The Change Candidate Needs to Change His Tone Towards Women

The first time Hillary Clinton ran a television ad complaining about Barack Obama's unwillingess to debate in Wisconsin, he fired back with an ad of his own about the 18 debates he's already participated in and the two more that are scheduled.

She wouldn't let it go; her subsequent ad speculated on whether he was reluctant because his health insurance care plan wasn't as good as hers.

At a televised campaign stop, someone asked him how he felt about the ad campaign. Obama, grave-faced and sympathetic in tone, opined that when Senator Clinton was 'feeling down,' she went on the attack to make herself feel better; that is, she committed an error in judgment because she was in a bad mood. That was the moment when I, and other women of a certain age, all over the country, winced.

The change candidate had embraced one of the oldest clichés in the book -- that women are held hostage by emotion, that we can't be trusted with the big decisions because, depending on our age, we're either on the rag or having a hot flash. The overtly sexist position used to be that you didn't want to entrust the red phone to a woman because women are unpredictable and irrational; a fit of hormonal pique and kaboom, we all glow in the radioactive dark. The ones who aren't instantly vaporized, that is.

The kinder, gentler version? A soft-spoken observation about what a female candidate does when she's "feeling down," the implication being that Hillary's distress over the delegate count had impaired her judgment, and that someone who loses her way like that is not strong enough to withstand the rigors of the presidency. If you think that I and the indignant gal friends I've polled are overreacting, try the acid test: Imagine any major candidate making that kind of subtle put-down about a man's psychological fortitude. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton had to have shock treatment to get us to raise a national eyebrow about his mental health, ending his brief tenure as George McGovern's running mate. Short of that, we tend to assume that the boys are steady enough to handle the job.

The interesting question is where the inspiration for the dig came from. If it was truly an off-the-cuff remark, then it's just gender-role business as usual, and the French, sadly, are right: The more things change, the more they remain the same. This might help to explain why women stick to Hillary; any woman who grew up in the transitional generation between Betty Crocker moms and Betty Friedan daughters has a special antenna for this kind of slight. We've heard it before, we know we're going to hear it again, and we'd just as soon hang with a smart girl who gets it, for all her flaws. As for the more highly educated women who poll for Obama, let's see how they feel when they find out he would think better of them if they were guys.

If it wasn't a spontaneous comment -- if someone in Senator Obama's camp thinks it's wise to use code to address and exploit our primitive fears about whether women can cope -- then whoever came up with it ought to be ashamed of himself, and the man who uttered it needs to rethink the strength of his opponent and her supporters. Beat her on better ideas, or oratory, beat her with passion and energy, but beat her fair and square, if you can. Don't talk about change and then quote from a 1950s playbook on the battle between the sexes.

Comments

[CitizenJeanne]

First, Senator Obama has not debated Senator Clinton one on one enough - the debates to which he refers included many other candidates and do not count toward the one-on-ones. Second, Senator Obama's tone is becoming more cynical and abrasive as the campaign wears on. Third, he has said nothing of substance or detailed his plans, with the exception of his deficient healthcare plan - which, in my opinion is nothing more than lip service. In fact, his entire campaign is little more than lip service. Aside from my doubts that women would fare much better under an Obama administration than a McCain administration, which promises to be Bush Redux, I fear that his overall inexperience and lack of knowledge will put us in jeopardy, both at home and around the world.

[indycar]

your mind seems made up. Why is it again that you want more debates?

As for Obama and McCain being the same pssh.

Dubya has blazed a trail that the Clintons are only to eager to follow if they can just get back in the White House.

[marcywrite]

It's pure NONSENSE that Obama hasn't detailed his plans. If you couldn't hear it during any of the EIGHTEEN debates that have taken place so far, take ten seconds out of your whining blogging to log on to barackobama.com -- where you'll find detailed position statements on every policy you've got questions about. Or listen to any objective reporter on any news outlet and you'll hear them say that there's barely a paper's thickness difference between Obama & Clinton on the issues. It's not Obama's fault that Clinton can't give a speech that inspires, but must resort to laundry lists of programs and data and proposals and issues (which, all too often, she has to read from the podium -- doesn't she KNOW the stuff yet?). Phony protestations from people who know their candidate can't inspire -- that's all this nonsense about "I don't know what his position is..." is about.

