Political Punch

Black Men and White men have always sold women down the river for their own personal gains of power. Obama is no different. And sadly woman sell themselves down the river to gain their power indirectly through men still to this day. Oprah is a great example of that. She could of endorsed neither candidate and given both Hillary and Obama sizable donations. People would of understood this. Instead she chose her Father's race over her Mothers gender. Sad, sad, sad indeed.

What of Obama's white hating church? Or the fact in his own history his black daddy fled his responsibility's but yet he tried to cast off his white heritage or does such a thing exist without it being called racist? I am certainly proud of being white yet I have no views of superiority because of it

obama's words are no more sexist than her aide's comments about obama's "shuck and jive talk" is racist

Absolutely, Obama is using sexist language to identify his misogyny.

He's a real chip off the old Clarence Thomas block.

I am so glad that Obama is finally being scrutinized for his language and his behavior because he certainly has not been sufficiently scrutinized for his lack of experience or policy knowledge. An examination of his behavior is long overdue. He has done nothing but criticize Senator Clinton, and yes that is what opponents do, but whenever she has tried to rebut his remarks or point out his obvious short comings, which is also what opponents do, he criticizes her for that too, which I find incredibly sexist. He treats her like she is supposed to fit into a "nice" girl persona and when she doesn't then he bashes her with comments like "claws" and his comments about her being "down" and "periodically" trying to lash out at him are extremely pompous and negative language. The use of the term "claws" is clearly a reference to a female stereotype of being "catty." Obama should be ashamed of himself, and once again, I say he is a hypocrite. Now, I say he is a sexist hypocrite.

He and his campaign are sexist in other way. He has painted Senator Clinton as an insider because she has so much experience in Washington. Well, if she hadn't, she would not be given a second glance as women seeking the Presidency. Obama's ability to be where he is, is nothing other than the direct bi-product of her potential candacy. He never would have stood a chance if he had been up against a panel of potential nominees with as much experience as Hillary Clinton. Further, he won't stand a chance against someone with as much experience as McCain.

If she had made a racist comment, it wouldn't even be up for discussion, the media would be slamming him. I expect equal treatment.

He is manipulating people and not for the greater good of our country.

The media needs to be careful that it does not invent prejudices for people.

It is natural for two combatants to respond to each other in honest ways. Obama is responding to Hillary as she is. I think that anyone can isolate words and make them sound like they are saying what one wants to hear. If one wants to spin the idea that Obama is sexist then one can isolate the words as you have done and ask about them.

Hillary, cried on TV. Some people asked if she was using her feminine characteristics to manipulate.

How far do we take the analysis?

You know, I noticed that even though Obama is half white and half black, every media announcement I have listened to or have read has described him as a black man. Is the media playing a race game?

How far do we take the analysis of language?

Sen. Clinton is a very confident and strong woman. Sen. Obama is a dynamic and strong man. We are lucky to ahve them both. Should we focus on the issues? Or perhaps the media would like to run simulations on what language any other male politician on the Democrat or Republican side would have instead used in facing Hillary? That way you could nail him!

Andrea Mitchell on Hardball: Clinton "hanging on by her fingernails." Sexist remark or just a colloquialism? Good thing it wasn't someone from the Obama campaign...

The Clinton campaign didn't have a healthcare plan before it felled and they don't have one now. Well to be honest, if everyone is a goverment employee, then the Clinton healthcare plan will work for everyone. Unfortunately some are self employed, independent contractors or work for private employors or small business. Under the Clinton healthcare plan these people would be penalized if they don't pay for their healthcare. This means that most of your family members and friends will have their paychecks garnished. We all know that it doesn't stop there if it is a goverment enforcement. There will be fines and then misdemeanors which is a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Why did Ms. Clinton decide on this approach? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Big business, big Corporation call it what you will, they want their money back and in order for Ms. Clinton to get their support in her race to presidency she is giving victory to one side (the healthcare providers) by promising to them that she will have the poeople wages garnished if they continue to give healthcare. Thus allowing her to shout the words "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" This is a shady tactic and makes fools out of every american that falls for this trick. The Obama healthcare plan is for the people. Poor people, middle class and rich people can rest assured that there is no tricks or penalties in the Obama healthcare plan. VOTE OBAMA

Obama is condescending and he has been sexist. It is obvious but the press has helped him. We cant tlak about race but the heck with progress for women.

