Clinton Supporters Make Me Feel Down

February 18, 2008

Guest post by Ron Chusid

With Obama now in the lead for the Democratic nomination, he is facing increased attacks from both the Republicans and from Clinton supporters. I already noted one of the Republican attacks today. dnA beat me to bringing up one of the attacks from Clinton supporters, which I had discussed over the weekend at Liberal Values along with the video of Obama’s comment.

Obama was responding to the many dishonest attacks made by Clinton (which I’ve discussed at length in other posts such as here). He said, “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

Obama was trying to be diplomatic and downplay the dishonesty of the Clinton campaign here, but some portray this as sexist. It takes quite a leap of the imagination to think that “feeling down” is a reference to pre-menstrual tension, stresses of menopause, or in some other way sexist.

It should not come as a surprise that many people seeing a physician, regardless of specialty, have depression either as an underlying component of their medical complaints or sometimes as a consequence of their illness. I see many people who are depressed every day. Many others might not have clinical depression but still feel sad as a consequence of every day stresses, or the stresses of their illness. Sometimes people outright say they feel depressed, but generally they use a number of English phrases. I hear people of both sexes say they feel down many times a week. This has no correlation to either the sex of the patient or menstrual cycles.

The claims that this line was sexist were based upon the assumption that Obama was referring to Clinton’s emotional state, and I primarily responded based upon this assumption. It is also possible Obama might not have been speaking of emotions at all. He could have been referring to Clinton being down in the race, down in the delegate count, or down in the polls. It really discredits legitimate feminist goals and makes legitimate complaints of sexism sound less meaningful, when Clinton supporters become this creative in fabricating charges of sexism. The tendency of Clinton, or in this case Clinton supporters, to dwell on non-issues also strengthens the argument that after Clinton’s arguments based upon inevitability and her non-existent greater experience have failed, there really is no good reason to back Clinton.

Ooooo….guest host fight!

Begin!

🙂

  • For me, the real issue is Clinton’s incompetence, supposedly her main (only) selling point. The hubris of her Guiliani, flowers-in-the-streets, shock-and-awe, with no post-SuperTuesday planning, is the real issue. As is being the candidate with more experience in Texas having the newbie run circles around you as in organization as you’re trying to figure out how the primaries work two weeks out.

    Claws? I guess that’s the best you can do when you’re still brushing up on Campaign 101 in your must-win firewall.

  • 1st law of liberal blog politics: The more stridently Armando (aka Big Tent Democrat) argues for a position and the more egregiously he insults those who disagree, the more likely it is that Armando’s position is full of shit. We’re in mountain of shit territory here.

  • It actually had to do with the comment that her claws come out, not the feeling down comment which came afterwards

  • Here’s how Karen Stabiner in the Huffington Post twists the quote:

    “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.”

    She quotes two words and the rest is all Stabiner.

  • It’s all a matter of where you stand. I’m in the Hillary camp (although I will wholeheartedly support Barack Obama should he be the nominee). However, I have seen Obama’s statements over the past 2 weeks as not helpful. On a nonsubstantive point, I think he sounds condescending and patronizing (remember how the country loved Gore in 2000 on that point). But, my primary issue is that he’s taken to attacking the ’90s. This hurts him and the party for several reasons: 1) he makes his supporters dislike Hillary more (so if she is the nominee, that’s bad); 2) he makes Hillary’s supporters dislike him more (I was moved by his South Carolina speech — I finally heard the fire that I liked in John Edwards), but now I hear him attack the ’90s and it brings back my fears that he’s Joe Liebermanish and that he sees anything redeeming in the Reagan legacy (I’m sorry, but you CANNOT praise Reagan without making it 100000% clear that you’re only supporting his communication skills) (my point on this one being that the ’90s were much better than the ’00s); 3) by attacking the ’90s he gives credence to Hillary’s argument that she was an integral part of the Clinton White House; and 4) it seems that the number one argument in the fall should be “Are you (or is the country) better off than you were 8 years ago”? By attacking the ’90s in any way, he takes away some of his thunder on that argument. Again, I will vote for him enthusiastically in November, but I have seeds of doubt that he has Liebermanitis and likes to reach across the aisle too much, just for the sake of doing it. If we have a 50 seat majority in the House and 58-60 seats in the Senate, screw bipartisanship. Let’s pass our new majority legislation (which has widespread support) and let the Republicans come along or get run over by the bus. But, to get back to my original point, my friend and my Mom (both big Obama supporters) haven’t seen his statements in this way — they just see negativity from the HRC camp.