[Hawise]

Anyone could have written what is on his blog, the test of a candidate is knowing what is on that blog and being able to defend it off the cuff. What he keeps repeating is that his stands are on the blog, go there and read it yourself. His supporters keep hashing out how it is all written on his blog. Fine, he has a good crew of writers and he reads a good speech. He hires well, can he back it up extemporaneously? If he is caught in a room with a bunch of diplomats, will they have the security clearance to be in the room with him? Will he be able to say what needs to be said behind closed doors with other heads of state? We aren't hiring the new coach for the Dallas Cowgirls, we are hiring the next Head of State and he better be able to prove that what is written in his name is actually what he believes in his heart.

[iburl]

"overall inexperience and lack of knowledge will put us in jeopardy, both at home and around the world"

For starters, he's 46, not 21. Why is Hillary sitting on the board of Directors at Wal-Mart better than his working in the community helping people one to one? I'd prefer a person who has experience helping poor people than one who has experience sucking up a huge paycheck sitting on a board of directors, rubberstamping their litany of crimes against the environement and the people. Senator Obama has held elective office as a state and U.S. senator for 12 years. Hillary has held elective office for 8 years. No, being the first lady (no matter how ineptly she bungled healthcare) does not count as experience in government. Obama has lack of knowledge? How exactly do you see him putting us in jeopardy? He has already shown that he is not as succeptable to the lies of the military-industrial complex that led Hillary to war in Iraq and threats against Iran like a lamb to the slaughter.

[Tellmethetruth]

good for you CitizenJeanne.

[mamamay]

He tries to be fair, yet while being honest. She wants to yell Experience and solutions, while she may not think we will look at the records. Go to www.thomas.loc.gov Look at Clinton's record. Shes worked on about 20 pcs of Legis and they don't qualify for readiness. Look at Obama's record. Hes done volumes on: 15 Gun Control,passed Lugar Obama Transparency Act of 06. 6 VA Bills, 97 Economic Bills,112 Crime fighting bills,233 Health Care Reform Bills. He's authored over 820 bills. Compare her experience now and you will see, that she's down and desperate to make her record hold up. uh oh She's waffled again, she now has the solutions, forget the experience.

[KKeoni]

Everytime he makes a comment that's interpreted as sexist, he's somehow being misconstrued.
Politicians know exactly what they're saying, and he's no different. If he were, he'd be more Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther than what he actually is: a politician.
His supporters, and Hillary haters, jump at the chance to inform those who see his remarks as sexist that they're not, supported by nothing but their devotion to him.
He's quacked and waddled, and therefore a duck in respect to sexism.

[Petey]

KKeoni, I, for one, am appalled by your blatant racism here. To try to subliminally connect Obama to crack cocaine with your subtle "quack" remark. And then your coded language with the word "duck" (like, sure, you REALLY think we're all going to buy into your image of ghetto bullets whizzing over our heads if we get a black president??!!). I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not abide these smug racist insinuations.

[westview]

When I heard this it made me furious. I could not believe the man who accused the Clinton's of using code words for racism was going to get a pass on this biogtry. Well, after all his wife stated today she has never been proud to be an American in her adult life according to her own words, maybe her husband had something to do with that.

[Tellmethetruth]

The problem isn't only Obama - it is the male commentators on the MSM who constantly make sexist remarks referring to women in an attempt to put down Clinton, but they do it in the name of Obama and believe they are given the right to do so because they are Obama followers. As Obama supporters the MSM male commentators and often young female commentators getting her 15 minutes of fame believe they can say outrageous and hurtful sexist remarks directed at women in the target of Clinton and get away with it because they are Obama supporters. Obama supporters believe there is no harm in sexism, and this creates a liberty to express hurtful and hateful remarks.

I fear there are many women in their homes being assualted and abused because commentators using the disguise of Obama have declared open hunting season on women but claim they only have one target, Clinton, even though all members of the same gender are being verbally abused.