It is very frustrating.

This is utterly ridiculous, and I can't even believe that this article could pass as "journalism". Those statements clearly weren't sexist. Period. And when the shoe is on the other foot, Hillary doesn't seem to mind. Let's take a stroll through the Hillary merchandise bin:

"Got experience?" t-shirts...clearly belittling.
"Hillary Cares" t-shirts...Only women actually CARE, what sexist man designed that shirt?
even an,
"I'm your girl" button. If Obama ever said, "If you want mandated healthcare, she's your girl", immediately people would begin to cry wolf and call him sexist. Give me a break. Focus on the issues and who can actually win against McCain, not, who used the word "claws" or "periodically". SERIOUSLY!!! ARE YOU KIDDING!?!?

Condescending? Yes. Sexist? No. It's not at all sex-specific, and could equally be applied to any political opponent. Getting on him about "periodically" is just silly. What's next, anagrams? This is belittling identity politics at its worst. And the Clintons know how to play this game, if nothing else. To those complaining of a double standard with regard to the lead-up to the South Carolina primary, I humbly suggest you take a second look at the record. Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson. Not John Edwards, who won the primary 4 years earlier and went on to lose the nomination. Not anyone else over the past 20 years. He reached back for the last black candidate. The implication was clear and required minimal interpretation: he won because he's black, so it doesn't matter. That's how you play the race card. Obama's remarks? They require mental somersaults to get to a place where anything about gender is even implied. The two are, obviously, not in any way equivalent.

It's not lost on me how quick we were to assign racial overtones to Bill Clinton's remark in SC, yet we let Obama's sexist statements slide on by. As a southern woman, I firmly believe that the white male (Southern, at least) is prepared to vote for a black man to show how enlightened and "unpredjudiced" he is. Yet as far as a woman goes, "I ain't lettin no woman tell me what to do" mentality is pervasive!

Wow, all kinds of bells and sirens went off in my head when I read that quote in the paper. "Barry" Obama (yes, that is what he was called most of his life) is trying to tap into sexual prejudice without owning it, yes, code talk; I wonder how Oprah feels about that - a little down, maybe? She probably gets irrational when she's depressed over her period. This guy is calculating, and I really don't see that he has accomplished anything in his short stay in the Senate. Further, his getting there was pure luck: two of his major opponents self-destructed in personal scandals, so it was a skate. Actually, between growing up in Hawaii as the only child of two well-heeled professionals, going to private schools, then Harvard, I mean, has this guy ever SUFFERED?

To be fair, I'm a mixed race (black-white) guy like Obama but I haven't detected in either Hillary or Bill's statements coded racism or anything like that. At the very worst they were being patronizing and a little insensitive. But that can be an unconscious thing. Considering how much excellent work this couple, and Bil in particular, have done for black people in America and elsewhere, I don't believe they would consciously have intended to belittle Obama on teh basis that he is black via coded messages or otherwise. In fact the same goes for George Bush, whose unswerving help for the African and African American people during his term of office I have nothing but the greatest admiration for.

It's a storm in a teacup. I don't regard such statements as sexist. It has to be placed against the backdrop of the very cutting and unreasonable tone that Clinton has been taking of late, but in no way shape or form did it come across as an insult to her womanhood or anything like that. Those who might have reacted that way are being way too oversensitive, or else they're playing the gender card against him only because he's a man.

This story should be getting more media attention. Instead Obama is getti Of course Obama was trying to be subtle--he knows better than to be overtly sexist. It is this subtle and insidious sexism that continues to plague women in the 21st century. Challenge: Can anyone find a presidential candidate who ever used the expression (about their male opponent)..."the claws come out"? And, the use of "periodically" had to be calculated--there was no other reason to use the word and it is not a word that "flows" naturally in the context of his statement.

Signed,
Another Hysterical Woman

Utterly ridiculous - sorry, I'm a woman (liberal, independent, even consider myself something of a feminist) and I just don't see it.

People who try to read this level of insinuation into ordinary words are either (a) trying to create controversy for their own ends (ratings desperation, anyone?) or (b) weighed down by very low self esteem and looking for some way to blame it on others.

