Memo to BHO: "gloves off", not "claws out"

MSNBC:

Obama took the stage at Tulane... he seemed to have Clinton in his sights when he said, "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."

I support you, and I'm a white male. But I do not tolerate coded racism from your opponent, and I do not tolerate coded sexism from you.

This is sexist code language, Hillary is the cat. It is subtle and most people will probably say "awww, he probably didn't mean it that way". I give you more credit than that, you know exactly how to use your words.

Please do not do it again.

And that is all I have to say about that. Keep challenging that status quo.

Update: Also, this is stupid. You already have the misogynist vote (like it or not), and women vote more anyway, especially in the Democratic primary.

•  Reading a little too much into it?

  by PsiFighter37 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM PDT

  •  i tend to think so...

    but then again, i'm not the demographic that this would especially affect...

    by RSA TX on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:58 PM PDT

  •  He is very good

    at saying what he wants to.

    This is sexist language. There are three possibilities. It's a conscious swipe at Hillary, it's an unconscious swipe at Hillary, or he's not really talking about Hillary. I am giving him credit when I prefer to think the first. And I still support him.

    by homunq on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM PDT

    •  He is far too smart too misuse language...

      ...he knows exactly what he said.

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM PDT

      •  So did Clinton know exactly

        what she was voting for, back with the IWR?

        by Mardish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM PDT

      •  yeh

        I don't think it's a BIG deal, but it did immediately jump out at me when I heard it.  Of course, that was because Tweety was having a good time playing the clip and stopping it right at Obama's claw gesture.

        by grasshopper on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM PDT

        •  Good old negative Tweety n/t

          by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:16:22 PM PDT

  •  or not enough.

    is this really substantial enough to warrant a diary? all day long today it's been one tiny diary after another.

    by vancookie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      Folks are really twitchy today?  I don't know what is up.  Maybe Super Tuesday let down.  Maybe Romney changing the game up.

      Not sure, but lots of strange aggressive diaries.

      by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    A characterization like this analysis is a bit of a reach.  You did see what the Clintons did to play the race card right?  It would be better served to write on their outright lying.

    by dan667 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM PDT

    •  Let's just hope the 'outrage' is equitable...

      ...from those who sought to vilify the Clintons for remarks they made.

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

      •  The Clinton campaign

        needs to point out to the media that this remark is every bit as sexist as some of the other remarks were racist. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

        by cackyp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM PDT

        •  I agree with you. It is unfortunate that BHO's...

          ...campaign resorted to unpunished tactics like Jackson, Jr's embarrassing remarks.

          by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:18:58 PM PDT

          •  My mother will be 76

            in July, and is in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Even she has noticed that the media spin is all Obama, all the time. She mentioned this evening that every time she watches the news, everything they mention is followed by "how will this help Obama".

            by cackyp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM PDT

            •  When you lie people don't like you

              The Clintons have outright lied about other candidates and done some other dirty things and they are getting their due in the media.

              by dan667 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:59:29 AM PDT

              •  If people don't like you

                when you lie, then how do you explain their worship and fawning treatment of Bush. Your theory doesn't hold water.

                by cackyp on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM PDT

  •  I'm a woman and a feminist

    and I read that quote and don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, I thought of a cat... more like a lion, really... representing "the status quo" (which, in my mind, is a bunch of old white guys in matching armanis) rearing back to take a swipe. I did not picture it as a "cat fight" or any other sexist language until the diarist mentioned it. I think the diarist is reading WAY too much into this.

    by flautist on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:06:04 PM PDT

    •  How hard a woman is slapped down

      depends on how threatening she is.  
      Women who work in "traditional" roles rarely face much discrimination:  they are not threatening anyone's position or the status quo.

      Senator Clinton very directly threatens a final unacknowledged bigotry and accepted prejudice: that of the woman leader, the woman giving orders, the woman making the final decision.  

      I am willing to believe that Obama's remark was not consciously derogatory, but that does not help.  It only means that he has, as many other people do, unexamined biases.

