These Kinds Of Sexist Remarks Are Not What I Am Looking For

By Big Tent Democrat

I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.

- Barack Obama, February 15, 2008

In a campaign marked by news coverage unrelenting in its sexism and misogyny, especially from NBC, the last thing we can afford is sexism from the frontrunning candidate. Barack Obama needs to apologize for this remark.

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

< Another Unfounded Media Attack on Bill Clinton | Bye, Bye Chuck Rosenthal, Houston D.A. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    if you don't see it (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    you never will.  And I don't mean that as a nasty or critical remark.  Language is a fluid and beautiful thing, but each section of society has its code and its understanding of what certain phrases or terms mean, and what Obama said is a kick in the groin.  The fact that Andrea Mitchell, who is not exactly gung-ho for Clinton, picked up on this gives me some hope that we're not completely lost as a people.

    (and then Cream might remind us all of the fact that Michelle Obama would not take a job until her then-fiance met her boss and gave his stamp of approval...)

    I can see how (none / 0) (#5)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    the words can be taken that way.  I don't think they were intended that way.  Unless you want to apply the Clinton Rules! :)

    Obama rule (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:50:33 AM EST
    Clintons always have bad motive. Obama never has intend. Now, the allegation was that Bill was so smart that he never said anything that did not have a purpose or intent. Is Obama that stupid?

    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by chrisvee on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    Because even though he's a fantastic orator and clearly understands the emotional impact of words, he's totally incapable of understanding the implications of that particular remark. Uh huh.

    I know!! (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    With Obama it always .."What Obama really meant was -"

    If the clip gets played (none / 0) (#47)
    by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    more times, or if the blogosphere continues to comment, he'll probably come up with that line.  To my knowledge, he has not really apologized for any of the things he has said about Hillary or Bill.  He knows words.  He certainly knows how tol paint feelings with them.  

    Now I Get It . . . (none / 0) (#114)
    by marirebel on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    All women "periodically" lash out when their hormones go berserk, i.e., "periodically," and they feel "down," and try to boost their "appeal" by launching attacks (with their claws, of course--because really, women are savage, mindless  animals).  So how the hell can a woman be President of the U.S., and how can we trust a woman with that nuclear (or in Bush parlance, nuclur) button, with all these periodic malfunctions??????

    Except that Hillary is probably past the preiodic malfunction stage, and into menopausal malfunctions, bringing up the even scarier story of witches . . . and the nuclear button!


    Is that story true? Jeeze. (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:50:14 AM EST
    Yes, and it's disgusting! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Josey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    ditto for his "claws" remark.

    Do you think she will get an apology? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    From Obama or MSNBC for that matter?  Unfortunately, I don't.  I'm not even sure if these comments and the reaction to them as sexist (or at the very least condescending) will make the MSM.  

    I feel like something crazy outrageous will have to happen until people see the Hillary-hate and misogyny.  Even the  Schuster story didn't change things.

    Also, is anyone else curious why Media Matters hasn't picked up on this?  They're currently all over Ann Coulter being a guest on MSNBC (which I completely support, btw).

    Not A Chance! (none / 0) (#207)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    Why would they see a need to apologize when even here where the discussion is relatively civil many do not see his remarks as sexist.

    Perhaps I would not either if it were not a cumulative effect. Tea remark + claws remark + down/periodically remark = misogynist remarks to me. One slip of the tongue from even so able a speaker as Senator Obama is acceptable and understandable. The cumulative effect, for me, is that while he may or may not be a misogynist, his remarks are and are meant to be.


    It's Worse When You Watch It (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by chrisvee on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:51:18 AM EST
    Wow.  I'm having flashbacks to every business meeting I've attended where male colleagues try to diminish what I'm saying by claiming I'm 'upset' or 'emotional' instead of addressing my remarks on their merits.  Or the lectures I've received about how I should try to modify my style to be more likeable (appealing) when I present my views (crickets chirping of course when examples of men behaving in the same way are raised).  Is this really where Senator Obama wants to go?  And 'periodically'?  Please give me a break.  He needs to make a sincere apology immediately but I doubt we'll get it since his campaign doesn't seem to take accountability for negative behaviors.

    You're Not The Only One (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by xjt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:38:46 AM EST
    having flashbacks. A lot of women are re-experiencing ways in which they've been professionally demeaned and condescended to by watching this campaign. It's going to be very hard for Obama to walk this stuff back in order to get the votes of Clinton supporters in the general election, should he be the nominee. Too many hard feelings, too much ugliness. You can talk forgive and forget all you want. You can appeal to the greater good. You can trot out Al Gore and John Edwards to make us all hold hands. However, a lot of people will stay home on voting day out of pure disgust. You may not like it, but it's the truth. And the longer this goes on, the worse things will be.

    not so suttle subtext (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    The clear subtext to that sentence, intentional or not, is that you know its what women do when they are down - PERIODically - they get all negative. Or you know, when they don't get what they want, they throw tantrums to get people's attention. He could have said something about the campaign, but he chose to make a pointed remark at Sen. Clinton.

    patronizing, demeaning, arrogant. entitled. (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by HypeJersey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    Right - and the patronizing language, the patronizing and demeaning way that he said it.  Like he's the man with the cool head who has to understand when women have their periodic meltdowns.  Disgusting.

    spell check (none / 0) (#26)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    sorry..i meant subtle.

    Ah yes, (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by sas on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    I know it too well.  The subtle, implied, code language.

    He knows exactly what he is doing.

    He keeps it up and he will completely turn me off, good of the party be damned.

    I cannot vote for this man (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by HypeJersey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:54:17 AM EST
    I cannot vote for this man should he become the nominee.  Up until this point, I was still planning on voting for him if Hillary isn't our president.  But I'm finished with that now.  That did it.  I will not vote for this man.  I will write in Hillary Clinton.  

    Yup (none / 0) (#57)
    by Athena on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:25:33 AM EST
    Women are not so desperate as to flock to one more smooth-talking man who derides women - all the while asking for their vote.  Some of us can see through that.

    me too! after the comments by jackson jr, (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:08:47 AM EST
    and sharpton, i wouldn't vote for obama on a dare. i'll write hillary in also.

    I've never written in a candidate before (none / 0) (#185)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    The option was there during primary voting, but I'm not sure on the GE.
    Anyway, unless BHO starts practicing some humility and quits acting like a locker room favorite, I'm afraid my only motivation to vote is to write in Hillary.

    BTW - a discussion on CNBC last week focused on the dem candidates. BHO was deemed more "market friendly" than HRC by these Wall Street mavens. More of a free unregulated marketeer (thank you Austan Goolsbee) and more to these bad samaritans liking.


    Geez (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Lena on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    If I have to fill in the bubble next to "Obama" in the general election, it looks like I'll be crying while doing so.

    What a jerk.

    "...periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

    I'm not sure that's so sexist as much as it shows what a tone-deaf guy this is. Has he no limits on his condescending prattle? And if this is his idea of an attack, it might actually help Clinton - he might as well say goodbye to the female vote with this kind of dismissive sneering at HRC.

    In sum, though I think it's an idiotic reference to women, their periods, and their (pathetic) attempts at self-esteem, as he sees it, this is the perfect example of something that will backlash. It shows him to be a very small man, and I think it alienates voters from him more than it ever could alienate voters from her. Keep up these attacks, Obama!

    I wonder if Obama intends to be ageist (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    in the general election. He seems to be getting away with sexism (in part because a female candidate calling out sexism would just reinforce the attack) but I doubt he'd be able to hit McCain with that too many times.

    I'm feeling so down... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by HypeJersey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    that I seriously don't think I could vote for Obama.  Goodness gracious, I don't think I could muster the strength to push that touch screen.  I DO declare... I get the vapors just thinking about voting for that man...