This looks like a stretch to me. After reading the single quote as well, I don't think he's raising the sex card. It would be stupid for him too, no matter how coded. He doesn't look like he wants to pull a Clayton Williams (see Tx Gov. race '90). This is likely only news since no one shot a baby in a school after work at the post office on the way to church that day.

Is this for real? Tell ya what...go to your local zoo,find the lions,find a male lion, and start pissing him off. Fairly soon you will find that you have MALE CLAWS stuck in your torso.
I'm not sure where the idea that claws=female came from, but it needs to go back.
Always ask:who benefits? Now, who would benefit more from this whole tempest in a teapot-Obama or Clinton? Can Obama afford to drive away female voters with this alleged sexist language,or would Clinton gain from female voters leaving the Goodship Obama because of the alleged "code words"?

You have GOT to be kidding. This is a joke, right?

Wait a second. Code words work both ways. It's true that Obama's words play into HRC's moody swings. But her words play into racial stereotypes too although VERY well coded. She (and Bill) always refer to his words as "cheap" and she says she will WORK for change and really emphasizes work. Does this mean O will NOT work for change but just talk about it? Obviously not, but the Clinton code is about race, that is, it says "Lazy (Black) Man Who Talks a Good Game Ain't Gonna Get Nothin' Done" and quite frankly it's offensive.

I'm not sure if he's it's sexist, but it's certainly condescending. It's not an anomaly, either; I've noticed many such comments by him that have been arrogant and dismissive and quite harsh. When I heard him talk about Hillary being "down," I thought, what a jerk. It was one more reminder why I don't like him, and why I'm baffled that his sometimes prickly personality hasn't turned people off, especially the press. (But then G W Bush was similarly snotty, and you guys lapped it up.)

Though I'm hardly a Mitt Romney fan, I heard a similar tone in comments Obama made about him not long before Rommney dropped out of the Republican race. (Something like "statements like those are why he's been such an ineffective candidate.") He also got in a very unsubtle shot at McCain, praising -- backhandedly -- his "50 years of service to this county." So, I guess you can add "ageism" to his list of verbal sins.

I can't understand why his cockiness and frequent disdain for other candidates has never been discussed. But then, there are a lot of things about Obama that haven't been discussed.

Here's one: how Obama and his campaign quietly fueled the whole Clinton-race-baiting firestorm, which, true or not (and I think not) has been the single greatest reason Hillary's losing right now.

But if her campaign should try to highlight his remarks, it will be "just the same old Washington politics."

I tell you, the guy is good.

I'm not sure if it's sexist, but it's certainly condescending. It's not an anomaly, either; I've noticed many such comments by him that are arrogant and dismissive and quite harsh. When I heard him talk about Hillary being "down," I thought, what a jerk. It was one more reminder why I don't like him, and why I'm baffled that his sometimes prickly personality hasn't turned people off, especially the press. (But then G W Bush was similarly snotty, and you guys lapped it up.)

Though I'm hardly a Mitt Romney fan, I heard a similar tone in comments Obama made about him not long before Rommney dropped out of the Republican race. (Something like "statements like those are why he's been such an ineffective candidate.") He also got in a very unsubtle shot at McCain, praising -- backhandedly -- his "50 years of service to this county." So, I guess you can add "ageism" to his list of verbal sins.

I can't understand why his cockiness and frequent disdain for other candidates has never been discussed. ("Yeah, she's likeable enough.") But then, there are a lot of things about Obama that haven't been discussed.

Here's one: how Obama and his campaign quietly fueled the whole Clinton-race-baiting firestorm, which, true or not (and I think not) has been the single greatest reason Hillary's losing right now.

But if her campaign should try to highlight his remarks, it will be "just the same old Washington politics."

I tell you, the guy is good.

I agree: He wouldn't have used those words and phrases against a male candidate. Thank you for blogging about this. Very perceptive.

Matt, those very same words are stated in every single election.

Women, black, brown or white recognize the "Obama" type. He is the smiling guy in the wingtips who gets hired into the company and thinks he has all the answers. He smiles and talks nice and then the woman trains him to take over her job (usually for more $$) or he becomes her boss although he knows little or nothing about the operation. Borack Hussain Obama uses "code" words to belittle Senator Clinton.