      Obama may not have exhibited conscious prejudice, but homunq is not reading too much into that remark.  

      by clio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:17:10 PM PDT

•  Sexist...everyone who flipped on Bill Clinton...

  ...BETTER get their ass on this right now.

  by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM PDT

•  I'm sure he didn't mean it that way.

  It's unfortunate some words have associations like that. But I honestly believe he wouldn't do that on purpose. I also believe that shuck and jive guy was not making a race based remark, it is just language you hear from time to time and don't think of the implications.

  by greatn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:53:57 PM PDT

  •  Then he better apologize like Cuomo did...

    ...right about now.

    by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:55:33 PM PDT

    •  Not a chance

      I'd rather have an apology from the Clintons for all the dead Iraqi's, dead Americans, and Americans without legs, hands or other body parts.

      by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM PDT

      •  Good. He will live with his sexist remark then...

        ...and deal with the consequences.

        This will be everywhere, and women will be rightfully pissed, if he is as tin-eared as you seem to be.

        Doesn't get much worse than this.

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:14 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          I was just channel surfing and ran past Tweety. He was playing the clip.  Whether or not Obama meant it that way, it's going to be played that way.

          by grasshopper on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:43:52 PM PDT

          •  If Tweety - Clinton hater - is on it...

            ...it will be everywhere by the morning.

            Potential headline:

            "Obama ain't lion: 'the claws come out'!"

            by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:20 PM PDT

            •  granted

              and it's exactly the kind of thing Tweety likes since it digs at Hillary while also being unhelpful to Obama.  

              (and no surprise here, but he uses some unflattering pics of them both when he puts up pics of their faces)

              by grasshopper on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:08:12 PM PDT

    •  He should apologize because

      some guy interpreted something he said in a way that makes it seem sexist?

      If you take away the introduction

      he seemed to have Clinton in his sights when he said

      then there is really nothing sexist left. Unless you think that the establishment is made up of females only.

      by marcoto on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM PDT

      •  Yes, he better...

        ...if he hopes to win many more female votes, absolutely.

        Cuomo did the right thing. Let's hope B.O. can learn from his grace and not repeat the gaffe of not having Jesse Jackson, Jr. reprimanded for his unconscionable remarks regarding HRC's tears and Katrina.

        How BHO reacts to his mistake will be very illuminating.

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM PDT

  •  Oh, foolish one

    I am voting for Obama, but wtf.  He is a politician.  I have heard him code word before.  It is not an accident.  He is careful with it, but he is playing politics just like the others.

    by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:19 PM PDT

    •  I 100% agree n/t

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:26 PM PDT

•  Would It Have Been ........

  different if he had said " then the toenails come out " ? Or maybe fangs or something like hockey sticks , or monkey wrench ?

  by ArtfromMI on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:55:19 PM PDT

  •  What would be different

    is that none of those expressions are expressions that exist in common usage.

    He just better never say "now, the gloves come off" because women wear gloves!

    by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM PDT

•  oh good grief.

  Sometimes I think that people can claim the "I'm an enlightened liberal" mantle if they can manage to somehow rationalized being offended by as little as possible. :-)

  Let's see; HRC once said that she was "counter punching" during a debate, and Obama is an African American, and there are lots of good African American boxers.

  Oh yeah, she was being racist when she said that. :-)

  by onanyes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM PDT

  •  False equivalency...

    ...just ask Kelly Pavlik, or Wladimir Klitschko, or any number of non African-American boxing champions.

    You don't talk about men's "claws." This is as sexist as it gets.

    by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:53 PM PDT

    •  well, you take a look at this

      http://www.cnn.com/...

      CNN  used the expression in its headline to refer to the Republican candidates (all men) and all the Democratic candidates (all men but one). And this was the product of only about 1 second of googling. Give this one a rest.

      by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:40 PM PDT

      •  Good luck on that, elmo...

        ...good luck telling women that.

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM PDT

        •  I am a woman, Universal

          are you?

          by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:23:56 PM PDT

          •  I am happy for you, Elmo...