[user168]

I am a 60-year-old woman who believes not in Hillary's dirty tricks and attacks. Maybe Hillary can flock with a liar cheater, most cannot.

"Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth."

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies."

"Hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles­."

"There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain." Obama, McCain, and Clinton represent them respectively.

Obama appears to have greater appeal to the highly educated who has acquired imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed WISDOM - consisting of ideals and principles that govern all actions and decisions to maximize the LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD.

It is for LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD we EDUCATE our YOUTH, and so be it that the highly educated seek PURPOSE in LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD.

If you are A PARENT, AN EDUCATOR, OR A COMMUNITY LEADER, and if you seek not such LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, what then, do you seek?
How can we let our CHILDREN follow such self-gratifying, calculating Clintons??

To Hillary: Why must others die so you should live?

"How could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men, women, and children?"

"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

"Only once in a very long time... on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods...­"

"Therefore, the good of man must be the end of the science of politics."

The TRUTH is, we must teach our children to BE TRUE.

"Love each other or perish."

"Kindness in thinking creates profoundne­ss."

“LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.”

[KARE]

Using other peoples quotes to support someone who uses other peoples speeches, I understand your position now

[Tellmethetruth]

In the Clinton Adminstration - there were no wars in which US soldiers died. You have confused the Clintons with GW Bush and GH Bush - both of them gave us the wars.

No matter how Clinton cast her vote on the Bush Resolution, for or against it, she didn't possess the power to start a power, nor does she as a US Senator have anymore power to end the war than the other US Senator she is running against, Obama. Neither of them as Senators can start a war or end a war.

It would have been nice to have a vote in Congress to declare war with Iraq as under the Constitution. That vote never took place. We are engaged in an unconstitutional war, which is grounds to impeach the president.

We can go on and on about all the members of Congress, Obama being one of them, who have not lifted a finger to impeach Bush.

[Clarkin08]

If "It takes a President" is said to be a racist remark, then surely, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal" can be said to be a sexist remark.

Instead of mouthing his sexist put-down, Obama could easily have said, "I understand why my opponent goes negative when she is desperate. That's the old politics. I'm here to change all that."

That sort of statement would have fit very nicely with his campaign theme. Don't any of his supporters find it odd that he didn't say something like that?

[mamamay]

No I don't see it your way. The political way is to not attack,or be nice, be a gentlemen, even when you are being attacked by 3 clintons. No I do not agree with you that your words are correct. He said what he meant and he probably meant what he said, I agree with that. We are adults now in the new millenium. Rethink. Reshape, and reorganize your own thoughts to coincide with how you would react to an attack in this political arena. Just try being nice and focus on the issues, not the gender and race cards

[clevelandchick]

Again you mischaracterize Obama's words, he was referring to her being down in the race. It is quite common for the one who is down in the race to switch in to attack mode. We've seen it just recently when Romney went after McCain ferociously before he droppoed out.

Of course you can put words in his mouth because you're sitting on your ass in front of a computer and havent been on the road speaking in front of thousands of people for days on end.

And I'm beginning to see that the Clintons' surrogates are using sexism as a blunt and inaccurate tool against anyone who doesn't support them. Unfortunately using the accusation of sexism at every turn whether it applies or not dilutes the gravity of that issue.

I am a woman and a feminist and I am quite alarmed at Hillary's supporters accusing anyone and everyone of sexism whether it fits or not. It hurts the cause of feminism and is evidence of not having a better argument for their candidate.

Obama brings up her support of NAFTA and she brings up the fact he used a friends phrase in a speech. Obama brings up her vote for Iraq and her supporters make up some sexist remark where there is none.

Clarkin08, I've worked in the construction industry for 19 years and have experienced sexism of the most blatant and subtle kind. I know it when I see it and I do not see it in this example by this blogger.

[Petey]

Good lord, no Clarkin08. His sexist put-down was pretty bad, admittedly, but you seem to be suggesting he should have called her a street walker. Obviously, that's what the word "desperate" suggests when aimed at the fairer sex. Are you an Obama troll trying to slip through more disgusting code words??

[mark77]

Obama came out publicly and and issued a statement defending Clintons from racial accusations. Will the Clintons now come out and defend Obama from sexist accusations?