    Your comment cracked me up (nt) (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:02:23 AM EST
    I should have clarified (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    and said that I doubt the MSM will make this into a big story with legs, unless Norah O'Donnell and Andrea Mitchell push it at MSNBC.  Did anyone see this clip (and commentary about it) at CNN, et al.?

    For what it's worth, the "you're likable enough" line didn't get that much press either.  But it clearly left a bad taste in the mouth of NH voters and women in general.  I see it cited more and more often, especially after the snub.  

    And, yes, the story about BO needing to approve of where/with whom Michelle worked for is true.

    He did not say down in the polls. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CathyinLa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    He said when she's "feeling down".


    How (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by tek on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    does he even know how she's feeling? I don't think she contacted him and told him she's "feeling down."

    Barack Obama is a total player. I don't want him as president.


    In Sum (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    When women get mad at this kind of talk, it is then diminished by the "see, they are hysterical, there was nothing wrong with what he said". So, maybe that is why 99% of the time we let it go, but this is one time that we cannot let go. Cause this man has used every subtle race card he could find to boost his campaign, alleged that he has transcended, and yet he is down in the mire and his supporters have no critical eye to see that he is just common.

    I am hysterically ticked off and tired of it (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    frankly I am highly offended, call it what you want Im sick of it for sure.

    He is just common? (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:11:48 AM EST
    What does that mean?  Just common?  

    Seems to me that some of you are projecting a great deal here.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    Common politician, just like the rest. Projecting, no it's called critical thinking and there is nothing wrong with it.

    You know what (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:49:26 AM EST
    You have not covered yourself with glory on this issue.

    In essence, you have revealed a lot about yourself discussing this issue.

    You may need to take a good look at yourself.


    Yes I know (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM EST
    that taking this position on this blog will not be a popular position.  And I'm certain that some of you will fill yourself with all sorts of projections about the type of person that I am.  As I said when you start projecting beliefs on someone you don't know, you are almost certain to be wrong.

    So be it.  I prefer to be honest rather than stick to crowd pleasing rhetoric.  

    This blog is decidedly anti-Obama and pro-Clinton.  I post here because I feel that too often this place creates its reality.  I don't post anything anti-Clinton and I have NEVER made a comment that is misogynist.  But if that is the way you wish to frame me simply because I don't accept your narrative, that is your choice.


    Has nothing to do with being popular (none / 0) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    You know I have never concerned myslef with being popular.

    I am telling you that imo you need to to a good look at yourself.

    Your blithe dismissal of legitimate concerns, whether you agree with the or not, is problematic to me from someone wh claims to be a progressive.

    As you once said to me, Red State seems more your speed than this progressive blog.


    Blithe dismissal? (none / 0) (#186)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    I said I didn't think it was sexist and was accused of being sexist by several posters.  

    You seem to think that disagreement on this issue is not acceptable.  


    I have read your comments (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    Blithe dismissal is being charitable.

    Frankly, your attitude is offensive.


    And I had forgot this comment too: (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    Obama said to a crowd of nearly 900 people, "My experience is grounded in understanding how the world sees America, from living overseas and traveling overseas, and having family beyond our shores. It's that experience, that understanding, and not just of what world leader I went and talked to in the ambassador's house who I had tea with." [link]

    Yup, that's all she was doin' was havin tea'.  Just ask the people of Northern Ireland, or those in China who heard her groundbreaking speech about women's rights being human rights...

    p.s. hope I did the link correctly, it's my first time trying :)

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:41:59 AM EST
    That is so ridiculous.
    Living in different countries tells you how to deal with world leaders. What the heck!

    I have lived in 3 differet countries in my life, in different parts of the world, and have visited more that 15 countries and I am just 20 yrs old. By that logic I have more foreign policy experience than him.


    Question NJ Dem (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    when I lived their Governor Whitman was still in office what would happed do you believe if McCain put her on his ticket?  Do you believe she could pull the State, this has been a concern of mine as she is a moderate, no Bush groupie, and you have the USA political operative Christie still in office and were teetering last election, for sure.  Could she tip the State red?

    Happened to me thurs with an Obama adorer (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    My next door office neighbor is a very progressive guy. We shared many a rants about the Bush regime and previous presidential election. He's followed politics for a very long time. He also has worked as a moderator in legal disputes. My office neighbor always makes it a point to see many points of view and find common ground. He will challenge me to take the other side to temper my own perceptions.
    BUT... he wanted to discuss the dem contest. I told him it probably wasn't a good idea. "We should do it. We're bigger than that". "Ok, but I don't think it's a good idea." After a bit of back and forth, I commented on the Reagan quote by Obama. "You're spinning", he said. That stunned me. I told him he had insulted me by questioning my intellectual honesty. He never attacks like that.
    I couldn't sleep that night. Next morning I wrote an email simply to explain how I had interpreted Obama's comments. At the end of my note, I added that I was certain he had just as deliberate and thought out pov and it was only fair that he be invited to share it with me.
    Well...I won't go into the style of his response. It is enough to say that one of the last lines was, "If you were more dispassionate and objective, you'd see Obama's comment as I do".
    I went nuts. I told him he was being arrogant by claiming that his perspective was more accurate than mine. That he was repeating the very behavior that insulted me in the first place.
    I said i felt bullied and talked down to. And that I had tried to make room for both of our opinions.
    Wait 'til you hear his response to that:
    "Can you truely say you're being dispassionate and objective?"

    I was part of an online politics discussion (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by zyx on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    community for YEARS.  I have had to leave.  The Obama people--who were my "progressive" "friends"--are

    1.  Nasty to people who say anything in Clinton's favor, even if it's supplying data from historical links or something that seems quite carefully chosen.

    2.  Mysogynic.  But they are a big sly and/or offhand about it, and then deny it.

    3.  Self-righteous to the hilt.  Obama-supporters who are a bit more reasonable (usually a woman) will ask them to tone it down a bit now and then, and they'll explain in several paragraphs how all the right is on their side, all the wrong, every bit, therefore, on the other, and btw, they are less sexist than the Clinton supporters, so there, you have it on the highest authority, theirs.

    4 Party WiseMen (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    Biden, Gore, Edwards, and Biden combo and photo line up at the Page and the article in the NY Times about how they will add their collective impartial wisdom, well it obvious whats wrong with the line up no estrogen.  And do they take us for complete fools, that they are wise Men who will decide for us the Hillary supporter and it is they who are needed to calm this emotional backlash, this potential train wreck, not one of them has been in Clintons corner in fact the opposite..

    I absolutely am truly beginning to wonder why any women would belong to this Party I really am, its outrageous, women should become free agents and consolidate their electorate power.

    Ok for those of you who don't get this insult imagine if this were a group of 4 white women party elders playing the role of Party Wisewomen to calm.

    Gore (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:28:13 AM EST
    I remember he did not want Clinton to campaign for him, neither did Kerry, now they are mad that the campaigns for Hillary. The elders...yeah, they have done such a great job being the opposition.

    Welcome aboard.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    the free agent team, I like to think I'm one of TL's most outspoken free agents.

    I'm a dude with no love for Clinton, Obama, or McCain....none are prepared to take the necessary steps to ensure the stability and prosperity of our nation.  Can I now count on your support for Ralph Nader, Steve Kubby, Bloomberg, or whoever the free agent candidate might be?

    If all this sexist/racist claptrap leads to the demise of the crooked Democratic party, maybe some good will come out of this:) Then only the Republicans have to implode and the nation can get on the right track.


    Uh, "claptrap"? (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:37:02 AM EST
    I know that one, too.  Term my dad always used for anything women said, never for what men said. . . .

    Oh lord.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    I hear the sirens...the language police are on my tail!

    fwiw, I use the term when applicable, be it man or woman.  This is claptrap.

    clap·trap (klap′trap′)


    showy, insincere, empty talk or writing, intended only to get applause or notice

    That is the true change (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    and probably what is really needed I agree.

