I think this statement would be relatively easy to make without sexist intent. That does not, however, change the fact that the framework of the thing -- the catty, catfight, claws, hissy-fit thing -- is sexist, and it's something he'd best be very, very careful not to touch.

To be honest, I'm less offended by his statement than I am by some of the arguments with which some supporters have tried to deflect criticism of it. As usual for me, I guess, I have a complicated opinion on the original slight, but watching some people defend it when it gets brought up is always about as disappointing and frustrating as can be.

The "progressive" bogs aren't much better; they, too, often characterize benign events the same way the MSNBC fraternity does.  I'm not too sure I understand what is progressive about supporting one's candidate by maligning another in personal terms.  I'm not too sure I understand what is progressive about spotlighting one -ism while dismissing another.  Surely we can pay attention to both?  Surely we can analyze each instance and draw conclusions that aren't reached based on which candidate we happen to support?  Surely there are some things which go beyond partisanship and can be accurately described for what they are, accurately judged for what they mean, without first being filtered through personal prisms.

Anyway, for those interested there have been a number of interesting posts at Shakesville on sexism in the campaign the last few days, particularly how the media use sexism to dampen women's vocal support of Clinton.  Here are some links:

Today's post on the latest sexist attacks, including a discussion of the Obama claws quote, which they put in context with other problematic statements from the Obama campaign.

One woman's decision to "come out" for Hillary, I particularly love this quote (with slightly cleaned up language for posting here):

Fortunately, I'm just spiteful and petulant enough that every time someone says, "I'm totally not sexist -- I just don't want to vote for her because she's got such an inflated sense of entitlement, and she's so ambitious, and I don't like her husband, and I don't like that she tries so hard not to look 'soft,' and none of that has anything to do with her being a woman," I feel compelled to put up another blog post saying, "I VOTED FOR CLINTON IN PART BECAUSE I AM SICK OF SEXISM BEING SUCH A NORMAL PART OF OUR CULTURE THAT PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN CONNECT THE F@$%ING DOTS THERE."

Hillary's stealth vote, how women are afraid their support will be used against her.  Noting that the media use both women's support and their non-support against Clinton.

And a post by Melissa McEwan that tries to answer a question posed by Tom Watson about why more of Hillary's supporters don't actively organize to help her.  Sample quote:

Every time she mentions being a woman, mentions being a mother, mentions being a daughter, mentions being a wife, or even makes any oblique reference to running a historical campaign or being the first woman to do something (like win a presidential primary), she is accused of playing the gender card. She is diminished, ridiculed, criticized, and dismissed using dog whistles, slurs, graphics, and bluntly misogynist commentary. When her womanness is the weapon most used against her, is it any wonder that women who support her may be hesitant to scream it from the rooftops, reluctant to stand behind her in large numbers, lest we undermine her? When womanness is hated, it will inevitably make women feel like a liability.

Quite frankly, I think the reason there are a number of people that don't think this is sexist is because they feel the "claws" comment is an accurate description of Hillary fighting back.  I'm not saying this is right - I'm just saying I think this is why many are disagreeing with BTD.  But again, this makes BTD's point.  It's not outright sexism per se - It's the kind of sexism that says  a man is tough and a woman is a B**.  Or that when a woman who is bringing the lions share of the money into a household she's "wearing the pants". Or the kind of sexism that questions why a single 40 year old career oriented woman chose not to "settle down" yet gushes admiringly over a man in the same situation about how he's so free and independent.

"She has ceiling issues, and the people who aren't for her we think are very available to us," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Tuesday.

The term "manufactured outrage" does come to mind...

I suppose you could be offended by the Obama comment, but I sincerely doubt that he intended it to be sexist.  I've heard the phrase before and never considered it gender-specific.  

But we mustn't forget the endemic societal (some might even say biologically innate) sexism that simply makes it difficult to imagine a woman as national leader.  You mostly hear this in what's not said about women candidates.  Male candidates "look Presidential".  They are "forceful" or "resolute".  These are not generally words that are applied to women.

I believe (I don't like, but I do believe) in an "alpha-male" theory of politics, especially on the Presidential level in which there is a sub-conscious appeal of certain types of males across most segments of the population.

I hate those bastards.

I guess what we need is a society in which both genders are treated exactly the same.  That would be great.    No more of those silly gender roles that we have defined for each other.  Man/woman.  Father/Mother.  