[accountability]

Amen Sistah!

I see so many people denying the reality of sexism now.
Well, they have been the beneficiary of both PC speech and the work of our generation, just as Barack is.
It is hard for them to recognize it since PC language masks a lot today.
Same with racism.
I've known many younger women who have been able to get good jobs, excel in their careers,work and have children which was not the case back in the day except for the most daring and rebellious, or those who were raised by a very particular kind of parent.
For these women now sexism is invisible, they don't know what the hell we are talking about and get very annoyed and impatient if another woman should bring it up. It is almost as if sub consciously they don't want the men to think they (the women)believe they have anything to complain about, won't be making waves and really... "I'm not a castrating bitch like those women" rolling eyes.That is the insidiousness of it.
If we even notice it we are nuts and accused.Ju­st read some of the comments on the blogs castigating anyone who dares to suggest such a thing. Sexism isn't misogyny until the existence of it is denied. Then it is.

As far as Racism goes I really am beginning to think that the media (meaning MSNBC among others) is afraid to take Obama on for fears of the race card being played. (that and the fact that they adore him and have practically annointed him because of his "soaring oratory" and the feeling Chris Matthews gets up his leg.)
They have no problem going after Hillary (just like the Hillary Haters on the progressive blogs) because its fine to beat up a woman, she can't defend herself because if she says something is unfair in the coverage she is portrayed as using her gender, if she then says that is unfair it gets even worse.

more coming

[accountability]

I keep reading here about the horrible attacks Hillary is making.
This has been one of the most civil campaigns I've ever seen. Neither of the candidates have delivered really nasty body blows and BOTH have made points against the other. But when Barack does it he is pointing out differences, when Hillary does it she is attacking.
Anyone who thinks Obama is always spontaneous and doesn't have prepared answers ready is not listening very carefully.
He is a master at words and meanings. He is damn good and has a profound instinct so don't tell me he just doesn't know what he is doing. I know damn well Michelle does. I listened to her on Larry King and she pulled a couple of tough hits on Hillary and Bill.
She doesn't know if she would support the democratic nominee if it isn't her husband? please. .
Even if his comments weren't sexist the fact that he never calls his supporters to task for their divisive and sexist behavior. And that is sexist.Whe­n Obama used the "Hillary is polarizing" comment in a speech or rally a week or two ago that is when I switched candidates. I had been getting a little queasy anyway with the frenzied affect of the "followers" and the underhanded way his campaign has created divisiveness that is projected onto the Clinton campaign. Claiming smear to smear knowing the fear of being thought racist and the idealism and idolatry in the Obama camp that followers would never see it any other way is indecent. I can forgive a lot, understand it's politics, know that barbs are traded but to use that neo-con talking point against her was not only sexist it was the dirtiest and most cynical tricks of the race so far.
It sickened me. Most disturbing from someone who is promising to not do politics as usual and to elevate the conversation.

What , could have been the most historically significant race of our lifetime for all the right reasons is becoming a travesty and Hillary is the scapegoat.

[PortiaElizabeth]

Wow!
Powerful, thought-provoking message. It's obvious that you considered what you wanted to say instead of impulsively posting an emotional rant. Very well reasoned. Thanks.

[Tellmethetruth]

Hillary keeps mentioning that Obama lacks the experience to be President. That fact that she keeps bringing up to voters is claimed as an negative attack and it gives justification for all kinds of sexist and denegrating remarks by Obama and his supporters, especially those in the MSM.

Hillary is just telling the truth. Unfortunately Obama is too cowardly to either openingly debate her, or to speak the truth himself which is why he gives no specifics on what "vision" of the future "change" we are suppose to place our "hopes" in him for.

Without specifics, Obama is a con artist and scamming the American people.

[clevelandchick]

What Obama meant by 'down' was down in the polls not down in the dumps. Way to fabricate some sexist meaning out of whole cloth.

And Obama is right. When any opponent is feeling threatened; they go negative. We saw it with Romney and McCain (two men I might add). And both Romney and McCain accused each other of resorting to attack ads because the other was 'down in the polls'. It is quite normal for one side of a campaign to go negative when they feel the race slipping away.