    As a former Edwards Supporter (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    When I had to choose a new candidate after Edwards dropped out, I took some of the stress off the decision by thinking of it as a hold-my-nose decision.  To me, there just wasn't that much to choose between Hillary & Obama on the issues.  And I chose to support Hillary at that point because she is a woman.  And I figured that I've already held-my-nose to vote for about a million men.  I could do it this time, proudly for a woman.

    That was nearly 3 weeks ago and since then I've come around to supporting her for herself.  I like her health care plan (considering....)   I like the graceful way she handles the stress of campaigning.  And the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having a woman president.

    I listened AND watched that video clip.  Mr. Obama was choosing his words VERY deliberately.  If he meant "down in the polls" rather than "periodically when she's feeling down" -- he would have said it.  For one thing, it's a lot easier to say.  And for another, he's supposed to be the GRAND speaker.  

    I've never heard ANYONE confuse "feeling down" with "down in the polls".

    I think it's hilarious that anyone is even TRYING to make me think that's what he meant.

    PS:  NJDem mentioned this quote:

    "It's that experience, that understanding, and not just of what world leader I went and talked to in the ambassador's house who I had tea with."

    Yup, that's all she was doin' was havin tea'.  Just ask the people of Northern Ireland, or those in China who heard her groundbreaking speech about women's rights being human rights...

    I hope Hillary's campaign can make a commercial juxtiposing that remark with her speech.  Or just hammer on some of her great speeches -- she's reprinted them on her website.

    Thank you Mr. Obama -- you've made it clear to me that I choose the right candidate this time too.

    I got the blockquote wrong on NJDem's quote (none / 0) (#85)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    It should have included the paragraph above.

    you made me laugh so hard (none / 0) (#87)
    by sef on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    I think I woke the baby up and was just glad I wasn't drinking anything at the time as I would be wiping off the screen.

    Well, if those were his exact words (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:48:26 AM EST
    Then maybe he really isn't the brilliant speaker he is purported to be and can't be trusted without a script, lest he get "feeling" all ungrammatical --  making multiple errors in only one clause.  (Correct grammatical construction would be "with whom I had tea.":-)

    So which is it, Obama supporters?  Is he an intelligent and loquacious guy on his own, as in this video when he is without a script -- or when he does give a great speech, are we supposed to vote for him or for that 26-year-old speechwriter on his staff?  


    Same here my (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:18:36 AM EST
    event was the dismissive, likable enough comment and in the same debate her list of changes she actually had already accomplished.  Yes I also had not bothered to really look at any of the candidate closely as my State was way down but then the behaviors by Donna Brazile and Clyburn and their coy endorsements of Obama and the surrounding drama of SC, the social liberal press as Party surrogates to attack the Clintons and the disenfranchisement of Fla sealed it for me it felt bad, I believed the Dem party of ole was back not a good thing in my view, not the platform of Positively America Senator Schumer wrote of in 2006 which peaked my relook at the Dem Party. And all we have seen since SC is the Party stuck in the priorities of identify politics, the liberal social agenda the liberal economic agenda inclusive of Ted Kennedy the shades of JFK and RFK and the inclusion of a Il candidate with an admission of using boneheaded ethical judgment who hails form a State that provided the theme for Newts mantra, Dems the Party of corruption. Its sad really, but I know Clinton can win on the merits, her character, her capabilities, her strength and her support from the Party base..

    Of course it's sexist! (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    I'm a man and I can see that.  The Obama campaign engages in a lot of this snarky college humor.  I'm sure he and his cronies laughed and laughed about this wording after the press conference.

    But Hillary can take it.

    BTW, has anyone noticed that when Obama doesn't have a 'prompter it takes him forever to spit out a sentence?  That's gonna get old fast.

    Heck ya... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    Imagine 8 years of that halting speech....

    The White Progressive (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    Let me ask, if an African American or a Hispanic or Asian, told you something was offensive, would you challenge them and argue with them that you did not think it offensive, that it was perfectly ok, and that they were reading things into it?  Would you respect their perception of the comment or incident?  Or would you keep attacking them for having "faux outrage" ?  

    I will take your answer off the air.  

    Yes I would (none / 0) (#143)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    When Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson play with victim politics I feel the same way.  

    I believe you (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:08:33 AM EST
    You have proven your insensitivity to legitimate concerns many times over.

    And you shown yourself (none / 0) (#167)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    willing to engage in identity politics whenever possible.  

    Just the response I would expect from you (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    Denigrate any and all concerns about sexism and racism.

    Yes, Red State is just your speed, as you once said to me.


    Dissect language (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Allin on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    I definitely think that Obama used these words intentionally--he is a lawyer--words are their poison.  So, i looked up some definitions and have written what I think is common impression of usage.

    "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

    (A) periodically-adv.--period-adj: occurring or appearing at intervals; occasional : she took periodical gulps of her tea.  My comment: I do not think he was referring to the menstrual cycle per se--but in context to  the rest of the sentence I think folks could equate it to just that very easily. Why? Because of the bashing of women in regards to their menstrual cycle and decisiion making skills.

    (B) "feeling"noun
    1.  an emotional state or reaction --
     ( feelings) the emotional side of someone's character; emotional responses or tendencies to respond -- My comment: I totally think this is intentional  to the point of working sexism from the vantage point that women have 'feelings' and men 'decide'---
    (C) down[ predic. ] (of a person) unhappy; depressed : he's been so down lately.
    * [ attrib. ] informal (of a period of time) causing or characterized by unhappiness or depression : of course, there were up days and down days.adjective
    1 I'm feeling a bit down depressed, sad, unhappy, melancholy, miserable, wretched, sorrowful, gloomy, dejected, downhearted, despondent, dispirited, low; informal blue, down in the dumps, down in/at the mouth.trying My comment: If he would of used a different reference point such as 'down in delegates-down in blah, blah, blah--it would not have been the total jab he intendind it to be--which was to reinforce 'feeling'

    (D) trying difficult or annoying; hard to endure- My comment: Now I am getting pissed--'tryng is lying' ever hear of that anyone.
    (E) APPEAL the quality of being attractive or interesting --My comment: Neither of which Obama is.

    Does anyone remember when he said, 'the claws come out'

    Between the overt and now covert racism he has instilled in this campaign and the absolute lack of regard for a former first lady and former President of the USA-he disgusts me.  He talks about unity in all sorts of division of classes.  The best example of this is the Mi and Fla voters. Geesh--there is 'we are all Americans'--except when it behooves him of course.

    I really think that (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    the "feelings" comment towards women was a huge mistake in that he already has a list of remarks that offend women.

    But the really ironic part of this is.....  His champaign so often will capitalize on "feelings". In that, his caimpaign is ofter referred to as a religious experience.... i.e. feelings, emotions, etc.

    To that end, some of his supporters carry those "feelings" to far in this primary. I hope this primary season will be remember as the "Awakening" of the inner feeling that really need the continued fight for equality.

    It's as coded as a MIDOL commercial (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    -- which is not very subtle.

    Or a tampon commercial (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    I wish SNL would pick this up and turn it into one or the other.

    I just showed the clip to my wife (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by BigB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    I read all of the comments here and I wanted to get an impartial view on this. I showed the clip to my wife without any prior commentary and asked her what she thought. She is not a political junkie and has no great preference for either candidate. She saw the clip and she immediately said that it was a personal put down by Obama and also specifically noticed the word periodically. In her assessment, Obama was clearly referring to her emotional swings.

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    Frankly, it is obvious.

    Those protesting in defense of this should be ashamed of themselves.


    I also showed it to my teenage daughter (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by BigB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    Again, without any prior commentary just showed the clip.

    Here is what she said:

    "It seems like he is saying that she launches attacks when she is depressed" (she rephrased the word down as depressed) and then, awkwardly, "it seems like he is referring to, like, like, her monthly, you know." Then she said "I am confused but that is what I think" and left ti at that. Again, this is from someone who is as apolitical as it comes.

