reporter and Lewis have it right.

    Reminds me of the All The President's Men scene where the fictional Ben Bradlee tells the story of how he broke the story that LBJ was going to retire Hoover. But once the story got out, LBJ had to extend Hoover's contract.

    Bradlee said LBJ called him and said Bradlee, you just stuck us with Hoover for 4 more years.

    Bradlee ended the story by saying "but I was right."

    Parent

    Lewis (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:13:15 AM EST
    A man with principles.  
    Wish we could have a "cult of principles" this campaign.

    Parent
    you like her (none / 0) (#149)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:05:47 AM EST
    even though you dont like any of the things she would do?
    Because she is hard working (thus likely to actually accomplish all the things you dont want her to do)?
    I'm confused.

    yes, I actually do think he can win (none / 0) (#162)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:44:51 AM EST
    I have no doubts the Republicans will do all that they usually do. I actually do think that Obama would be better able to overcome it.

    I think a lot of people have this impression that the negative effect that a smear campaign has is a function merely of the effort of the smearers. No it is not. It is also a function of the target - how (s)he responds, how (s)he is generally viewed by the population etc.

    I've been watching these things for decades. Beleive me, we are not so innocent. I gladly participated in throwing everything I possibly could at Reagan during the eighties. There was no lack of attacks. It didnt work because the guy was simply liked by the average person. They didnt want to beleive anything bad about him, no matter what. We caught them red-handed selling arms to our enemies in direct violation of the law and he just shrugged it off, and so did the average citizen.

    I dont know if Obama's Teflon will last, but at least he has some. Hillary is glue. She is not liked by close to half the population. It may not be fair, but it is reality. Average people tend to want to like Obama - hell, I go to Republican sites and see people writing that they wish they could vote for him, 'cept they dont agree with anything that he would do.

    The issue is not the ferocity of the attacks, it is the traction that they are able to gain.

    Parent

    new media have an agenda (none / 0) (#179)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:11:09 AM EST
    and it is primarily to make money.
    Obama is a phenom, and makes good copy.

    I think lots of people tend to get a bit too much into conspiracy territory. Fox News could never promote Hillary in the hopes of seeing her defeated in November - first off, their audience would be in revolt, secondly, it is far too risky a game to play.

    I think Obama has a better chance in November, but I do think Hillary could win also. A Hillary-hating media outlet is not going to up that chance by rooting for her now.

    Parent

    oops, I meant news media, not new media (none / 0) (#180)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:11:52 AM EST
    HRC in November (none / 0) (#170)
    by Maggie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:56:40 AM EST
    The country is definitely in the mood to get rid of the Republicans.  So both candidates have a pretty good shot at the white house.

    The reasons one or the other might not:

    1. At the end of the day, the middle won't go for the liberalism represented by the two candidates.  If that's the case, Clinton might have an edge cause she has been more centrist at times.

    2. At the end of the day, the country won't elect a woman or an African-American.  Not sure which is the tougher sell

    But then you have the reasons that are unique to the particular candidates.

    Obama.  Maybe the all-style meme will stick.  Or the notion that he has no experience.  I had those vague fears when I first started following the election six weeks ago.  But his performance in the debate has assuaged me on that point.  And he's running a very good campaign.  Still, he is new and that means we don't have a good forecast on how his campaign will unfold over the long haul.

    Clinton.  Will mobilize the right like no other candidate could.  The right will forget that they are disaffected by McCain and will turn out in force.  Independents who are looking for a break from politics as usual will find solace in the Republican's ability to nominate someone considered a 'maverick' in contrast with the democrat's offer of chance to revisit the 1990's.  There will be a big spasm at some point as the country digests the fact that Bill would be back in the White House, for a host of reasons ranging from fears of dynastic politics (what comes after Clinton II? Jeb???) to concerns about the role he will play in the White House (co-President?) to fears that we are going to get washed up (fairly or unfairly) in another era of the string of scandals associated with the Clintons.  

    We'll all have different reactions about how these things play out.  My own gut is strongly that Clinton has a much harder time winning in November than Obama.  It's harder to see right now how his candidacy plays out... what sort of curve balls might come.  But we have a pretty good picture of what comes with Clinton. ALL the old mud from the past comes back out.  New challeges about their finances since they last lived in the white house.  That derangement syndrome that you all hate.  Hillary playing back tough but disaffecting the part of the electorate that is fed up with 50% + 1 style politics.  

    I'd give her a 50% shot at best.  My odds on her drop substantially if she wins the nomination in any way that smacks of back-stage maneuvering.  I'd give Obama something more like a 75% shot at the win.