            ...do you have a mind-meld with all women, or are you just speaking as someone who wishes to minimize what Obama said?

            If I am not black, and John McCain makes a racist remark, can I say that his remark might offend African-Americans? Or does my not being black preclude that?

            Help me out here, my female friend.

            by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM PDT

            •  I'll take that as a "no"

              I find the tone of your comment to me offensive.   It's dismissive and patronizing. It smacks of  condescension and presumed male superiority.  You only used this tone with me after I revealed I'm female, which forces me to conclude you're delivering some kind of coded sexist signal to your supporters here.

              You better apologize to me. Fast.

              by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM PDT

              •  Have a great day, Elmo...

                ...I'm glad you admitted you don't speak for all women.

                thumbs up

                by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:42:12 PM PDT

                •  completely nonresponsive

                  Now you're ignoring me! We women just hate that.

                  by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM PDT

      •  elmo

        nice try, but I suppose we are wasting electrons here.

        by onanyes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM PDT

      •  good point *nt*

        by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM PDT

    •  hey Universal

      You don't talk about men's "claws." This is as sexist as it gets.

      As "sexists as it gets"????

      You don't get out much, do you.  Frankly, it isn't sexist at all, IMHO.  But even if someone is creative enough to get offended by this, I humbly suggest that this might be a tiny bit more sexist?

      by onanyes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:10:38 PM PDT

      •  Is he running for the Dem nomination?

        Wait, maybe we shouldn't answer that until we know who our candidate actually will be, according to some on DK.

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM PDT

    •  Not as sexist as it gets

      He didn't say she was on the rag or had her panties in a wad....rofl

      sorry.  shouldn't play, but dang it is hard not to.  

      I think the popularity of man bashing from comics, sitcoms (remember when we had that?  before the strike?), commercials has given men permission to give what they get.  I cringe at the commercial where the wife has her husband 'ask the box for help'. But that is another diary for a non political web site.  

      by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM PDT

      •  ha ha :) n/t

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM PDT

•  It's a poor choice of words...

  and that's it.

  I also cringe when he calls himself "the insurgent candidate".  

  He's good with words, but if you say enough of them, as in a campaign, things sometimes come out wrong.

  by Pragmatic Left on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM PDT

•  i just now saw this comment on tv

  right before i saw this diary...

  it struck me as an unfortunate comment, given the recent attention that sex has been getting, especially around here.

  i don't think it was intended for anything other than a turn of phrase or expression, yet if my "un-sensitive" male white ass can immediately pick up on it, then i'm sure others will as well, and maybe even be offended.  i hope not.

  from my perspective, it just seemed like an unfortunately ill-timed, but otherwise innocuous expression.

  by RSA TX on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:48 PM PDT

•  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt

  but he really, really needs to be careful with this sort of thing. It does touch on longstanding sexist framing.

  There are a lot of dogwhistles that can be hit on both accidentally and on purpose in this cycle, and everybody needs to do their best not to go there IMO.

  by Spit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM PDT

•  Both male and female cats

  Both male and female cats have claws, indeed males bigger.

  I've heard this expression applied too many times to both men and women to even think about psychoanalyzing this to death.  However, expect the fanatics to lose their minds over this and turn blue in the face, but they will find a different non-issue anyway if it weren't for this non-issue.

  It's nonsense.

  by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:11 PM PDT

  •  just bad timing, that's all...

    by RSA TX on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM PDT

  •  Are you calling women cats?

    Because I have never in my life heard this expression used about a man.

    Ever.

    by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:58 PM PDT

    •  It's usually applied to groups

      or generically to getting their claws out. He didn't say "she" and the expression is often used with the word "thier".

      by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:57 PM PDT

      •  I wonder what 'group' Obama was referring to...

        ...here.

        Maybe a demographic he's having trouble with, you think?

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:11:23 PM PDT

        •  The Clinton supports here

          Which include both men and women.