    I was of double minds after reading the opposite view points and was wondering if I was overanalyzing.

    Now, after seeing the reaction of my wife and my daughter I am convinced that this is sexist.


    whiskey tango foxtrot? (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by cdo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    Sorry, I'm a woman and I got his meaning perfectly clear. I didn't need a special class or some kind of whistle to hear "when she is on the rag, she gets cranky".
    And there is nothing "faux" in how I feel about that remark.

    But I expect that from Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    I DO NOT expect or accept it from a Democratic candidate. Specially one that proclaims to be above it all, about change, looking to the future.

    It occurred to me today how much more progressive Bill and Hillary's relationship is. And how in a broader sense we have all kind of gone a little backward from that generation when it comes to women's roles (partly thanks to Republican false nostalgia of a 50's that never existed).

    Its interesting that a Senator 15 years younger and from my generation would say such a thing.

    thanks daveUSA (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    for your insights--it's a good thing us women have men like you to decide what we should and shouldn't be offended by.  

    Don't you see the irony, as a man (on the assumption that Dave is a male name) that you think you can objectively determine what is sexist?  Really...

    Impossible (4.50 / 8) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    It's so in grained they don't get it.  

    Fellas, listen to me let me break it down for you.

      Most misogynists, maybe not you guys, attribute certain cyclical functions that woman as the "weakness" that does not allow them to hold positions of power.  

    What is the "O" saying here, that she gets moody and lashes out, that it happens periodically.  Get it?  

    No I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:51:54 AM EST
    First off I don't care much for the insinuation that Barack Obama is a misogynist.  

    Secondly if you need to give a detailed explanation about how a comment is racist, sexist, ageist then it probably isn't.


    I assume you are not female? (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    Reason I ask is there are things so ingrained in society that only the people at the receiving end of the insult will tune immediately into it. Honestly so much so that even good non biased people will not catch it, it is so common. And honestly this has been pointed out to me both by woman and gay friends.

    So trust me on this, I wouldn't really try to argue this one. It may be you don't see it. Same can be said of racist remarks.


    If you do not want to see it (4.40 / 5) (#42)
    by BeBe on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    you do not want to. The manner in which Sen Obama addresses Sen Clinton is very dismissive irregardless of what he actually says. It is a lip curling condescension that comes out more and more frequently. I am not sure it is sexist as he did it repeatedly with Edwards also. I think he uses it to humiliate and to control others. It reminds me of Bush's cruel nicknames. It is an attempt to be the alpha. If he uses this with McCain there will be an uproar.

    No sexism intended. (4.00 / 2) (#92)
    by BeBe on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    I see this attitude by Sen Obama directed at whomever he perceives to be in his crosshairs at the moment. It is obviously very pointed towards Sen Clinton and displays appalling insensitivity in a rather studied manner. I simply meant that I think he does it to anyone that he wishes to portray as weaker than himself. I am female also and well into middle age. I have observed throughout my life that sexists are equal opportunity bullies and will do so to males and children also.  

    Well I do (4.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    Cause it's under your radar. You probably believe women are mere vessels that are the sum of their biological functions. So, it does not upset you when a woman of Hillary's stature is diminished to a shrew, pimping her daughter. It's fine with you. It's part of your ethos.

    Yes I know (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    Thank you for the psychoanalysis.   I clearly have issues with women.  Perhaps Oedipal? Or maybe anger issues?  Please elaborate.

    FTR, when you project beliefs onto others it speaks more about your own views and beliefs than the other person's.  

    Ironically I have not said a single negative thing about Hillary.  But you're right.

    I find it amusing that there is mention of dog whistle comments but the only ones who hear the whistle are the ones who get upset about it.

    And when the media chugs along ignoring this story it will OF COURSE be that the media is out to get Hillary and is secretly misogynistic.  It couldn't possibly be that you are overreacting and creating your own inference.


    Your comments are a hoot (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    The "ones who hear the whistle are the ones who get upset about it."

    Well, yeh.  


    I'm glad you like them (none / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    Trust me, I find many of the comments here to be true comedy gold.

    What's the point in making dog whistle comments that only upset people listening for them?


    ok... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    If Hillary said: Young men like Obama get aggressive and have lash out when they are down. (racism....scream...she is saying black people cannot control their anger, they are irrational, they cannot play with the rules of conduct, cause their culture prohibits them)....

    I guess (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    Personally I don't see much in that comment.  Now if she just randomly said it with nothing to tie it to, then perhaps.  If Obama had recently does something rash or hostile, I certainly would see nothing wrong with that comment.

    I'm tired of codebreakers.  


    I am tired of sexism (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    In short, I am tired of you and your denigration of legitimate concerns about the obvious problems with this language.

    This is nothing compared to (none / 0) (#72)
    by sef on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    what Bill said in South Carolina.  Anyone who grew up in the South knows he was race baiting there.  This statement can be deconstructed in several different ways.  I think it shows insensitivity on BHO's part, but is likely a poor word choice that he should have known better than making, rather than an intentional effort to box Hillary.  

    grrr, typo (none / 0) (#83)
    by sef on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    that last line should have read "to box Hillary in to being labeled the way he was, "the black candidate", "the woman candidate", "the latino candidate" as was Richardson, or "the cryptkeeper candidate" as McCain is being labeled.

    Address OB's comments; don't use WJC as deflection (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ellie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    Saying what a totally different human being did was worse doesn't excuse nor explain Obama's indefensible comments.

    You are kidding? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:53:26 AM EST
    Comparing him to JJ was marginalizing him cause white people hate JJ? I loved that bit of circus of the stars contortion. White people hate JJ, comparing Obama to JJ, diminishes Obama, cause white people hate him. Whereas Black people and many of us from the excesses of the 60's and 70s' respect and honor JJ.

    It is similar (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    Funny how you can easily condemn Clinton's remarks, as I did, and can not find it in you to condemn these.

    That's how dog whistles work (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by spit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    they give you some room to deny that you "meant it that way", but they both put certain people in their place and reinforce subtler narratives about those people. If they were obvious, they wouldn't be dog whistles.

    Look, I've given Obama every benefit of the doubt on this stuff so far, just as I've given it to most of the Clinton folks that have crossed lines in this way, but this one looks pretty damned intentional to me. I know you don't see it, but that's probably largely because you haven't spent a huge chunk of your life having your anger or tough arguments minimized through the "moody chick" thing.


    If their intended (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:46:05 AM EST
    audience doesn't hear it, I fail to see how it has any impact.  

    Obama's comment was in regards to a commercial that the Clinton campaign ran.  Do you really think he was suggesting that the commercial was made in a bout of petulant anger by Hillary?  Really?

    FTR, I think that Bill has been far more emotional and off-kilter than Hillary.  He can barely control his emotions.


    You hear things in different ways (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by spit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    the intended audience didn't need to hear it blatantly, they needed to hear something that reinforced a deep-down idea they have that women are moody and hysterical. Yes, I think he was absolutely suggesting she is prone to bouts of petulant anger, and I think that plays right into the old, old theme of "women's emotional instability".

    If you don't believe that that's been a common cultural story, then I'm afraid I don't know what to say, except you maybe should read up on some women's history and literature.

    Look, I have a complicated opinion on this stuff, and I'm not going to pillory anybody for this quote. But it is a loaded quote, and the video clip makes it look flat-out intentional. He chose these words very carefully. Why not different words? Why these?

    And actually, I quite agree with you -- Bill Clinton has been far more emotional through this campaign, IMO. But the quote isn't about Bill Clinton, or the campaign. Why is that?