    Parent

    Obama could mobilize the right as well (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:10:42 AM EST
    The public hasn't had a chance to be "scared" of Obama yet and the Republicans will try their best to accomplish that by all means necessary.  All the things we are shy to talk about regarding being black, Muslim, the most liberal Senator, his voting record, etc etc will all come into play.

    By the end of the day as we approach November (if Obama is the nominee) the Republicans might be even MORE mobilized to go vote against him and stop him from taking the White House than would be the case with Hillary Clinton.  We just can't predict that future.  Too many variables.

    Heck, if they can convince their side that Obama is the antichrist (and they're trying already on some sites) that might do the trick.

    Parent

    The country is ready for a woman? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:11:54 AM EST
    Not so sure.  They seem stridently against a woman.  I love how all these men, first Edwards, now Obama, claim they, not Hillary, is the "challenge" to the status quo.  What a joke.  Even Democratic women have been reluctant to call out the constant barrage of sexism aimed at Hillary.  I used to assume, if Hillary made it through the nominating process, women would come out in droves.  Now I'm not so sure.  I think maybe americans prefer the patriarchy.

    Parent
    There's no evidence Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:14:47 AM EST
    would mobolize repulicans.  In Florida, she recieved 200k more votes than McCain.  Doesn't seem they are all that motivated to me.  But really, this is just an excuse to be against Hillary.  Same ole same ole.  

    Parent
    It dosn't follow (none / 0) (#184)
    by Maggie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:32:39 AM EST
    The Republicans weren't going to mobilize against Hillary in Florida because that was a 'primary', not the general election, so your statistic about her getting more votes than McCain in Florida is not to the point.

    Just to be clear, I'm not a Democrat.  I'm an Independent who would much prefer to vote Democrat this time.  But I've already got half of what I wanted from the primaries: and that's McCain on the Republican side.  He's the only Republican I could stand to vote for if I had to(cause it's nothing but a plus that he antagonizes the Limbaugh crowd). I'm not here looking for excuses to not vote for Hillary.  I'm here looking for an excuse to vote Democrat at all.  Obama gives me that excuse quite easily.  Clinton is much tougher -- for the reasons I gave above.  (And as I've said elsewhere, right now her position on seating the delegates from MI and FL is pretty much a deal-breaker for me.)

    Anyway, Clinton has very high negatives.  And those are negatives that have had years to set in.  They are unlikely to just melt away now.  It's certain that the right will oppose Obama as well.  They are already doing him the courtesy of floating out arguments against him.  But there is nothing like the entrenched animosity for Obama that Clinton 'enjoys'.  We KNOW she'll rally the right.  I seriously doubt that Obama will drum up that kind of passionate hatred in such a short time.  Hence my claim that he has a better shot at the GE.


    Parent

    75% for Obama (none / 0) (#185)
    by Maggie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:44:55 AM EST
    rkeep,

    You might be right that 75% is a bit of a stretch.  If I can use wonky language, I'd say its an estimate with a high variance because there are so many unknowns. The big unknown for me is just how reluctant the country is to vote for a black man.  In particular, what I don't know is how that reluctance (which is out there NOW for sure) plays out when Obama gets better known.  It helps that he can run adds with pictures of his white mother, I think.  

    I rather doubt that the 'liberal' tag will be effective against him this campaign.  The conservatives are in some serious disrepute at the moment.  So I don't think the 'liberal' tag is the automatic turn-off it would have been just four years ago.  There's an opening here to remake the electoral map the way Reagan did back in 1980.  Reagan made a lot of unfashionable ideas fashionable.  A new candidate from the left has a shot at doing something similar now (in a direction you all would presumably prefer).  Clinton, unfortunately cannot be that sort of transformative candidate, because she's too solidly tied with the political calculus of the past.  With her it's just 50% + 1 and nothing more.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:43:15 AM EST
    So you are voting for Hillary because she is a woman and because of her views on abortion and her likely choice of judges.

    But if she doesn't get the nomination you would sooner vote someone who is staunchly pro-life and who would pick very conservative justices than vote for someone who is just as staunchly pro-choice as Hillary and who would quite possibly give us the most liberal justices since the Warren Court.

    So the truth is you are voting for Hillary because she is a woman.  Is that correct?

    Parent

    You didn't answer the question (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:05:52 AM EST
    You just threw out a bunch of empty rhetoric.

    If abortion rights and judge selection are the most important issues to you, how can you vote for someone who is hostile to your views on these matters?  

    You want another Alito to replace Stevens?  Another Roberts to replace Ginsburg?  

    I have absolutely no idea why you think that Obama should "defer" to Clinton.  Can you please explain this?  