Mr. Addison: What if she replied ... "Well, it's unfortunate that instead of trying to overcome these losses, Senator Obama is just sort of shuffling along, lobbing negative attacks from the porch instead of working hard and offering solutions."

She said almost exactly that last night:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17obama.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=1e8e436b9a3effb5&ex=1360904400&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1203297092-nhxzHQwNbwq+ScwxptTBFw

"Mrs. Clinton ... spent days criticizing her rival while campaigning in Ohio, where the primary is March 4. In city after city, she warned voters about politicians who offered oratory steeped with big promises but ultimately did not deliver.

'Speeches don’t put food on the table,' said Mrs. Clinton, of New York. 'Speeches don’t fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night.'

The long-distance message — 'My opponent gives speeches; I offer solutions' — clearly was heard here in Wisconsin."

No need to depend on an imagination for that.

We now present to you. The next President of the United States of America.

Hillary Clinton!

Americans are tired of being deceived and manipulated by these Bush-Clinton politics. It's time to restore honesty and integrity to the White House.

"Feeling down"?

"PERIODICALLY"???

Get real, people. Just as there are "code words" for different minorities and ethnic backgrounds, there are code words for gender.

I had my wife (who voted for Obama, by the way) read a straight-news report of these comments on CBSNews.com (sorry Jake, had to get her unfiltered view).

She was, in a word, furious. I'm not a woman, but I take her at her word.

Obama Supporters, think for a second. Imagine the roles were reversed. Clinton was up slightly in the polls, having surged ahead due to a string of victories. Obama runs a negative ad and when asked for her reaction she replies, "Well, it's unfortunate that instead of trying to overcome these losses, Senator Obama is just sort of shuffling along, lobbing negative attacks from the porch instead of working hard and offering solutions."

Are you telling me the Obama staff wouldn't flip? You telling me the mostly-pro-Obama media wouldn't go ballistic on Clinton?

FROM MB: "Yes, Obama is a skilled orator and he knows exactly what he is saying and what idea he is planting. I honestly don't think he likes Hillary and it shows in his belittling comments - 'you're nice enough'."

For the 12 months before this debate, Hillary, Obama, and the other Democratic candidates have been battling through 15 debates--and he'd been listening to her campaign belittle his qualifications and make a not very subtle implication that he shouldn't be challenging them. In his shoes, I'd have trouble agreeing that she was being "nice" either

FROM MB: "Now if she says anything he shoots it down making her seem emotional, silly or not as qualified as he is. Seriously, how many times does this happen to women at work with men?"

And how many times does this happen at work between men and men and between women and women?

At least in my dozen or so years at work, I've heard at least twice as many women making those types of comments than men. And how frequently has Hillary said that she'd be "Ready on Day One [while] some of are not?"--is this not an effort to make Obama look silly?

If he was a man, yes, instead of saying "claws," the more common term is "fangs"--but the implication is the same. Since a vampire is often portrayed a man, an opposing male candidate is described as bearing his "fangs" when he's challenged. Just as women are rarely referred to as "he" or "him" in normal English, a gender-appropriate description should not be read as necessarily sexist. The Clinton campaign is certainly not holding back with its language or its willingness to use common political put-downs.

Would you have noted the same language if it was used between male candidates? This type of language and these types of comments has been used between male candidates (and especially male presidential candidates) for generations.

FROM MB: "I was thinking the other day when I read about a brutal rape crime that is would be a real shame if Hillary were not elected and women's rights issues continued to be on the back burner. There are serious issues for women around the world - horrible injustices - and having a female leader of the strongest nation on Earth would send a loud and clear message."

Rape is a brutal and unforgivable crime. PERIOD.

The injustices suffered by women around the world are unconscionable and deserve attention. PERIOD.

However, it's debatable whether a President Hillary Clinton would be a greater positive for women or women's rights than a President Obama.

Michelle Obama is clearly a very poised, very successful, very professional, and very influential woman--I'm certain he'll be sleeping on an Oval Office couch if he doesn't approach women's issues respectfully.