          And if and when he gets to be the nominee, the republican hate machine will get their claws out for him too,, just like they will for Clinton.

          by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM PDT

          •  Obama would never insult Clinton supporters.

            He needs to woo them. You're thinking of yourself and putting him in your shoes.

            Obama called Clinton the force of status quo. As he always does. As Edwards did, too. It's a good frame, a good attack. But Obama said "claws."

            That means: the force of the status quo is a bitch.

            by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:48 PM PDT

            •  um....*DING!* 2+2 = 4 n/t

              by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM PDT

            •  That's correct

              "Obama would never insult Clinton supporters"

              You are right. There is nothing to gain for it. And you and Universal are simply twisting the English language for cheap political effect.

              Somehow I've seen this all before.

              by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM PDT

              •  sorry? I'm simply doing analysis.

                I am not a Clinton backer. I have accepted above that this may not have been purposeful. I felt that way about some of Clinton's surrogates' remarks too. The question is simply what's there in the language.

                by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:52:37 PM PDT

                •  The language never said "she"

                  or used the female gender. That expression is popularly used to refer to groups. It was not sexist in the way it was used unless you suggest the entire expression itself must be attacked whenever anyone uses it as inherently "sexist".

                  This is reaching to the absurd for the cheapest political points. It's a hallmark of the politics of the 90's.

                  by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM PDT

                  •  except that Obama has REPEATEDLY called Hillary

                    the "status quo."

                    Look, if you don't see it, that's okay. Some will, some won't. I didn't see some of the things the Obama people accused the Clinton campaign of. And I certainly wish her campaign had been run differently.

                    At the same time. Some will see it there, and I did.

                    That's the nature of interpretation.

                    by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM PDT

                    •  Clinton is the staus quo

                      That's a two-fer, Hillary and Bill. I see them as the status quo too.

                      As for interpretation, if you want to see it bad enough, I guess you can. Except that it makes no sense because there is no imaginable gain for Obama to make sexist remarks and fits no pattern whatsoever in his previous remarks or his life in general.

                      This is a self-manufactured issue by those carrying the water for the Clinton personal agenda. It lowers the discourse and demeans feminism as a mere tool.

                      by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:32:06 PM PDT

  •  The "catty" thing

    is generally applied to women and effeminate men. The "catfight" thing, as well.

    He may have meant it innocently enough, but it's something he should try not to do. Lots of people hear that sort of thing the way the diarist did.

    by Spit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for saying that. I don't get why

    it is even supposed to be sexist. I didn't know it was and when I try to picture "claws coming out" I see cats.

    Now either people have really naughty minds because a word for cats is a sexual female term...which is really stretching it..

    Or one of my childhood theories is right. All cats are girls, all dogs are boys.

    Women are likelier to have long nails but they don't retract. I didn't know that this was a female related insult and I'm sure I've used it wrong before.

    But then again I wasn't sure shuck and jive was used a racist insult, I thought it sounded like a political insult. I used the term on my kids, particularly my smooth talking (white) son in his youth when he'd try to shuck and jive me.

    "Bra comes off" would be about a woman. "Jock strap comes off" would be about a guy

    Are we frigging nuts? Sexist code? What, Obama is trying to remind people she is a woman?

    OK so we are back to cats are girls.
    Or that we are going nuts.

    Wait! I said NUTS. I'm insulting men.

    by joynow on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM PDT

•  Makes no sense

  Hinting to the audience that she's a minority candidate, reminds them that he's a minority candidate.

  by anotherCt Dem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:16 PM PDT

  •  women a minority?

    in the Democratic party?

    If that was true, Obama and Edwards would be fighting for the nomination right now.

    by marcoto on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM PDT

    •  Oh, boy...I'm not touching this one n/t

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:31:41 PM PDT

•  Get a life!

  by cmpnwtr on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM PDT

•  Well while we're parsing here

  Why is this diary directed to "BHO?" You wouldn't be trying to remind anyone of Barack Obama's middle name, would you?

  by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM PDT

  •  No apologies for that!

    haha, no they woudn't do that would they?