But of course let us not criticize the countless throng of women who are voting for Hillary SOLELY because she is a woman.  Nothing wrong with that, right?  

Honestly, I've had to listen to feminist diatribes for decades about how a candidate's gender should not even be considered, only the issues - and now find that most feminists are willing to completely ignore the issues in order to vote for a candidate with a vagina.

Another thing, for years we've had to endure the Republicans claiming that anyone who disapproved of Bush was an "irrational Bush-hater," but now Hillary is using the very same tactic: so why should I believe she would be any different from him? I've seen absolutely no evidence for that during her Senate term.

It is no secret that I'm very worried about the effect on the final nominee and the GE. Sen Obama has a big task ahead of him should he get the nomination.

South Carolina has two and a half times the national norm of AA in its population.  Every campaign there, and certainly Obama's, and certainly the media, had that in mind.  (I read that it also affected the DNC decision as to where to hold early primaries and caucuses, similar to Nevada for Latinos/as.)

We cannot even imagine a comparate state for women, since we are 52 percent of the population -- so we would have to have a state that is almost 130% women!  But . . . if there was a state that had, say, even half that with 65% women, it would be evident in everything said by every candidate, campaign, and media outlet. If a candidate ignored that, that candidate would not want or know how to win.

This thread is a perfect example of why people like me have LEFT the Democratic Party, and want nothing more to do with any of you.

From CommonDreams:

"Her [Clinton's] most influential [foreign policy] advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke, who prior to the invasion of Iraq insisted that that country posed "a clear and present danger at all times," insisted that Bush had "ample justification" to invade Iraq, and has written that those who protested against the war and foreign governments which opposed the invasion "undoubtedly encouraged" Saddam Hussein. Holbrooke has been severely criticized for his role as Carter's assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines and supporting Suharto's repression in East Timor, as well as his culpability in the Kwangju massacre in South Korea."

Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos and, yes, even Iraqis come in sexes. Given the way our air force targets its bombs, it is just as likely that a brown woman as a brown man will get killed by our ordinance. When Gloria Steinem was both publishing MS. and walking around on the arm of Henry Kissinger his death squad minions were killing both men and women. Raping women too. Someone explain to me why Clinton keeps Holbrooke around. To know what NOT to do?

Obama saved most of his criticisms for Bush, but he seemed to have Clinton in his sights when he said, "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."

At one point in my long feminist existence -- and certainly at any point in my 10-year Defending Clintons Against Right-Wing Mad Dogs history -- I, too, would have knee-jerk assumed that mention of CLAWS coming out must herald cat fight and sexism.

On this one, I think not. Cuz I think Obama was referring to Bill's talons, not Hillary's.

Obama's only mistake was not hammering the point harder. I've been taking a brutal look under the klieg lights at all my mindless acceptance for 16 years of the Clinton Duo who really care about Americans. But when I separate the Clintons' actual walk from the Clintons' talk, I get a severe case of cognitive dissonance nausea.

So, back to the Clinton claws remark, take a look at Bill's manicure. Because what Bill Clinton's nail scratching on the public blackboard trumpeted was: If Obama dares to bring up class issues (what got Edwards deep-sixed by corporate USA), Bill Clinton will eject talons and do the race dog whistle thing.

I notice as this campaign has proceeded and we've done better than people expected and you know when you do well suddenly folks start coming after you. They like you when you're down twenty points but when you start actually challenging the status quo then suddenly the claws come out.

Unless Hillary never considered him a serious opponent it doesn't make much sense. The speech is a wonderful speech by the way, inspiring and substantive in outlining his vision of how government should be working with people as a partner and not an opponent, for the common good. It's a shame that you've chosen only to highlight this one phrase and so misleadingly at that.

The video of the full speech is here, the transcript of the formal speech (but not the concluding remarks that contained the phrase in question) is here.

The clear reference of the phrase is to all who oppose his presidency, every Establishment-supporting pundit in the media, every political hack in DC and in the party hierarchy.

They would be out in force were racist comments being made about Obama.

Yet they are silent.

I'm so dissapointed and angry at Dean et al whose silence speaks volumes.

And I have recieved e-mails to send them money now that McCain appears to be the niminee.

THEY WANT ME TO SEND MONEY?