I am not only embarrassed by Ms. Sabiner's blatant mischaracterization of Barack Obama's words. I am embarrassed by all of these women who use every little word, whether it is in context or not, as an excuse to yell "Sexism!".

You are diluting the meaning of sexism and using the accusation of sexism as a weapon against your opponent indiscriminately in an effort to manipulate women to choose your favorite candidate. That's highly unethical and not the least bit feminist of you.

As a feminist I am deeply disgusted and dismayed by this constant 'crying wolf' - in the long run it's going to hurt the whole cause. I would hope Hillary would not want to be a part of that.

[clevelandchick]

correction: spelled the blogger's name wrong, it's Stabiner.

[JakeEasy]

"As a feminist I am deeply disgusted and dismayed by this constant 'crying wolf' - in the long run it's going to hurt the whole cause."

clevelandchick. The only women who get to call themselves a feminist and "chick" are the Dixie Chicks. If you don't think so, you don't get it. As a feminist, I am deeply disgusted by people who call themselves feminist but don't mind sexist language or who give there rock star guys a pass when it comes to behavior. So you go ahead and be embarrassed by all the women who have fought to give you your rights. Just don't pretend to be a part of the battle.

[Petey]

I wonder how many here have actually seen the video of this "incident.­"

Yes, "down." As in "down in the race." Take a look for yourself:
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/democratic-party/17829/this-is-sexist-really-for-real/

Granted, no one but Barack can say for sure which kind of "down" he meant, but his pointed enunciation of the word should cause any fair-minded observer to conclude that he at least appears to be talking about the race, not Hillary's emotions.

(Still, I disagree with those who argue that mentioning an opponent's emotions is sexist, and I can easily imagine it occurring with men [and probably will, with the volatile McCain].

I'm convinced that the more these shrill accusations of sexism come out against an obviously decent, sensitive candidate, the more fair-minded women and men are going to turn away in disgust. (And, yes, I have called men "shrill" before, when appropriat­e.)

[clevelandchick]

Well I can't tell you how disgusted I am. I have worked in the male dominated construction industry for 19 years and have dealt with sexism of the most blatant and subtle kind. I know sexism when I see it and this example used against Obama by this blogger is not sexism.

It is really beginning to anger me. These Clinton surrogates are doing harm to the cause of feminism when they unjustly accuse men of sexism. It is self-serving and incredibly weak. It means they don't have a valid argument for their cause and must reach for a wedge issue to gain support.

[AlphaDoc]

>What Obama meant by 'down' was down in the polls not down in the dumps.<

That's the way I took it. In my way of thinking, to glean a sexist meaning from what the Senator said, one would have to be looking/listening from a sexist POV.

[mamamay]

I agree with you. What happened to her alma mata that she claimed had prepared her for the race in the boys league? I knew then she would wait for a possible attack on her from anybody anywhere, then she would crack and yell sexist.
Hil thinks playing the gender card, Bill thinks racist or any kind of card or a poke in the face is the type solutions to be used to solve their own, or America's problem is the way to go. Did anyone ever tell them that their tactics are Cheap? I do not feel sorry for Hil regardless of her struggles. She is proving that she's not the right woman for this job, not now. not ever, but a qualified young American will come along and she will be doubly honored.

[Jennymac]

I agree with you completely. It is embarrassing to even hear this issue debated. I don't believe for a second that Obama genuinely doesn't think a woman can run the country because of her emotions. This has been blown entirely out of proportion. That doesn't do much to change the negative stereotypes against women that normal and rational women like me have to put up with.

If we search for a snippet of sexism in every comment made, we're going to find it. I think that women do as much to perpetuate sexism as men. Stop looking for it and expecting it.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that sexism still exists. And I know that women just a coupld of decades before me had a very different life. I thank them for the road they paved for me. But I was raised to understand that I could do absolutely anything a man could do. Women outnumbered men in my law school class.

[Jennymac]

Oops. Pushed 'post' too soon. That was dumb. Probably just because I'm a woman and I got so emotional that my fingers slipped.