    Nor will they ever apologize for Clinton's vote to get Bush full war powers. They will never apologize to the survivors for all those killed because of political expediency.

    Just like Mitt Romney, therre are some that will say and do anything depending on which way they think the wind is blowing at that moment. It's about the Clinton's personal ambition.

    by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM PDT

    •  "They"?

      Man, grow up. I am an Obama supporter and an ABC voter, as I said in the diary and as my other diaries prove. And even if I weren't, that comment would be stupid. (but the BHO point was funny)

      by homunq on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM PDT

•  The One puts foot in mouth. Damn, Barack...

  ...this wasn't even during a debate.

  Women are not going to be happy, I'm guessing.

  by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:18 PM PDT

  •  You are hoping more than guessing

    by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM PDT

    •  Ask crazyshirley if I'm guessing...

      ...you think women are dumb or something, and won't pick up on and be offended by this?

      Good luck.

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:07:20 PM PDT

      •  Are you calling me sexist?

        Women are no dumber or smarter than men. I'm offended by your insinuation.

        You don't speak for men or women. I don't care what your gender is, whether it be male or female. You are just speaking up for the personal ambition of the Clintons. And I don't care if it were the male or female Clinton running either. it's a "two-fer". If her name was Bill rather than Hillary my reaction to the Clinton would be the same.  

        by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:15:02 PM PDT

        •  No; are you trying to deny what others feel is...

          ...sexist language? That is, are you trying to poo-poo others anger at what they feel is a sexist remark? You wouldn't want to silence women's concern with such a remark, would you?

          Why is that? Why would you seek to quell discussion and or/anger over what others perceive as a sexist remark? What is your motive? Are you speaking for women?

          Help me understand you're not condoning sexist code language here. I certainly hope you're not sexist, because if you were, this is not the site to be on, IMO.

          by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:19:02 PM PDT

      •  This woman is dumb evidently

        I've used claws come off gender neutral.

        I've also used shuck and jive race neutral.

        by joynow on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM PDT

        •  More clues

          That's true about the neutality. However there are clues if it's part of a pattern of many comments in a short space of time. Another clue is if it's being done for a perceived gain.

          If there is no possible gain from it and it's a term that can be gender neutral, then any interpretation that it's sexist is simply a crass attempt to manufacture an issue and lower feminism to it's use as a tool for the political ambition of one person.

          But I disagree that the Clintom partisan is dumb. The Clinton people here are fairly organized in their talking points of the day and do and say whatever they think can score a cheap point or 2.

          It's a lesson learned from our enemies in the 90's and in recent years Bush-Rove. The Clinton followers may have learned those amoral lessons all too well. Don't call them dumb.  

          by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:13:01 PM PDT

  •  Really Stiring The Pot I'd Say .

    by ArtfromMI on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM PDT

    •  Universal is on a quest

      Here is the new "talking point" of the day for the Clinton-bots.

      by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM PDT

      •  Forget about me; be concerned about...

        ...women who could find this deal-breaking in their decision about who to vote for.

        Women take enough BS; they don't need to hear it from a Dem candidate, too.

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:20:33 PM PDT

        •  Dingdingdingding! we have a troll! n/t

          by homunq on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM PDT

          •  come on.

            Does anything from diary, comment history, etc. back that up?

            by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM PDT

            •  Don't worry, olivert...

              ...I'm used to it.

              If you really want some ugly stuff said about me, see BobZCat.

              It's all good.

              :)

              by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM PDT

        •  We can't forget about you

          You are all over this board manufacturing an issue out of an expression of the english language.

          by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM PDT

      •  True that

        Universal, et al are going to push the sexism meme hard for the next few weeks. And that means saturating this and other blogs with hundreds of comments attacking Obama for it, attacking any of his surrogates for it, and certainly starting flame wars here over it. Watch.