If a President Clinton II continued to fight the GOP to a stalemate and continued to allow important issues to fail due to partisan stubbornness and an inability to compromise and if partisan hatred is exacerbated by the election and if the administration is unduly swayed by the influence of a very powerful First Spouse and if Washington continued to be influenced largely by those with interest in the status quo rather than by a larger public interest--the presumption that Hillary would necessary address women's issues more successfully should not be a given.

I think some people need to put the tinfoil hats away.

Sorry, but I think this is nonsense.

I remember the Clinton campaign saying that Obama was "frustrated" after the loss in NH. It was a bit obnoxious, but certainly not charged in a racist or sexist way, and neither were Obama's comments.

Yes, Obama is a skilled orator and he knows exactly what he is saying and what idea he is planting. I honestly don't think he likes Hillary and it shows in his belittling comments - "you're nice enough". Now if she says anything he shoots it down making her seem emotional, silly or not as qualified as he is. Seriously, how many times does this happen to women at work with men? I was thinking the other day when I read about a brutal rape crime that is would be a real shame if Hillary were not elected and women's rights issues continued to be on the back burner. There are serious issues for women around the world - horrible injustices - and having a female leader of the strongest nation on Earth would send a loud and clear message. If she is not elected, any world traveler knows, you just know in the pit of your stomach, that someone on some train or subway is going to say to you, "America was not for a woman president." It makes me sick. For all these reasons, I support Hillary.

The fact that professional women like Andre Mitchell and Nora O'Donnell had such a conversation is an embarrassment. As a woman, I find it extremely depressing that some women want to cry sexism anytime something uncomplimentary is uttered about Senator Clinton. This is not an accurate representation of the situation and quite frankly, it does more harm than good.

Chemistry must be sexist too, then... "Periodic" Table of Elements?!? --CHAUVINISM!!

I am not surprised that Obama is playing this card. He is desperate to keep those distracted from the issues. He has a cult following of people that cannot think for themselves. They "feel good" about him but can say very little more. I prefer a resume over a "feeling." He is being funded by corporate lawyers now who surround him. It will be interesting when the Republicans get to him if he actually gets a chance. I will never vote for Obama. I don't trust him.

Obama is using sexist language. No doubt. He wants to win, and he thinks that crapping on dames is the way to do it!

In the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, Wisconsin voters are blessed with two candidates who are smart, energetic and forward-looking. Nonetheless, the state's residents have to decide who will be the most qualified starting on the first day in the Oval Office. My choice is Hillary Clinton.

I have had the good fortune to observe Clinton's career while living in New York. Up close, she is an unusually tough and savvy as well as charming political figure. While not as visible as Mayor Rudy Giuliani on 9/11, she showed great mastery in the difficult days after the attacks in helping to bring about the physical and emotional recovery of New York City and gaining federal assistance for ground zero workers exposed to toxic air.

As important, in her eight years in the Senate, she has compiled a strong liberal voting record in the tradition of Wisconsin's great Sens. Bob La Follette and Gaylord Nelson. While she has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994), she has turned her reversals into legislative prowess on Capitol Hill.

Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to pre-emptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. Today she is trying to prevent the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq by requiring prior congressional approval for any such outposts.

Of extraordinary importance, she has taken the lead on the most important economic crisis to face our country in decades. She was among the first of the Democratic contenders to propose a bold economic recovery program designed to rescue the nation from recession. Over a month ago, Clinton advocated for $70 billion in emergency spending and a backup of a $40 billion tax rebate should economic conditions worsen. Hers is a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America -- namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages, those in need of home heating aid, and people who require extended jobless benefits.

Her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, belatedly came out with his own plan, which seemingly lifts most of his ideas straight out of Clinton's proposal.

On a more specific level, Clinton's recommendations on helping Americans caught in the subprime mortgage mess are far-reaching. She has called for a moratorium on foreclosures, a freezing of interest rates, the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and augmented regulation of the financial industry.

Obama has come up with an alternative plan, which, by contrast, does none of these things but tinkers around the edges. He backs a bill against mortgage fraud, supports an average $500 tax credit for homeowners, and endorses additional funding for a limited class of homeowners. His is a tepid response to an enormous tragedy.