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST
    observation re Bill's emotions being much more on his sleeve than Hillary's...which led me to ask myself, "What about Obama?"  Have we ever seen him in any kind of emotional moment?  Ever?  One that revealed some vulnerability, some human reaction other than frustration or annoyance?

    oldpro (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    Yes.  When  he  admitted  to  Tim  Russert  during  the MSNBC  debate  that  he  had  allowed  his  campaign staff  to   use  the  race  card  between  New Hampshire  and  South  Carolina,   he   "seemed"  truly  sorry  for it,  and  apologized.  

    I  have yet  to meet  an  Obama  supporter  who  wants  to   discuss  that  moment, though.   :)


    So you admit you are the intended audience? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    Are you the entirety of the audience.

    YOu doth protest wat too much.

    Can you at least not admit that the concerns are legitimate?

    Could you not instead argue Obama did not intend what many of us are hearing?

    OF course not. A sexist would NEVER admit that.


    Maybe you don't understand the metaphor (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    and how dog whistles -- and dogs' hearing -- works?

    As a matter of fact I do (none / 0) (#116)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    A dog whistle is intended to get a reaction from your dog.  You blow the dog whistle to get your dog to come to you, even though no one else can hear it.

    Your use of the term would be the equivalent of having a dog whistle that agitate cats but your dog doesn't even hear it.  


    Keep digging (none / 0) (#120)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:55:00 AM EST
    "cat" so only us cats hear it? What is another name for cats?

    I do not find you funny in the least (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    Denigrsting real concerns about sexism is of course.

    You are stone cold sexit.


    Er, no one's PARSING what you said so yourself (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ellie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    You said you didn't get it. No one's psychoanalyzing anything behind your words.

    Mind you, for this stuff:

    Thank you for the psychoanalysis.   I clearly have issues with women.  Perhaps Oedipal? Or maybe anger issues?  Please elaborate.

    You're on your own, Bub.


    The comments (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by solon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    My wife is a candidate for an English PhD. Her dissertation covers the role of women in public and social spaces. She has a certificate in women's studies. She is a self-identified feminist.

    When we discussed these comments this morning, even she interpreted the comments in term of the campaigning process rather than in terms of them being sexists remarks.

    Unless you discredit her as being an inauthentic feminist (which I would not advise) or argue in bad faith about this information, then maybe these comments are not as clear in their meaning.

    There are many ways to interpret these comments. Seeking interpretive dominance on the sexism may be best reflect the context of the campaign.


    Heh (4.00 / 1) (#99)
    by spit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    as somebody who doubtless spends a lot of time around feminists, then, I'm sure you're aware that the only universal thing about feminists is that we seldom all agree on anything.

    I certainly know that... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by solon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    But the point, which seems to be missing on this overall post, is that the comments themselves "are" not sexists and rest so much on the interpretation of the context by the person.

    But, even civil disagreement here is not desired by some of the posters...


    There are multiple interpretations (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by spit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    and there are also multiple active meanings, so I'm not sure what your point is except to say "one feminist disagrees!". Fine, that's her right. It doesn't change the fact that what most of us see is that this plays directly into an old sexist theme about women. Trying not to get too "out there", it's mostly that whether the comments themselves are sexist is irrelevant, not an answerable question, you can't divorce them from all of those meanings. They play into sexist themes, and they do it in such a way that it's frankly really hard for me to write that off as unintentional.

    Civil disagreement on some of these topics has become difficult, in large part because every time anybody has tried to point out anything sexist in this cycle, we've been essentially informed that our interpretation isn't valid. That gets, you know, a little bit old after a while, to put it lightly.


    Method... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by solon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    I certainly agree. The comments must be interpreted. Some groups will no doubt seem them as being sexist; others will not. This does not diminish the claims by some that these comments that audience members could interpret them as such. Further, while my evidence was only anecdotal in nature and were in no way used to dismiss outright that sexism occurred, they presented a simple point about interpretation.

    My point was that to determine that these comments "are"  sexist eliminates the interpretation process. Since these comments seem controversial, then the standard should be that a proponent makes a case for them being sexist, and avoid just declaring that they "are" sexist or that those who disagree "are" sexist. This would be a reasonable standard that debaters follow and avoid decrease some of the emotional tension. If established, then views would be more than valid.


    Speaking for yourself? (3.50 / 2) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:17:58 AM EST
    This is of course an issue that is hot.

    As is racism.

    You want people to separate themselves from their life experiences.

    You want people to just accept your word from on high, and from your female academic wife, as the last word.

    Frankly, most of us find your reasoned argument laughable.

    You do not like to be laughed at. No one does.  


    err, sorry, but i have see a lot of (2.00 / 1) (#148)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    educated people hear what they want to hear.

    Really? (none / 0) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    Where exactly did I say any of this...

    Cause it's under your radar. You probably believe women are mere vessels that are the sum of their biological functions. So, it does not upset you when a woman of Hillary's stature is diminished to a shrew, pimping her daughter. It's fine with you. It's part of your ethos.

    My ethos?  As if anyone here has a clue what my ethos is.  

    The fact that I don't get your faux outrage does NOT equate to me having any sort of specific belief about women, positive or negative.  It simply means that I am not searching for outrage.  

    The good news for you guys is that when the media ignores this you can carry on your own narrative for days.  


    'Faux' outrage? You can't have it both ways (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ellie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    ... from the same statement.

    Women are both hypersensitive as to be unable to control higher analytical functions like logic and comprehension AND SIMULTANEOUSLY so despicably manipulative as to be feigning outrage.


    If YOU need the explanation (4.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:53:07 AM EST
    It probably means you are.

    It may be BHO is no misogynist (3.50 / 2) (#104)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    he just blows another of his many dog whistles to attract them to his campaign. The very essence of the "cynical politics of the past".

    I wonder about this, too -- is it code (4.25 / 4) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    to get the jerk vote?  Seriously -- he has made so many subtly sexist comments that I have to wonder how he got this far "with that mouth on him," as my grandma would say.  So . . . an alternative reading could be that he is not, um, "feeling" what he is saying but actually is quite aware of the effect and with whom his words would resonate.  And I note that the more he does this, the more he is getting the male vote.

    Of course, it need not be a dichotomy.  He could be a misogynist and no longer be hiding it but, instead, know it's timely now to use it -- especially now that it's down to just two of them.  I also note that there was far less of this stuff when it still was a three-way race -- when it was riskier to be compared to Edwards, as I don't recall ever hearing such sexist comments from him.


    Yes (none / 0) (#169)
    by chrisvee on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    I think there may be some really cynical political calculation here.  Senator Obama surely knows exactly what he is saying.  He's a fantastic orator and knows what words move people.  So to use this phraseology seems to me likely an attempt to try to appeal to a certain segment of the vote where he feels he needs to shore up support.  His speech pattern in the video clip shows that it's not just some off the cuff mistake.  He looks to be speaking very deliberately.  So IMO either this is who he is or he's feigning this to appeal to a particular group.  Either way I have big issues with it.

    That's your interpretation..... (4.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    Couldn't you agree that maybe he just meant that Clinton is down in the polls, so she is amping up her attacks.

    Ask me a year ago if we were ready for a woman or minority president I'd say of course we are.  Today?  Maybe people are too hyper-sensitive to handle it.  It's a tragedy what this race has become...who can cry victim the loudest.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I see people bending over backwards, going over statements with a fine tooth comb, looking for sexism and racism in this campaign and it is appaling to me.


    She is "feeling" down in the polls? (4.66 / 6) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:27:25 AM EST
    Sure, take out a word and change the meaning for your man.  Heck, take out entire clauses to clear him of any intent to say anything, whydontcha?

    Take out words here and clauses there from what he says, and what you have left is, well, "hope" and "change" -- and we're supposed to just fill in the blanks for four years.


    For the ump-teenth time..... (4.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    I do not support Obama or Clinton (or McCain).  Neither will take the necessary steps to ensure the stability or prosperity of our nation.

    I'm trying to stay objective...you should try it sometime.