We're never going to make friends with men if we treat them with suspicion and contempt. I wish we could just assume that men support us and hold us as equals with the exception of those who are clearly sexist. This kind of stuff is ridiculous and does nothing for the improving the rift between women and men.

[skysage]

How does this writer get "sexist" in Obama's statement? Hillary has played her position as an attacked woman instead of as a presidential candidate. I think this writer has jumped on Obama's words as sexist, when he was merely stating that Hillary, the candidate, does do these things when she is not happy. After all she was the one who cried a tear of two and has shown that she does get down. The statement was entirely appropriate and had nothing to do with a woman being down. Hillary, the candidate, when down increases her attack. Obama has a brilliant mind, and is certainly in support of all women. Just because Hillary is a woman, does not take away the fact that she is a cunning, smart, and aggressive person. Obama has every right to point out Hillary's strategies as a person and as a candidate. What does that have to do with her being a woman. This writer is way off base.

[chin075]

Karen:
Please.

[Petey]

You being a man (no doubt) you just can't see the blatant sexism in your own remarks! You say "Obama ... is certainly in support of all women." Surely you realize this is coded language for the persistent patriarchal idea that all women NEED support by a man???!!! Well, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want his stinkin' support. Wake up everyone!

[deminmo]

How dare Hillary get out of the kitchen to be
a Presidential candidate! I mean the cheek of
that woman!
Ok, now let's look at history. All the Presidents so far have been men, with records
that range from pretty impressive to oppressive.
Many have had to clean up from wars or have had
the unfortunate duty to begin one. One did what
he could to avoid the last step into nuclear
disaster.
So, we elect a woman to President and she uses
her skills to negotiate, balance a budget,
pay bills on time, juggle 7-8 things at once,
and work 10 hours 7 days a week, make sure
everyones needs are being met, and deal with
men who think she should be in the kitchen.
This next President will face just as many
threats and problems as any man.

[mckenna]

99% of the time, I end up "missing" something like this "bad mood" comment as a sign of male chauvinism. Is it because I am ignorant or because I'm just from a new generation of women that doesn't even waste time and energy nitpicking with semantics? I appreciate fully what former generations of women put up with and the opportunities they paved for me...my life as a woman is a million times better because of the sacrifices of those women who came before me...howev­er, this just seems like typical political campaign fodder to try to appear better than your opponent. If we analyze everything too much, we can derive all kinds of hidden "meanings" in them. Someone somewhere will or already has attacked Hil for a perceived "racist" comment I'm sure.

[accountability]

Brava!!!
Stellar points!

[mythster]

"Sexist" - "Racist"
The highly subjective judgment of activist supporters of any campaign are hardly worth replying to.
It really is turning into a mud-slinger and we have a real long way to go.

[ErinG]

When Obama remarked that Hillary resorts to negative attacks when she is down (losing), women winced? When Obama used the word “periodically,” he was really referring to Hillary’s menstrual cycle? When so-called champions of women’s rights level such dishonest, unfounded, and malicious accusations of sexism, they trivialize the cause of women’s rights.
So-called champions of women’s rights: Your “special antenna” has malfunctioned!

[Daniel8168]

If anything, it appears that Karen Stabiner is the one that is acting sexist towards men. She is the one that appears to be demeaning Obama with her comments about his sexism when there appears to be none.

What a shame that a woman would try to attack someone on a sexist issue that doesn't even appear to exist. If anything, Karen Stabiner's post does nothing more than lend credibility to the stereotype that she is complaining about. Her reaction to what she thinks might have been a sexist comment shows that she herself has apparently become irrationally emotional. I'm glad that not all women are like Karen, and that the lack of rational reasoning which Karen herself has displayed for us is in fact only a bogus stereotype.

The two times that Hillary has become emotional publicly were all about her. The first time she cried was when Obama had first started gaining ground on her. The second time she showed emotion was when she got teary-eyed at the event in which her friend was describing how great she is. That bothers me more than anything.

The only other attempt at emotion I've seen from her is when she begins to shout during her stump speeches. That is the fakest, most over-coached emotion I have seen in politics in a long time. A sad attempt to make her appear to be motivational - and it just makes her appear loud.