        I guess it's more fun than Halo, or watching repeats of Star Trek.

        by BobzCat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM PDT

        •  It damages feminism

          Because it is used as a mere tool in the service of the political ambitions of one American family.

          by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:11:09 PM PDT

•  What Are We Running .....

  two robots whom need to be programed not to make human error or slip past the given agenda ? Besides it was not a " TOTALLY " inflammatory remark . Geeezzz , I'll be glad when November gets here .

  by ArtfromMI on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:18 PM PDT

•  What on Earth?

  Seriously? Seriously? This is even worth noticing?

  There are days when I wonder how the human race has kept from going extinct this long...

  by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM PDT

•  interesting to see those who saw racism

  everywhere not seeing sexism in this remark.

  by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM PDT

  •  It's a willfull denial of obvious sexism...

    ...very disappointing, yet sadly unsurprising.

    by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:10:35 PM PDT

    •  also, isn't Obama sort of "wasting" the "status

      quo" characterization on Hillary? Won't it seem tired when he uses it on McCain?

      by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:32 PM PDT

      •  who said he meant only her????

        that's just the interpretation given by somebody else in the quote.

        by marcoto on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM PDT

        •  marcoto it is the interpretation everybody gets.

          Do you think Obama will call McCain a "force of status quo?" Do you think he will say McCain has his claws out?

          by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:33:58 PM PDT

    •  Spin, spin, spin

      Jesus, you lot must be desperate today. Are Hillary's internal polls looking that bad?

      This is a COMPLETE non-issue.

      by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM PDT

      •  DIDO !

        by ArtfromMI on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:16:01 PM PDT

        •  do you mean "ditto"? Dido was... well... eom.

          by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:11 PM PDT

          •  I want to thank you....n/t

            by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:55 PM PDT

      •  I'm sure women are glad to hear they're

        a non-issue. Wasn't there a diary to that effect today?

        by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:25:19 PM PDT

        •  Twisting My Words

          There's no there there. It's a contrived and invented false accusation of sexism. You're just spinning to carry out another one of Clinton's vile and desperate hit jobs.

          by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:34:22 PM PDT

          •  right. Turning the putative victim into

            the assailant. It's a great old trick.

            Look, I have no horse in this race anymore. I voted on Tuesday for Edwards. But I see this as sexist, especially if we are going on the sort of rubric founded by angry Obama supporters.

            by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:36:26 PM PDT

            •  "Victim"?

              Cut the melodrama. You're spinning faster than a rocket-powered top.

              by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:37:00 PM PDT

              •  I don't spin.

                I call it like I see it. And I said "putative." It means: alleged, supposed, etc. That means, the victim before anything has been proven. The plaintiff.

                Turning the plaintiff into the assailant. Is a trick used CONSTANTLY against women.

                What I am looking for here is a sense of a fair rubric between Obama's remarks here and e.g. Shaheen's remarks in New Hampshire, which got him kicked off the campaign. Do you remember (D-Punjab)? There is a double standard here and it is noteworthy.

                by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:40:04 PM PDT

                •  I'm Sure You Don't

                  Never, never ever. Even when the author has admitted that he doesn't beleive this bullshit.

                  by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:41:15 PM PDT

                  •  author said it could be momentarily offensive...

                    and anyway, what makes him the final effing authority?

                    If we are assuming code in every candidates' statements, as well as those of their surrogates - and that is the rubric established by Obama supporters, here - we can be justified to see something off here. If not, then it would be unnecessary to see it.

                    But we assume code, here. It's what's been done for the past few months.

                    And this is a NASTY primary.

                    by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:43:45 PM PDT

                    •  I'm sorry, but there's no "code" here

                      outside of your mind.

                      by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM PDT

                      •  I'm sorry. This is very common code. "Catfight."

                        And he made a clawing gesture? Infantilizing.

                        This is not something you want your candidate doing. He has previously called Hillary "the status quo." Everybody knows that she is what he means by that. Being the status quo also means you are accomplished, successful, etc. Second-wave feminismy type things. Things a lot of women take pride in, take seriously. Calling her a status quo cat and then clawing at the air, suggesting that what it takes to get Hillary's level of success is a sort of Mean Girl attitude, is demeaning to women.

