Is It Sexist to Say Clinton "Scolded" Obama?

Isms aren't to be found in words. Some people need to quit reacting and sift better. Isms are found in principles and actions--- both which require a deeper look, a bigger pattern. That's called discernment and a significant number of Americans lack that skill (more proof our educational sysytem has been failing miserably and for some time now).

Here's what is sexism:

1. Swinging the pendulum too far and turning female liberation into male oppression. Example: the book "Why Women Should Rule The World" by Clinton pal Dee Dee Myers. Hillary, Gloria and Erica all belong to the reverse sexism crowd, the "Farrakhans" of feminism, so to speak. Unlike Obama who vigorously denounces Farrakhan, Hillary embraces them.

2. Riding on the coattails of your spouse and implying his work was shared enough to be yours too (that would be a twofer -- sexism and a kind of "blur the lines" plagiarism, lol).

3. Using the gender angle as a legitimate part of a campaign.

4. And the worst for last... defining politics as "a man's world" when it isn't. We (both genders) evolved out of that mindset long ago. Oddly enough Hillary defines it that way so she herself starts with a sexist view. My take is if you are not first liberated in your mind, then all the bodily liberation in the world probably won't help.

She won't see how she uses sexism and spits in the eye of real gender equality until she looks in the mirror. Given her capacity for that, I'm not holding out for it any time soon.

I think "scolded" is not sexist... it captures the parent-like condescension of the statement regardless of the gender from which it emanated. It's not a very appealing approach, and I think Senator Clinton was unwise to go that route.

More damaging to her, in my opinion, was her sarcastic "spoof" of Senator Obama's speaking style in RI the next day. She not only insulted her opponent, but she simultaneously insulted millions of Obama supporters. (And trust me, for better or for worse, a lot of them took her comments VERY personally.)

If she winds up being nominated, she's likely ostracized a vast number of her possible voter base for the general election. VERY bad move on her part!! I suspect she may very well have kissed the general election goodbye with that ill-conceived swipe.

TO HAD ENOUGH IN TEXAS....

NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE SEXIST AND HATE CLINTON. SOME ACTUALLY WANT TO VOTE FOR THE PERSON WHO COULD LEAD THIS COUNTRY. NOT AN AMERICAN IDOL. AS FOR THE PRESS, WELL, SHE HAS TO DO SOMETHING. SOON ALL CABLE NEWS WILL BE CALLED OBAMANEWS NETWORK...

Hillary's campaign is in complete dissary because of Obama's momentum and that you can see in her reactions.
I never knew Hillary is this dirty.
Hillary's failure in the primaries is because the Clinton's felt that since George Bush's Republican has failed America,that they the Clinton's will have a smooth sail to the While House because of President Clinton's high records of Acheivement during his regime.
But do not forget that even though Bill and Hillary are unique couples that does not suggest that their qualities are the same.
You can see from this Texas campaign how Hillary will manage distress if she becomes the president of America.
We all should push sentiments apart American's problem right now is above sentiments .American right is moving towars recession and if the right change is not done it will slip off and that will be a devastating disaster not only to America but to the entire world.
The situation right now requires great solutions and those solutions must come from a change in politics and that implies changing the traders in the American government .Be them Republicans or the Democrats because Right now the attitude of some of the Republican and the Democrats are just the same.The difference is just the Brand.
Really Obama will be the right choice and he is highly qualified for the job of the U.S commander in chief going by his programmes.In Obama you see intellect as well as Charisma.Obama has the critical management qualities to handle and Revives the American sagging Foreign policy which is making America look like enemy to most countries of the world .in Obama you have a rapid transformation and a boost in the American economy .Hillary is not qualified to be commander in chief going by the way she has conducted her self in this Texas campaign.
McCain is not good enough.He belongs to the Old School and the Old School cannot make a change that American deserves at this time of need.

it was a scold. but perhaps repremanded could have been just as effective without triggering a defense mechanism. i suppose thats why we have so many words that mean the same things in the dictionary: so that we can put our own colloquial wists on them.

It amazes me how much attention is being paid to the words rather than the issue.

In my opinion, he deserved exactly what he got.

Obama's campaign sent out a mailer criticizing Hillary's "support" of NAFTA.

1. In that mailer, they quoted her as calling it a "boon".
From ABC News: "Saturday, Clinton took issue with an Obama mailer being distributed in the Buckeye State that included a quote implying that Clinton had described NAFTA as "a boon" to the economy.

The quote actually was from New York Newsday, which had characterized Clinton's views as considering NAFTA a boon though Clinton herself had never made such a remark."

Further, he goes on and on about how bad NAFTA is but
From ABC News: "Appealing to union voters in a dry wall manufacturing plant in this crucial primary state, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sunday afternoon said that even though he has repeatedly said the passage of NAFTA was bad for the country, he would not try to repeal it."

Sounds to me like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth...again!

I wonder how many people who support Obama have read his book "The Audacity of Hope".
In it he says "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them."

Hope those of you that are seeing what you want to see are not too disappointed when he doesn't deliver.

seems this election will certainly be known for revealing how many men and women as well have a hard time with a strong woman. i recall being in a meeting once when the man who was a vice president of a large technical company, and the site manager, told off in no uncertain measure another man who he had a major disagreement with. it was over the phone and he also hung up on the other guy. they were both employees of the same company and both in high positions. later the same day they spoke on the phone and worked through their issues, neither with apologies made. how can we expect an effective woman president to be less tough than a man?

Well, Hillary, American has had ENOUGH OF YOU! How dare you tell us "enough speeches", "enough big rallies". I say "enough" to your so called debates. You want free air time and a chance to make personal attacks.