    I didn't think Bill's comment was racist, I don't think Obama's comment was sexist.  Then again I'm ready for a woman or minority to to be president, are you?

    Just not this woman or this black man...they're in on the con, can't you see that?  Or are you to busy using your fine tooth comb over-analyzing everyone's words?


    Okay, I'll give you that. Now (4.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    focus and address the first point -- do you really think he meant, literally, that she was down in the polls?  When he said she was "feeling down"?

    Okay.... (none / 0) (#180)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    Obama is a politician, and like all politicians I wonder if Obama knows what Obama means.  

    That being said, most likely he meant the Clinton campaign is feeling down about their campaign right now, and are amping up their attacks.  


    Guys? (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by bz on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:56:28 AM EST
    I didn't say what gender I am.  Also to label him a misogynist based on guessing his intent with the remarks seems somewhat of a stretch.

    The reason I don't do gay politics anymore (4.50 / 2) (#146)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    is I got mighty sick and tired of my fellow GLBTQQI people--G's who scream "homophobia" whenever life wasn't going right, L's who would scream misogyny if someone didn't write the alphabet soup as LGBTQQI instead, B's who claimed discrimination from both sides, T's who couldn't get the pronoun right themselves being impatient with others who used the wrong pronoun, and the QQI's who screamed that they were being "shut out" if they weren't also added to the LBGTs' alphabet soup. Meanwhile, people were actually being discriminated against, actually dying of AIDS, and actually having their rights trampled upon--but the community was powerless to deal with it because if its constant infighting.

    The point being that sometimes language is used like a dagger, but most of the time it's not. I have seen the extremes of people being paranoid about language, and ascribing motives when they are less than clear. This is the second post about this particular Obama phrase on TalkLeft and it's being trumpeted elsewhere too, and I think it's being a bit overblown. I've seen similar claims about Clinton race-baiting that I also think are overblown.

    I think we're taking P.C. to the extreme here. While we bicker about this comment and that comment, Republicans are building their infrastructure and getting ready to start firing on us. Our only saving grace may be the bickering that's also apparently going on over on their side over who is and isn't a real conservative.

    Excellent comment Mike.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    should be required reading.  Well done.

    The reason (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    I have no respect for attitudes like yours is you reduce legitimate concerns to nothing.

    Frankly, you are part of the malign acceptance of sexism.

    Tweety must be your hero.


    mike , you make some good (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    points, but due to the media slant and the damage they do, yes it is now a big deal.

    in other circumstances it would warrant mention, but when i think about the obama campaign's assertions about bill and hillary playing the race card and i see this, then it is a big deal for this second reason.


    Sexism and Misogyny (4.00 / 1) (#225)
    by bison on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:50:35 PM EST
    This is a none story.  This is neither sexism nor misogynist language

    I think sexism, by definition, (3.00 / 2) (#221)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    is discrimination and/or hatred towards people based on their sex rather than their individual merits.

    I don't think BO is discriminating against Hillary, nor do I think he hates her, nor is he expressing hatred of her.

    imo, extending the definitions of such words as "sexism/ist," "racism/ist," "ageism/ist" or even the words "discriminaton" and/or "hatred" to illogical extremes is really sad.

    This is sexist? (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by smr33 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:28:32 AM EST
    I am a woman, a feminist, and I just don't understand the outrage. If this kind of thing makes you crazy now, just wait until the general election if she is the Democratic nominee.  Then you'll see sexism, and not in code words either.  

    As a feminist and a woman, were you (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by tigercourse on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    upset when Obama talked about Clinton's "claws coming out" or when he reduced her experience to sitting around drinking tea?

    That one is paritcularly funny (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    The having tea outrage is truly amusing.  She was first lady.  She had no role in the government OTHER than to speak for her husband.  Having tea is what first ladies DO!

    She had no authority to speak about anything ESPECIALLY when it comes to foreign policy.  So yes, that is what she did.  It's what EVERY first lady does, or first husband if that ever comes to be.


    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:26:16 AM EST

    I mean...no, wow.

    "Having tea is what first ladies DO!"

    I think Eleanor Roosevelt's ghost is about to kick you in the nads.


    Now THAT is (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    the most ignorant thing you've said yet.

    Presidential emmisaries, whether wives or not, have the authority to speak for the president on foreign visits whenever he gives that authority to them...from ex-Senator Mitchell and Governor Richardson to Hillary Clinton.

    Please.  Read a book or two.


    More evidence (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM EST
    of your utter lack of sensitivity to legitimate concerns.

    Frankly, you have nothing to add to this discussion.


    He's supposed to be a progressive (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:36:29 AM EST
    And he speaks like this to a female opponent?
    Diminishes her arguments to mood swings and
    This is what disturbs so many of us. The so
    called progressive Obama movement and
    the misogyny and sexism that it encourages
    towards Clinton.
    I've been completely stunned by it
    I've ranted many a time about the republican's
    nasty behavior and my girlfriend has often
    responded that the left has its ungly underbelly
    as well.
    I understand now.

    Confused. (none / 0) (#1)
    by GV on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:35:51 AM EST
    I'm male and generally try to be very sensitive to sexist language.  But I really don't see it here.  I guess it's his use of the word "appeal"?  Really?  Is this really the sort of thing we want to start?  Anytime anyone uses words or phrases that can in someway be reasonably construed to be sex or race based, we want our candidates apologizing?  

    That is probably how (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:50:24 AM EST
    Obama would respond too, which is why he won't be apologizing anytime soon.  Sexism has been such a pervasive thing that many notions have just crept into the language, we sometimes do not notice them anymore.  But women know exactly what he meant.

    Please don't think that I am saying you are sexist; but women have had to endure such comments as , 'must be that time of the month again . . ." "going through the stage?"  as a way of dismissing legitimate criticism of a male colleague or an issue.


    Clarification (none / 0) (#24)
    by GV on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    So to be clear then, you're saying it's sexist because he says "periodically when she's feeling down," to be a reference to her "female cycle."  I mean I see how that sort of fits, but does anyone really believe Obama was thinking of that?  You seem to.  But, really, does anyone really believe that Obama was trying to make a gender-based comment?  (Compare these comments, for example, to Bill Clinton's explicit race-based comments.)  

    I think it's pretty clear that he is saying now that she is down in the polls again (like she was early in the race), she attacks him.  I mean, if Hillary said Obama was not taking part in the debate in Wisconsin because he was "not prepared," could we take that as racist because it feeds into a racist stereotype?  


    But without a doubt (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:00:29 AM EST
    you believe Bill meant to marginalize Obama when he said he won SC and so did JJ.  You see you always find an excuse for him, but Bill and Hillary don't get an excuse.  

    Do you get how patronizing it is when you don't even allow him to be his words?  


    Sexist comment. (none / 0) (#101)
    by GV on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    How do you know I "always find an excuse for him"?  You don't know me from a hole in the wall.  Oh, I see.  I admitted I'm a male so your dig that I "always find an excuse" is in reference to male stubborness or perhaps it's a reference to men who find an excuse to beat their wives.  

    See how fun this game can be?    


    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    it's a real barrel of laughs.

    No offense to barrels.


    Two things... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ajain on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:01:30 AM EST

    first Hillary didnt say that he is ill-prepared to debate her. She said that she wants to debate him and he refuses to do so.

    Second...this is a personally pointed remark. Somethings are just a matter of degrees and how you say things really does reflect your way of thinking.


    He's (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Lena on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:02:39 AM EST
    referring to her (female) mood swing. She's referring to his campaign tactics. There's no equivalence there.

    I believe 100% it's a subtle gender-based attack, yes.


    What was he thinking? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    I do not know. I know what HE SAID.

    even if you don't see it (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Nasarius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:55:29 AM EST
    I'm sure you can agree that it was an insultingly personal attack. He's very deliberate, so "feeling down" and "boost her appeal" are not verbal slips. He's not talking about her campaign.