                        It is there. I am not saying he put it there. He might not even know it's there. But it's there, and people will see it. Have seen it, already, in the media. That's the point the diarist is making.

                        Might hurt him, might not. But if you ever run for office - don't make a claw gesture when impersonating your female opponent if you want the female vote. Just like you shouldn't play on racist code in a South Carolina Democratic primary. Or if you want the gay vote you shouldn't... I mean, I don't even know.

                        Like I said. Not saying he put it there. But it's there.

                        by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:31 PM PDT

                        •  Or, yknow, it could just be

                          that he was trying to differentiate between merely taking off the gloves and going too far. I've seen the analogy made before.

                          by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM PDT

                          •  sorry PP if I suggested that he was TRYING

                            in any conscious way to use the cat metaphor. I think it was either a slip of the tongue or an attempt to sort of make Hillary seem smaller that was linked, but unintentionally, with gender.

                            If you look upthread there are a lot of people who saw this as well. Most of them do not think it was intentional. Universal happens to, which is fine. What most people are saying is "he should try not to say that." I don't see how that's an unfair suggestion.

                            by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:58:45 PM PDT

                •  Huge double standard...

                  ...and many Obama supporters, it would seem, are aware of this and are rushing to try to  cover BO's tracks.

                  Clinton forces people to step down. Obama does nothing to his national co-chair Jackson, Jr.

                  And Obama supporters, at least some of them, poo-poo what many women, IMO, are likely to feel is a sexist remark.

                  One word: dissonance.

                  by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:45:17 PM PDT

                  •  Spin, spin, spin

                    Jesse Jackson JR's remark didn't come anywhere near to Bill's race-baiting. The Clinton campaign's willingness to throw the mud covering them at everyone else and then try to blame them for it is just plain disgusting.

                    by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

                •  could we, maybe, find a woman

                  one actual, real, live woman who feels insulted by the expression "claws are out?" Then perhaps this whole thread wouldn't have such a surreal quality.

                  by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM PDT

  •  this doesn't exactly rise to the level

    of the "shuck 'n jive" comment. Wait until Obama or some official spokesperson accuses Hillary of acting like she's "on the rag." That would be comparable. This is not.

    by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:21:30 PM PDT

    •  Elmo = 'arbiter of offensive comments?'

      I must have missed the memo.

      I'm sure women everywhere will be glad you have ably summarized their feelings.

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM PDT

      •  no, I don't claim to speak

        for all women, as you seem to. Just for myself.

        by elmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM PDT

        •  Good to hear...

          ...I am not speaking for all women, just know women who would (and will) find this comment offensive.

          by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:35:13 PM PDT

    •  one other difference: Obama doing it directly.

      Not through surrogates. Much more obvious blame, no conspiracy theory necessary. Negativity is HIS to own now.

      by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:23:43 PM PDT

      •  He better apologize, IMO. And fast. n/t

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM PDT

  •  Are you sure?

    I saw a lot of race references and odd dismissiveness of "the black vote".

    But I defended the shuck and jive as possible insult of politicians, not as racist-
    because I used it mostly on my white son in his youth when he was fast talking me to get out of trouble.

    And I didn't even know "claws out" could be sexist and use it gender neutral.

    So are there some who didn't see racism who are seeing sexism?

    Maybe someone needs to make a big list of what terms we can't use and we can see what words are left.

    by joynow on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:36:00 PM PDT

•  When she stops using gender as a campaign

  tool, maybe I'll come more quickly to her defense.

  by jeepdad on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:41 PM PDT

  •  yeah? Did she ask for it? Did she want it?

    by olivert on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM PDT

    •  Yep, we all know the code, too well :( n/t

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:02 PM PDT

•  Not a good move, imo

  Claws out is pretty good code, but it is bad and I think there was something behind it.  Very, very fine line and not of the order of Cuomo/Shaheen/Kerrey, but still not a good thing.