In many ways, Clinton is to the left of Obama. She has outlined a program of universal health insurance -- meaning that every person in America would be covered. By contrast, his plan is more restrictive and would leave millions of people uncovered.

Lastly, Clinton is a fighter for change. Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a mediator. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be Swift-boated into oblivion.

There is a huge difference between saying someone is "clawing their way to the top" and "the claws come out." The first could be applied to any gender but the second is a reference to strictly women. Anyone who would say otherwise is not being honest. I do think it is just an attempt to stir the pot by the media the same way they tried to stir things up by saying Bill made racial comments.

If the Hillary people and feminists are going to get upset about this, how is the campaign going to withstand McCain?

I think Obama has been a gentleman to hold back in listing ALL of the scandals about the Clintons, but McCain won't.

If this is all you can dig up on Obama, then he must be pretty clean. I am not offended, and I am a woman.

Clinton does offend me, however. I want a woman president some day, but if she wins and does the kind of manipulating and dividing she has in the past, no one will be receptive when an HONEST woman runs for the office.

This sounds like junior high girls whining about nothing. Get over it and look at the important issues.

By the way, I am a woman and if a man has his hands full, I open the door for him. It is just courtesy. Period. Oops--did I say an offensive word? I meant the punctuation that comes at the end of the sentence.

There's no doubt Obama's being patronizing, whether it's intentional or not. It's unfortunate that in this campaign the sensitivities are turned up high on issues of race and not on issues of gender. It appears to be a tactic, unfortunately. Former President Clinton's comments preceding South Carolina were interpreted as racist, even if that was not his intention, and much of the campaign turned on that. But Obama says things like, "You're nice enough, Hillary," and the other examples above in the article, often enough that it's troublesome. I have to believe he's being completely dismissive of her and trying to appeal to a segment of the electorate that would respond to that tactic. I find it patently offensive. It will be a glorious day in this country when we are truly colorblind and genderblind in campaigns; unfortunately, that day has not yet come, and after this election, we may be even more divided than before. If Obama is a uniter and not a divider, he'll have to address that.

Of course he is ,, those who have the ear muffs on,, dont want to hear that he is,, but smart woman are picking it up and for those who say big media backs Clinton what a joke you hear more newsman saying shes grasping at straws and Obama is a must, what ever ,, its about time someone ask those questions im tired of hearing how and what a great man he is well i was taught were theres great men, there are skeletons in his closet,those put on a pedistal usually does haves something to keep underwrapps,,,,, but hey im only a voter,, but in due time someone will discover what he is truly made of,,Hes just too good to be true,, so theres something but hey eventually the stars will fall ,, and then it will click in the minds of all Americans, and as good Americans we will just deal with it,,,,,,

Since when is gender discrimination not a 'real issue'??

This is so dumb. Why is this an issue. Abc must need ratings! Is it possible that the news media have nothing else to talk about? Can they talk about REAL ISSUES?

Wow, so Obama is switching from inspiring rhetoric to attacking another candidate instead of highlighting his own plans and "dreams" for the country.

Sounds like the same old politics of Washington. Attack. Attack. Something Obama has clearly said he is not about.

With front-runner status comes more scrutiny. With Obama leading by a mere 25 delegates and losing in polls in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania; large states that are essential for Democrats to win in order to take back the White House, his rhetoric and plans have fallen apart. He has sent mailers that are lies about Clinton's NAFTA position to thousands of households in Ohio. Attempts to mislead in order to distort a position to gain votes. That is more similar to George W Bush's tactic to enter war. Mislead with facts in order to gain support.

I have yet to hear any question addressed to Obama about an earmark to his wife's employer for $5 million dollars. An unncessary tax payer expense since the same hospital that employee Michelle Obama made an annual profit of $100 million dollars. Since when does the new politics of "change" involve financial favors for a candidates wife? Since that same favor resulted in a raise to Michelle Obama's annual salary?

Just seeing and hearing "the same old politics of Washington". The more Obama speaks out against others his own failings are further exposed.

Shame. Shame.

Sexist attacks by Obama. More of the same. No new direction. What a fraud !

I believe that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should issue a joint statement apologizing for any racist and/or sexist comments that either they or their supporters have made so far, and at the same time calling upon their supporters and on the general public to eliminate both the words and the spirit of discrimination from the campaign for President, during the primaries and also AFTER.