    Another sexist comment. (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by GV on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    He made arrogant and mean spirited comments?  Because he's a black man, I guess.  I demand you apologize.  

    (Wow, this defending Obama thing is easier than I thought.)  


    The comment had nothing (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    about race.  But your reply did.  Think about what that says about you, seeing race when it isn't there . . . or maybe it is, for you.  

    You missed my point. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by GV on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    And I guess you associate mood swings and being overly emotional with women, whereas I don't.  I guess you reveal more about your own stereotypes than I really wanted to know.  

    You reall y do not get it (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    Man are you clueless on this.

    Pot. This is kettle. (none / 0) (#190)
    by GV on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    Jeezus, people.  I will spell it out for you.  

    "Practically Lactating" and "Stelllaa" both made comments that I could simply construe as race or gender attacks on me or Obama.  PL said I was stubborn and Stellla said Obama's comments were arrogant.  Even though I highly doubt that either one of them had any sexist or racist intent, they could both be construed to be race or gender based attacks.  Both comments fit stereotypes:  that men are stubborn and that black men are arrogant.  (If you've never heard the arrogant stereotype, I doubt you live in the south.)  And just so no one tries to misconstrue what I am saying, I am not saying either stereotype is true.  I'm just saying that they are out there and that PL and Stellaa's comments fed into those stereotypes.  

    What does this prove?  Just because someone makes a comment that could be construed to fit as a stereotype does not necessarily mean they are trying to be a bigot.  

    I see how Obama's comments could be construed as sexist.  But he has never before said anything remotely sexist, so I have a very hard time believing he intended them to be taken that way.  (Much like I have a hard time believe PL or Stellla intended they're comments to be sexist.)  Indeed, Obama's comment were so "subtly" gender related (as someone else put it), it doesn't sound like any man even understood the attenuated reference.  If you were trying to be sexist, wouldn't you want men and not women to get it?  Nonetheless, they could be construed as sexist.  To that end, I hope he clarifies.  But to pretend that this is necessarily some reason to dislike Obama more, is irrational.  This is not a situation like Chris Mathews who constantly uses gender-based language to attack Hillary.  This is one comment.  If this sort of comment can be considered a black mark against a candidate, I look forward to analyzing anything Hillary says and tying it to Obama's race.  


    Me Vs. Obama (none / 0) (#205)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:33:23 AM EST
    I am not an agent of change. I am not transcending. I am not tranformative. I am not running for president. I am human. He is well, Obama. What he says, matters. What I say...well, frankly does not.

    Do we (none / 0) (#152)
    by tek on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:30 AM EST
    want to start seeing the "race card" in every remark anyone makes, but Obama does. Now, JJ, Jr. says all blacks have to vote for Obama because he's black.

    Come on (none / 0) (#2)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:38:34 AM EST
    Down in the polls.  This is just the point Edwards made in the NH debate: The fact that Hillary is attacking shows that she's behind.  

    watch the clip (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Nasarius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    He's thinking about his word choice. Obama is not a stupid man or an awkward speaker, and "feeling down" is not a phrase one would normally use when talking about polling data.

    OB sez HRC attacks 'when she's FEELING down' (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Ellie on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    You're defending your mischaracterized (and laundered) version of what he actually said.

    He didn't say (nor referred to) when HRC "was down in the polls". What he said and what he meant are both pretty damn clear.

    HRC criticized one of OB's policies or statements and he's attempting to deflect and trivialize that by using paperback-psychobabble to typify this as feminine hysteria. I doubt he'd smack away a male rival's comment with what's essentially PMS-talk.

    To add insult, further "explaining" the motive behind a rival run for public office as a pathetic self-esteem issue is unbelievable. Mutual criticism among political rivals for office is routine in any run. Would he typify criticism from a male rival that way?

    (Best shorter version of this dismissal: Ring Lardner's "Shut up," he explained.)


    agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by bz on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    He is saying when she is down she goes negative.  This is something that everyone running for office does.  Obama's response is also par for the course.

    Feeling down periodically (none / 0) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:03:49 AM EST
    This stuff from you Obama supporters is truly pathetic.

    Obama's stump speech (none / 0) (#203)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    Includes a line about how he has the same message of hope "when we're up, and when we're down." So when he says Hillary "periodically" goes negative "when she's down," he is contrasting the zigs and zags of her campaign's message with the consistency of his.

    Now I DO understand that it was an unfortunate choice of words.  (And incidentally, I said the same thing about Hillary's MLK comment: an unfortunate choice of words that was not meant to denigrate MLK's legacy.) But to seize on it as clear indication of sexism is completely unfair.


    Pathetic (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    I don't see sexism (none / 0) (#6)
    by paulko on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    This is a non-issue.  The poster, it appears, has a hyper-sensitivity to this issue.  Why do Dems keep putting this kind of devisive stuff out there?   Are we taking cues from Fox and MSNBC news?

    hypersensitivity? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:49:07 AM EST
    Yes, to diminishing a woman to the sum parts of a stereotype based on moods and cyclical functions. Have you been under a cave?

    Put it this way: Even BUSH (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    has not said sexist stuff (to my recollection, but others may correct my memory).  Not once, that I recall.  Yet Obama seems to step in quite often.

    That's how bad it is, Obamans.  He looks worse than BUSH in terms of the terms Obama uses, and how many times he does so.  So why would I vote to hear this crap weekly for the next four years, and from a president who sets the . . . what was The Other Obama's term? . . . oh yeh, the "tone" of the discourse in this country.

    I have had a long lifetime of hearing sexist crap.  In addition to Clinton's stands on issues that matter a lot to me, and although we undoubtedly would continue to hear sexist crap aimed at her from the media and others . . . the thought of not having to hear it from on high in the White House is a closer for me.  


    Well since YOU do not see it (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    That must be all there is to it.



    yeah right! and if bill clinton made that (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:14:37 AM EST
    comment about mo it would then be an issue? right!

    He looks terrible in that video too (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    I don't want to play Bill Frist, but I wonder if there's something going on with him.

    hmm... (none / 0) (#30)
    by mike in dc on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:00:23 AM EST
    ...."I understand that Senator Obama, periodically when he's feeling down, launches attacks to try to boost his appeal."

    Not seeing it on a straight up juxtaposition.

    "Periodically" is now a code word, but "inexperienced", "kid", "roll of the dice" etc. are not?

    Mere words cannot express my amazement at the double standard at work here.

    You can see anything you want (none / 0) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    if you squint hard enough.  

    That's the problem.  Some people really want to see it.  

    Ignore the obvious point that Hillary Clinton is now down in the polls and down in delegates and that she is now attacking him.  No, instead look for the sexism.  Because if you can make it about sexism, that gives Hillary the edge.


    Did you ever think (none / 0) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST
    When he was down they kept him from talking to the press. Locked up, now that they think they have an edge they let him out and his true self comes out.

    Yeh, imagine Hillary saying. . . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    "We understand that Senator Obama, occasionally when he's feeling full of testerone, goes balls-out with his attacks to bolster. . . ."

    But that wouldn't bother those here who say he's a brilliant speaker but also doesn't know what he says.


    Doesw not take a squint at all (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    Only someone stepped in sexist rhetoric could miss it.

    Yes, I am calling you a sexist.


    hillary is a politican conducting (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    a campaign. if obama can't stand the heat in the kitchen, then let him get out. attacking? oh my i'll have vapors.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    Being inexperienced is not RACIAL code.

    Being controlled by your feelings "periodically" is sexist code.

    You are really being ridiculous.

    Indeed, your attitude rather disgusts me.


    Being controlled by your feelings.... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    I thought it was us fellas who let the feelings in our d*cks do the thinking, and women were the more nuanced analytical thinkers.