Without seeing the actual quote, it is hard to understand what Karen Stabiner is talking about. Maybe that's why it isn't included - maybe her attempts to turn a presidential campaign into a sexist squabble rely on mis-information and dis-information just as the Neo-cons have for 2 decades now. Maybe she is desperate to take back the women that are crossing the aisle to Obama's side. Maybe, worst of all, she has such little respect for women herself that she is willing to try to manipulate them with these dreamed up and unsupported accusations. Shame on you Karen Stabiner.

[jrw34]

This post is the latest and attempts to stop a movement for change. The author fails to bring up her candidates' own words...li­ke the pledge not to campaign or seat delegates from MI and FL. That word's don't matter. That her vote in Iraq was made with the belief that President Bush would use the power wisely. By hiring Ickes who wants to call super delegates, "automatic delegates". HRC dismisses Bill's antics as "getting a little excited", both are great with using words to distort. This is similar to NY State's NOW screaming at Ted Kennedy's Betrayal of Women without mentioning that Caroline Kennedy also endorsed Obama. This type of logic is what hurts genuine efforts to advance the cause of women's equity. After calling "wolf" so many times...th­e town's people no longer come when it really is the wolf...
What page did we take this out of Rove's "The Best of Politics Playbook" This is when things get fun??

[jvaljon1]

Barack Obama is Karl Rove's pick for Democratic candidate. Hillary was leading McCain 3, almost 4/1. Now she's still leading McCain but only 2 to 1. When the scandal around Obama finally breaks--and it only will in its entirety if/when HE gets the nomination--then Karl Rove will unleash all the Obama negatives and sink the Democrats in '08. I've watched Karl Rove long enough--so when Obama came on the scene I immediately googled Obama/crime connections and I came up with the Rezko scandal that's about to break and sink Obama--but only when Obama's the candidate. It's being soft-pedaled for now by the msm. Just wait--it's gonna be Obama, not Hillary--Obama against McCain and McCain is gonna be President in '08. Get used to it. It won't be the first time that Rove used divide-and-conquer against Americans.
All this will be moot if Hillary gets the nomination. Then, Rove will have to think of something else...
And all I can think of, is 'what a force for good Karl Rove could be, if only he wasn't on the dark side!'

[Staying1776course]

"...some women, perhaps especially young women, hope to deny,or escape the sexist caste sytem," is a quote in the January 8, 2008 NYT's Op-Ed section by Gloria Steinem.

[bushpretzel]

Karen, thanks for making a valid point about the still male and still white (he's half white, isn't he?) viewpoint that is simply operating as a "difference" because his skin has slight pigment! He's still a man!!! I don't trust him one bit -- not only because he's a white man in every perceptible sense who pretends to be a black, but because he's smug, arrogant, offers me nothing for the future, and we've already had one "uniter" who is the biggest nightmare our country has ever known. He's the exact same as Bush, just as untrustworthy, just as extreme, just as inexperienced. In this critical time in our history, it takes someone who's stable and experienced to bring real change. We can trust Hillary, we've known her for 16 years, she's tough when we need it to protect us, and compassionate when we need it to help us.
False hope, or REAL HELP -- that's the difference between O and Hill. That choice is crystal clear.

[indycar]

You seem to have the Clintons and Obama mixed up. I think what you meant to say was that the Clintons are the same as Bush, right?

[MAGLATINA]

i agree. the repubs are voting for o now to weaken hillary and vote against him in nov...

[indycar]

Whaa? Repubs are voting for HILLARY because they can beat her! She is the most polarizing person since Comedian Rush Limbaugh. She is the one thing that can bring out the Republicans.

[johngw]

"...he's half white, isn't he?"

Were you wearing you're hood and robes when you wrote that?

Oh, and look up the word "misandry" while you ponder the meaning of that.

[Kiku]

The fact that the whole quote is missing leads me to suspect that this post is much ado about nothing.

As a women, I don't buy into Hillary's attempt to rally voters by claiming sexist attacks. She's been doing this since October when Obama and Edwards first criticized her Iran vote, and she accused them of piling on. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

Obama has been a strong supporter of women's rights. See my summary from his web site here:

http://womenandobama.blogspot.com/