We're all pretty much descendants of immigrants, including the Native Americans, who came across the land bridge from Asia...

You might want to check the Constitution - you have to be born in the US to run for president...

OBAMA sounds like the US is the worst nation on earth. To him every thing must change.

I wish to remind him that this is the greatest country on earth and a beacon of hope for all mankind. That is why his Muslim father migrated from his failed country called Kenya and came to the US.

There is nothing wrong with our nation that needs an immigrate son from a third world to fix

Please fellow americans sit up and do not let sweet talk lead you into making a mistake you will never have the chance to correct.

For the record:

A comment Obama made at Tulane University here before announcing the matchups suggested he expected a fight. "They like you when you are 20 points down, but when you start actually challenging the status quo, then the claws come out," he said.

Let's try this one again:

If any of you are such a feminists that you put your candidate's fate above the success of the Democratic party, then I say you need to look at yourself closely to determine if you are a democrat because you believe in what the party stands for or if you are a democrat because you idealize one particular member of the party. If the fact is that you will not support the party because your candidate loses, I suspect you really don't care as much about the nation as you may claim. If you can so easily transfer loyalties to the Republican machine and support the war-mongerers, the torturers, the folks who destroyed the economy, took away our civil liberties, and continue to grow rich while the rest of us grow poor, then what does that say about the depths of you democratic party support?

The fact is that this nomination is going to be determined by the people who vote; Hillary still has a good chance of pulling it out if she can convince the electorate to trust her and support her. But if she can't, then those of you who can't swallow hard and do what is right for America will help the Republicans remain in power for the next four years--and help America stay in a war zone for the next 100 years and help the economy continue its downward slide.

No matter who our candidate is, it seems to me that a Democrat in the WH is still a better way to go that another Republican, and those among us who cling to a single candidate--whichever one that may be--to the extent they help the 'other team' win are putting personality above politics.

It is clearly sexism. He would not use that phrase had it been McCain.
So now we can add sexist as well as racist to his resume. What a Bozo this guy really is... and so proAfrica, he is also almost antiAmerican. And he wants to be the American President?

I am a 53 year old woman and practicing attorney with three children. I am conscoius of sexism and confront it when I see it. But ladies, this one goes too far. Are you saying that use of the word "periodically" references Hillary's menstrual cycle? Come on now. You are stretching this a bit far. It make us look ridiculous. By the way, the press reported that Hillary was feeling down after her last defeats and she did come back with a negative ad campaign.

I am a 53 year old woman and practicing attorney with three children. I am conscoius of sexism and confront it when I see it. But ladies, this one goes too far. Are you saying that use of the word "periodically" references Hillary's menstrual cycle? Come on now. You are stretching this a bit far. It make us look ridiculous. By the way, the press reported that Hillary was feeling down after her last defeats and she did come back with a negative ad campaign.

I can't believe this is an issue.

No one called him out when he helped her up the stairs to the platform on the CNN debates.

No one called him out when he pulled out her chair for her - before the debates in Los Angeles.

He is a perfect Gentleman!

AND - SHE DOES HAVE CLAWS.

She wants to fight it out in a traditionally MANS WORLD. But now she wants to complain - caused they said "claws".

To solve the mess that the Bush Administration has left....SHE BETTER HAVE CLAWS and SOME BIG BALLS to GO WITH THEM. WHOM EVER WINS HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO!

Why are being "down" or "claws coming out" supposedly female references? As a woman, I really don't get it. I think the women bringing up this issue are sexist themselves. I have used the terms "claws coming out" a lot over the years, and 90% of the time it was in reference to men. What it really is, is a reference to instinctive, animialistic behaviors (afterall, humans don't have "claws"). As far as "feeling down", yes, I could see Obama making that reference about Edwards or any other man. He could have said a lot worse about Hillary, like her penchant for putting her personal ambition over the best interests of America.

Hillary didn't give a crap about women during Bill's presidency,(and long term history of sexually predator behavior against women). Nor has she voted in women's best interest on economic and poverty issues as a NY Senator. Now suddenly we are to believe that she is some champion of women? Hardly. The women supporting her who try to put some feminist spin on her candidacy are part of why women continue to struggle for equality. If I wanted a corrupt president, there are plenty of corrupt men I can vote for. Hillary is about as misogynistic as men in leadership.