    At least that's what I heard on the boob tube:)

    I'm beginning to think we are as past race and gender as we are gonna get....and that's sad.  We've reached the peak of our enlightment in this regard, how depressing.


    I do not care what you think (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    we are discussing societal sterotypes.

    Your dismissal of these concerns is  malignn acceptance of sexism.

    I'll grant you that your attitude is consistent. You expressed similar attitudes when the outrages about the Clinton surrogate remarks was running full blaze.


    Substitute Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jade Jordan on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    You can substitute Bill Clinton for Hillary and make the exact same statement and it would apply.  Hence it is not a sexist statement.

    No you can't (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    Hence it is a sexist statement.

    I could say (none / 0) (#218)
    by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    that Obama was clean and articulate and ambitious for someone of his race and had such very white teeth and a natural sense of rhythm, and then I could say the same thing about Hillary and it would be true for her too. Hence, it is not a racist statement.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by sef on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:31:41 AM EST
    When the sentenced is deconstructed it could be construed in several different ways. The problem, however, is that by bringing undue attention to the statement (and if you think that BHO is a misogynist this statement changes nothing) is that it pays in to the trap that Hillary is "merely" the "woman  candidate" the same way several weeks ago people claim Obama was painted as "merely" the "black candidate."

    Put another way, the downside to this argument is more than its upside.

    I understand that Senator Clinton (none / 0) (#78)
    by Maddie In Florida on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    periodically when she's feeling down......

    Not only channels MLK and JFK but Hillary too.


    Yeh, it's a version (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    of that ultimate conversation stopper I was taught in management training to seem all concerned but to leave others in a conversation just fuming -- and diminishing their thoughts as just emotional outbursts and refusing to address their points:

    "I understand that you feel that way."


    May I ask (none / 0) (#93)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:43:51 AM EST
    Did your wife see the video solon?  Does she know he said "when she is FEELING down," not just "down" as in the polls.  

    Assuming "periodically" means her period may be a stretch, but he definitely implied that she's too emotional and prone to hysterical outbursts/attacks--and clearly, these are not qualities we look for in a president.  It's pretty clear that's what he meant, no?    

    Dude (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM EST
    You seem to have a true acceptance of sexism.

    You have been revealed to me a bit in the last two threads.

    Salt (none / 0) (#133)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:00:14 AM EST
    thanks for the interesting question.  I'll try to answer it best I can, but must say I was living in DC when she was governor and don't remember too much.  

    I recall that she was pretty unpopular due to a property tax issue (a major issue in these parts), but I'll have to do some research for specifics.  I remember everyone thinking it was a joke that she was chosen as head of the EPA under Bush.  But since she left, she's been pretty out-spoken about how bad Bush is and that she couldn't go along with his environmental policies, especially as Cheney, not she, was writing them (and sorry must add that Obama signed that energy bill Cheney also wrote).  

    So, she's definitely a moderate, pro-choice, maverick kinda Republican, which may help. However, the big issue here (and everywhere) is the economy, and I have to believe helps Clinton if she's the nominee.  I think it may be closer with Obama/McCain, but it's so far down the road that I don't want to make any predictions.    

    Here name is mud.... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    in the tri-state area after declaring the air safe after 9/11, when the air was far from safe.

    I don't think she'd help McCain in Jersey, might hinder him.


    That's not sexist (none / 0) (#151)
    by daveUSA on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    Senator Obama's remark was in no way sexist.  You'll have to do better than that, BTD.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    Here I went and got all worked up. Glad to have such clarity.

    True (none / 0) (#164)
    by tek on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM EST
    He never misspeaks because he walks on water.

    it was sexist. denial is more than (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    just a river in egypt. that is a joke! smile!

    Technical question (none / 0) (#158)
    by sef on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    When comments get out to the 7th or so (for lack of a better term) subcomment all  subcomments that follow don't "branch" off so it is impossible to tell what is responding to what & who is responding to who.   Am I missing something?  Should commentators branch off and start new comments? Could it just be the browser I am using (Firefox 2).

    thanks kdog (none / 0) (#179)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    that's why everyone thought it was a joke/insulting that she got the EPA job--after declaring the air safe after 911.  Thanks for the clarification.

    I know everyone assumes McCain has to pick a women or AA as his running mate, but considering his age,   I think who he chooses is a bigger deal, so I'm curious how that will play itself out.  I thought Colin Powell would be on the short list, but doesn't he need someone with more economic experience?  Sorry, I veered off topic :)

    Rock on.... (none / 0) (#216)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:59:11 AM EST
    I think Colin is done with politics, and I hope he doesn't think colonizing Iraq for 100 years is a good plan.

    I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter who wins....we're f*cked.  Was watching Bill Moyers last night, had this woman on, the author of this new book "The Age of Unreason", if she read this thread she would cry I think.  We've got our eyes so far off the ball it's criminal.  I definitely wanna check that book out...

    Do stereotypes exist?  You bet.  Women are emotional wrecks half the time, men are neanderthals who only think with their d*cks. Anybody with half a brain knows it's all bullsh*t.   I can't understand why we gotta go digging to find bulls*t, know what I'm saying?


    Cornered (none / 0) (#189)
    by 1jane on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM EST
    When a person feels cornered they often lash out.It is remarkable that folks read into a comment so much motive. Clinton's campaign advisors are wrong, wrong and wrong. Too bad.

    What in thw world are you talking about? (none / 0) (#193)
    by BigB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    Clinton campaign advisors?!! Where did that come from? This is about a remark Obama made.

    oh bull! clinton is conducting a campaign! (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    if obama can't handle it, then we need to know right now.

    Bizarre comment (none / 0) (#198)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    All I know (none / 0) (#204)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    We can debate all day about whether the statement "is or isn't" sexist (and of course, I believe it was deliberately sexist).  However, it will be PERCEIVED as sexist for many women.  For us, it's the kind of really INFURIATING (grating teeth) sexism we get from many men.

    It's the kind of perception that would seal Obama's fate for us, if you know what I mean.  It's the kind of statement that WON'T get out the woman vote for Obama.

    Guaranteed Emily's list will use it for fundraising so many women are going to see it....

    Go ahead and W.O.R.M. on it all day, it really, really doesn't matter.  

    It all goes to my belief that this man isn't a good candidate for Democrats.  If he wins the nomination the Democrats would be better off in the long-term letting McCain have this one (with a huge blue Congress) and run a GREAT candidate in 2012.

    Comments are now closed (none / 0) (#206)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST
    There is nothing left worth saying about this.

    Comments are closed (none / 0) (#222)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    Stop. More will be deleted.

    MikeDitto's Comment Is Very Offensive (none / 0) (#223)
    by xjt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    "whenever life wasn't going right, L's who would scream misogyny".--MikeDitto

    I assume the L's in question are lesbians, who according to Mike, scream misogyny whenever "life isn't going right." This comment is so bizarre, arrogant and dismissive that it is no wonder, MikeDitto, that you find Obama's sexist remarks acceptable. In fact there has been quite a bit of sexism in the gay and lesbian community historically. Please read your history of the G & L movement before you pop off as though you are some level-headed know-it-all, the lone voice of reason among the crazy queers.

    Pardon me if I make the assumption that you are a young, white male, for only a member of the elite would be comfortable making such an outrageous and offensive statement in a thread about the topic of overt sexism in this campaign.

    If you do not believe sexism exists in the gay and lesbian movement, MikeDitto, then please visit the blogs of John Aravosis and Andrew Sullivan. You will find plenty of it there.

    Shame on you, as a gay man, for making such ugly, inflammatory statements about your community. You are very silly.


    Comments are closed here (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    and Mike Ditto is a friend. He's the former webmaster for TalkLeft. Please don't insult him, he's entitled to his views.

    Beyond parody (none / 0) (#226)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    There it is, Big Tent. This is the moment. You've jumped the shark. It's over. You've gone beyond parody.