  Of course, this would be a DISASTROUS move on his part since 60% or so of Democratic voters are women (and 60% of the general election voters are women).

  There might be backlash, there might not.  

  by yankeeinmemphis on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM PDT

  •  Why would he even TRY to play this game...

    ...after the South Carolina Memo and the attempts at demonizing the Clintons for their alleged racial insensitivity?

    by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:15:58 PM PDT

    •  Because he is not playing the game

      You are playing the game, right here on this board and it's disgusting.

      This identity politics and victimization game cheapens the cause of feminism in the service of the personal ambition of the Clintons.

      by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:19:49 PM PDT

      •  Barack is very careful with his words...

        ...as most Harvard-trained lawyers -- particularly those running for president -- are and should be.

        He said what he wanted to say, and in so doing, is likely to have initiated s bad reaction from many would-be supporters.

        Damn. :(

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:22:12 PM PDT

        •  You were never a would be supporter

          Obviously.

          Your zealousness is giving you away.

          It's a perfectly good language expression and your crusade to "use it" rather than dealing with anything substantive indicates the levels that the Clinton partsans will stoop to. However this has been the pattern for the last 3-4 weeks.

          by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM PDT

        •  You ever think..

          That these candidates are exhausted?  They don't sleep (even Barack mentioned that on the plane) and once in awhile they might make a gaffe and not actually mean it as you Hill supporters want to spin it?

          Just a thought...  When you're exhausted you might not be as on top of your game as your intellect would suggest.  Every politician makes verbal errors.  I highly doubt Obama is trying to be sexist.

          by badger195 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM PDT

          •  Why would be Obama's gain?

            It's insane to do that. Universal is right to the extent that Obama is very smart.

            This is just a very low attempt by Clinton partisans to play the gender card to their advantage.

            It cheapens and damages the cause of feminism while it benefits the personal ambitions of the Clintons.

            It illuminates what this campaign has boiled down to.

            It doesn't matter if it's Bill or Hillary, the male half or the female half, it's about them.

            by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:58:21 PM PDT

        •  Your Tin Foil Hat Is Ripped

          May I suggest getting a new one?

          by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:35:10 PM PDT

          •  Eggs-Ackley!

            The argument that Obama is so smart and calculating suggests that he would not be out there trying to enrage anyone.

            Unless, of course, someone wanted to manufacture rage in the service of the Clinton poltical campaign.

            By "using" feminism this way, it diminishes it as a cynical tool.

            I find this Clinton campaign tactic to be offensive.

            by Judgment at Nuremberg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM PDT

    •  That's exactly why...

      Most rational, reasonable people will probably attribute it towards a simple mistake of using bad words and not thinking about it.

      But Hillary supporters will spin it to make it seem like a huge travesty.

      For the record, I've never accused Hillary of racist comments.

      by badger195 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM PDT

•  as a diehard feminist

  I think this is a bit of a stretch.  And I'm usually pretty touchy about sexist language.

  by sunshineonthebay on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM PDT

•  Gone on long enough.

  Hah hah! Joke!

  I only wrote this diary to "declaw" the argument for the Clinton-or-nothing crowd. (As opposed to the rest of us on both sides who don't want to tear the party apart)

  You didn't get it from the "very concerned" poll option?

  Consider this my tip jar.

  (Actually, I think it was a stupid move. And I can see how somebody could be momentarily offended. But come on, it is not worth making a big deal.)

  by homunq on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM PDT

•  Taking Bets

  Will SusanHu or Alegre be the next one to post an outraged and oh-so-concerned hit diary on this subject?

  My money is on Alegre. SusanHu tends to post in the morning.

  by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM PDT

  •  My money is on Taylor Marsh n/t

    by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:39:09 PM PDT

    •  Wow, I really spoke too soon

      Egg on my face.

      by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:40:33 PM PDT

•  :) n/t

  by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:45:46 PM PDT

  •  That was supposed to be a reply to PP n/t

    by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:46:10 PM PDT