Your anger and bitterness are unbelievable. This presidency isn't owed to you. You are angry and bitter because America is choosing someone else.

"What do you think? Was "scolding" inappropriate?"

No.

Just because someone says something critical of HRC or O, it does not mean that the individual is a sexist or a racist.

All those who are promoting the PC requirement in public discourse, oughta publish a speech code if you want the rest of us to follow along.

Sure, the scolding was totally inappropriate. Your description of it was fine.

Besides this question, can you do a fact check on their length of policy-making experience? I'm a mom and it took me an hour to compare their legislative record. I'm sorry to say that it was hands down Obama.

Worked with Republican Senator Lugar to secure loose nukes and other weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Worked to pass ethics, transparency, and accountability reforms.

Passed a bill that prescribed US assistance to DRC which included conditions and benchmarks.

The list just goes on and on. The quality of his legislation in the US and Illinois senates was more impressive than his current opponent.

Can you take a look at this?

Obama is a phony progressive and Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain – which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What’s on the table?

Taking these issues seriously – all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we’ve waited so very long – and still – not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

I think Hillary had right to say this words "Shame on you barak obama",will in my case she have the righ to say this words as many womens in this worlds right! Shame on you barak obama.....show must go on Hillary your the best one on this campaign!!!!!!!!!

While I do not think the comment is sexist, I do agree that it would have been a totally different ball-game if Obama was a woman and I must agree with one of the bloggers who said that if that was indeed the case, he would have never made it. What is sad is that the American media is treating HRC, the first woman with a real shot at the US Presidency in such a humiliating way. Not only are they sexist to the extreme but given the compositions of most newsroom, reveal some white guilt. This is wrong and unfair and probably the reason why HRC is being treating in this way. This is not only bad for women development in America only but also for the emancipation of women across the world.

Hillary IS shrill -- and there is an unfortunate portion of he supporters who are even more shrill and whiney than she is.

Her negatives outweigh her positives.

Ex-Clinton supporter

Not sexist at all, especially since it was obviously staged to appear like a mother scolding a child for his "behavior". I thought it was completely transparent. I'd rather you asked if we thought such a press conference was presidential.

I am a Black woman and a feminist. I do not find any erm inherently offensive as long as it is 1)accurate and 2)would be used to describe the behavior of ANY PERSON regardless of race or gender. Therefore, the term scold to describe Hillary's language is not sexist. Anybody, using the phrase "Shame on you!" is scolding somebody. Shrill is generally a sexist term because it is used almost exclusively to describe women. Hillary has increasingly conformed to sexist stereotypes by scolding not only Barack Obama but also voters I was once a Hillary fan, but I find her patronizing - or should I say "matronizing" - attitude towards voters profoundly insulting and her scolding of Barack Obama is age-ist as well as annoying.

I think it's important to watch the term "angry." Not only is it used to describe Black people even when we're whispering or discussing the weather and is not as equally applied to white people, it also has a different and pejorative meaning when applied to people of color or to women as compared to when it is applied to white men. When the term "angry" is used to describe people of color and women of all races the implication is that we are also irrational, militant, and, for African Americans, dangerous. When white men are described as angry, the anger is usually constructed as both masculine and justified. John McCain is widely described as an angry man with a foul temper, but the description has not damaged him the way it would Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I'm surprised to hear that members of the media worry about racist and sexist language. If so, you're all doing a deplorable job. Try harder. And shame on all of you.

No I don’t have a problem with the term scolded. Really, I wonder if she would have rather said something even a little more strong, than “shame on you” – but good sense prevailed. In the debate, Clinton’s passion for the healthcare issue seemed very true and powerful. She insisted that they allow her the time to speak on it further regarding the question of mandates and the differences. Even at one point with him admitting “yes that’s right. That’s right”, I can’t remember it word for word, but it was regarding how his plan also required means to keep parents responsible and people from gaming the system. I believe she has reached the point where she has grown tired of all the pundits and commentators trying to say how she should behave. I am glad to see this. She is who she is and maybe she is not going to please everybody – but, for those who believe she is the most qualified for the job – it’s good to see her start takings these stands.

Shame on you Hillary. Does she a split personality?

What has happened to the freedom of speech. Why are reporters now so concerned that they will loose their job for the words they use to characterize a situation as closely as possible. I sympathize with the MSNBC guy who has been suspended for characterizing the role of Chelsea in the campaigning for Hillary. He went too far and he apologized, then why does the lynching continue. Scolding is the right word even though the scolding itself was not justified and as someone said it was Hillary trying to be dramatic, desperate and determined to try to dissuade Texans and Ohioans from supporting her opponent from clinching the nomination. Talking about words, Hillary still needs to apologize to Americans like me who are terribly offended that she is going to put food on my table. Firstly, Americans earn their own food that is on their table and secondly those who cannot are not asking for handouts but creation of opportunities to earn their wages. Secondly if she is not going to use the bully pulpit to get Americans to take more responsibility for their own health and fight the so called obesity epidemic than they certainly don't need the buttery and sugary cookies (see recipe in It takes a village) that she will put on their tables. Lack of adequate physical activity and overconsumption of fatty,starchy and sugary foods are the major cause of obesity leading to several diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's disease which are straining the health care system of the country. It is a pity that finally "just words" are going to bury the Presidential candidacy of a potentially capable and experienced politician who we were all hoping would make history by being the first woman commander in chief, but having a fiscally irresponsible campaign with large deficits shows all signs that the government she will assume from day 1 will be a sloppy, mismanaged and a poorly planned one. I mean the words that she stole from Bill and Edwards while accusing her opponent of plagiarism and lecturing him on how she should be using his own words. If a leader does not lead by example then it is time to exit gracefully and wait for a better day.