Obama may be a misogynist too, but these comments don't reflect it. If anything, his lack of having a category for women's issues under his issues section is a bigger concern regarding his attitude toward women. None of the candidates in either Party are particularly encouraging. They only remind me just how far regressed this country is.

Of course, all the media...including ABC...engage in sexism on a daily basis in their news and programming.

Women are the majority in this country but still act like a minority. When we have a race with a Elizabeth Edwards/Michelle Obama ticket against a Judith Giuliani/Ann Romney ticket...then we can talk about progress. Why these women who are so much stronger than their husbands continue to take a back seat is beyond me.

OBAMA has given her plenty to "feel down about". She thought that this entire election process was just going to be a "formality" to her crowning.

She thought Obama was a light weight.

SURPRISE! HONEY! It's not!

OBAMA 08 - WE NEED FRESH AIR!

Funny how the actual quote "when she's down" has become "when she's feeling down". Listen to his whole statement. He was talking about her being down in the polls, not down emotionally. I'll give you the claws bit, bad move on his part. But don't start this word parsing. It doesn't speak well to Clinton's toughness that she likes to site so much.

If I used those code words at home there would be no food for a week.
No words though top the magical "calm down honey"

Clinton is simply trying to whip up a little outrage to help her candidacy. I've never seen someone use the "gender card" so flagrantly. ANYTHING to WIN!

Here's exactly, word for word, what Senator Obama said: "I understand Senator Clinton periodically when she is feeling down launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

That's a subtle but very deliberate revival of the old "raging hormonal imbalance" BS--the claim that a woman shouldn't be trusted with the red button on the oval office desk. If he had simply said "when she's feeling down" it might be interpreted as having to do with polls--but his use of the word "periodically" is the tipoff to what he was really saying.

Way to go, Barack--if the aim is to make inroads among male voters who are supporting Hillary. Some of them may not be aware that at age 60 she's probably post-menopausal (like me) and therefore doesn't suffer from PMS.

BTW, my husband picked up on it immediately too--so it's not just us "old feminists" who object to this kind of sexist campaign rhetoric.

I suspecte those who find the sexist language so offensive are those who are in most despair at the current state of the Hillary Clinton campaign and are grasping at whatever defense they can to explain what has gone wrong for their candidate. Rather than looking at a grossly mismanaged effort made by a woman who is touting both her judgment and experience as being 'right from day one,' this candidate has been consistently out-maneuvered, out-thought, out-planned, and out-smarted. Rather than focus on whether one or two words have different meanings depending on the point you are trying to make, you folks should be thinking about the bigger picture: how could a candidate who started the campaign with a double-digit lead, a huge political machine, and a presumptive nod as the Democratic nominee be struggling for her presidential life against an upstart the Clintons are trying to paint as too inexperienced and naive to be a serious contender?
If the Clintons and their minions are reduced to finding flaws in words spoken, I think it says a lot about the state of their candidancy--as does Clinton's early departure from a state she barely campaigned in.

Thank you, Janice (Posted Feb 17, 2008 10:10:34 AM).

Unfortunately, they deleted that post and a subsequent one. My sin, it appears, is citing other sources (I was always taught not to plagiarize)

And here I was simply trying to inject some humor.

So I'll leave this debate and enjoy myself somewhere else.

Why would Sen. Obama alienate a voting bloc (women) with a remark like that? Why would Sen. Clinton and her supporters accuse him of sexist language? I wonder. More head games from Camp Clinton? More of the "Politics of Personal Destruction" for which they are so reknowned and at which they are so skilled?

Well if this isn't newsworthy I don't want to hear the Obama camp or any of his supporters crying about race anymore.

Good grief -- they are starting to quote Taylor Marsh! Everytime I hear this woman or read her rants I am struck by how much she reminds me of Ann Coulter. Two sides to the same coin with ultimately the same agenda -- self-promotion by tweaking the public's ignorance and bigotry and using their personal sex-appeal to do it! Its all distracting nonsense folks -- Hillary is probably one of the most priviledged people in the world. She is not a victim.