    As for trashing the Clinton years, perhaps if Bill Clinton stopped trying to make this campaign about his legacy, neither candidate would need to talk about that time.

    Parent

    Abortion Rights (none / 0) (#204)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:28:17 AM EST
    whats that saying about cold dead grey hands, better call back the national guard now because they would be needed if any governing body attempted to restrict women's Rights. False division intended to divide through fear.  

    And the Dem Senate sided with Bush on FISA so the Party says a lot but delivers little, they can not influence their own officials on something as serious as torture either.


    Parent

    You approve of torture and don't like Roe v Wade? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    McCain served our country and we can all applaud his service. However, his straight talk express has run off the road. He is now pro-torture because his GOP base demands it as Kevin Drum has pointed out. Talk about being a panda bear!

    McCain is anti- Roe v. Wade and wants to appoint judges like Scalia. Scalia, the election stealer, is not only anti-Roe, he is in the hip pocket of large corporate interests. He is a right wing extremist. He just isn't part of the evangelical right.

    Unless you are in the top 2% or so, McCain doesn't want to cut your taxes.

    Parent

    Heck yes she is our Girl (none / 0) (#201)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:17:48 AM EST
    I believe her gender to be a desirable change and by its very nature it is powerful CHANGE agent, I have seen this many times in the work place she will break the grid lock in Congress where it's about them and not us.  And I believe she is the most qualified ethical and competitive candidate for the general of the three candidates by far with vast experience she may not have been paid as first ladies but she has vast international knowledge.  

    And no one is going to take away a woman's constitutional right to privacy no one and abortion comes in a pill.  Just imagine the march on the capital if Congress would attempt in anyway to restrict any Right of women, this is not the sixties women have power and wealth to wield.

    The abortion issue is now a manufactured Party wedge issue on both side, used to divided women and dilute their power and their use of that power as the largest demographic in the electorate, just imagine if women voted together for themselves this country their communities, women are the true demographic large enough to be King and Queen makers and many have that knowledge.  

    You bet I will vote for her because she is a competent capable strong woman and all women should join together across Party isle and align with Hillary and stop being puppeteered through faux division against their interest,this silly is she the ONE women ask, Heck yes how old is this country 200 plus years, women are fools if they fail to put one of their own in the White House.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#205)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    So it's about her being a woman.  Funny how just last week I was being told here that no one was voting for Hillary because she was a woman.  

    Abortion is not MY personal issue.  It was the other poster who made that claim.  However I think you are deluded if you think that abortion is a completely safe and protected right.  Replace Stevens with Janice Rogers Brown and see what happens to Roe v Wade.  See what happens to just about every progressive decision the court has made in the last 30 years.

    You can vote for Hillary for whatever reason you want.  But I find it contradictory to make accusations of sexism at every unpleasant remark while then saying that women need to vote for Hillary because she is a woman.

    Parent

    You bet and that she is a Girl is a plus (none / 0) (#207)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:39:27 AM EST
    I speak for myself I have voted for her because I want a women for President, this women with her set of talent, others can choose for themselves of course.

    Parent
    oh you think so (none / 0) (#214)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    his statements are sexist how about that fact?  

    And again I have absolutely no fear that any group will restrict womens rights, none and I also have no fear that an empowered nation would not rise up and stomp on them if they tried. If that's hat you believe will rally women to  Obama if he is the nominee, I say good luck with that.  

    Parent

    it is odd (none / 0) (#208)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    that BO is just not that articulate when he isn't making a speech, especially when there's no teleprompter.  I'm not insulting his intelligence, I know he's a very smart man.  

    But I think it's possible that the hype about how great of a speaker he is may hurt him when people (esp. those who haven't been paying as close attention as we have) see him in a debate or interview--he's just not as impressive, at all.

    I think he is very cautious (none / 0) (#210)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:43:59 AM EST
    when he is speaking impromptu. He seems to be very deliberate in what he says.  

    Parent
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#215)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    How anyone can think to have Obama's words work both ways. Either he is a very intelligent man, by all accounts, who has a very great command of the English language, or he's a buffoon who doesn't know what he's saying. Ya can't have it both ways. And ya can't have every word Hillary Clinton says dripping with subtle underlying meanings and then pretend that Obama doesn't do the same. No matter which candidate you support, and I have all ready voted in Wisconsin, via absentee ballot, for Hillary Clinton, they are both politicians and are very careful about word choices. His remarks rang out loud and clear to me as being dismissively misygonist. As did the "claws" and "tea" remarks. That's the way I "hear" those remarks and no amount of spin will change my mind or the minds of other women who have been subjected to this kind of subtle sexism all our lives.

    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#216)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    Over 200, this thread is closing. Thanks.