  • yep. just keep doing the republicans’ job; soften up those targets of whoever is the democratic nominee for easier destruction by the repukes come november.

    i will be very interested when this entire campaign is over to see who will be revealed as provocateurs.

  • I see that Steve has let you come up to the front row to spew your anti Hillary BS.

    Technically, this is anti-Hillary’s-BS, but thanks for chiming in.

  • This is just asinine.

    The claims that this line was sexist were based upon the assumption that Obama was referring to Clinton’s emotional state

    Of course he was referring to her emotional state. That is what “feeling down” means.

    It is also possible Obama might not have been speaking of emotions at all. He could have been referring to Clinton being down in the race, down in the delegate count, or down in the polls.

    If that were what he meant, then that is what he would have said. He could have easily said, “I understand that whenever Senator Clinton is down in the polls, she feels the need to attack.” But that’s not what he said.

    This is a man who is renowned for his use of language. To suggest that he didn’t mean “feeling down” when he said “feeling down” is ridiculous.

    It really discredits legitimate feminist goals and makes legitimate complaints of sexism sound less meaningful, when Clinton supporters become this creative in fabricating charges of sexism.

    You can’t be serious. Just because you don’t think something is sexist doesn’t make it “fabricated.” And speaking out about sexism is the only way to fight it. You can’t seriously think that the way to achieve feminist goals is to stop complaining about sexism, can you?

  • Unfortunately, writing these kind of posts does no good as the Hillary people are so desperate now that they are searching every nook and cranny to find evidence of evil smears against Hillary. And that includes pointing out mistakes Hillary is making in her campaign or correcting mistakes that her supporters are making. Even my comment on this right now will be construed as a vile attack on Hillary which is based upon hatred.

    Basically, they just don’t want to hear the bad news on this stuff as it’s just about all they’re getting. And I understand that, but really wish they’d kind of get a grip. Sure, there are people who genuinely hate Hillary. But trying to read these feelings into everyone who says anything negative against her or her supporters is not helping their side at all, but rather makes them look even more desperate. But again, what I wrote was vile, so I guess I should apologize for being so bold as to not praise Hillary when writing about her. I can’t wait until after March 4, when we should hopefully go back to normal.

  • If we have a 50 seat majority in the House and 58-60 seats in the Senate, screw bipartisanship. Let’s pass our new majority legislation (which has widespread support) and let the Republicans come along or get run over by the bus.

    As an Obama supporter, I’d have to say I agree with that 100%. But at the same time, I’d have to disagree with your underlying premise that Obama is somehow inclined to Liebermanitis. He’s boycotted Fox News for their lies, remember, so it seems that he’s willing to work across the aisle with some of the sane ones (Lugar, for instance) but give the nutcases the cold shoulder. He doesn’t seek out their praise like sycophantic Holy Joe Lieberman.

    I ultimately think he’s the best person to have at the top of the ticket to get those broad majorities in Congress that we’re both craving. For one, Obama polls better than Clinton with independents and moderates, and has thus far attracted much more of their support in the open primaries and caucuses. He’s going to get more people to pull the “D” lever, simple as that. Second, Obama has a better appeal in the swing states. While any Democrat with a pulse is going to take California and New York in the general, the fact that Obama won in crucial swing states like Missouri, Colorado, and the like leads me to believe he has the best chance to bring a few swing states our way. Even if he doesn’t win them outright, if he’s at the top of the ticket, the congressional candidates — in red, blue, and purple states alike — are going to benefit.

    We’re at a rare moment at which the congressional balance can be swung hard in our favor. Nearly 30 incumbent GOP congressmen are retiring from the House, and the Senate map is such that the GOP will be playing defense in blue and purple states. If we have someone as the party standard bearer who can broaden our base (and not, as Hillary would, consolidate the conservative base), then I think we can get those vast majorities in both houses of Congress.

    And, as you note, once we have that, the rest will follow.

  • Just out of curiosity, does anyone who thinks Obama’s “feeling down” statement was offensive see any racial undertones in WJC’s “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina” statement?

  • It is also possible Obama might not have been speaking of emotions at all. – sez you. This is really funny. Feeling down. Feeling. Feeling down. Since when does feeling down mean anything other than feeling down in an emotional way?

    You see people that are depressed every day? No offense, but if it is for treatment, that’s a little scary.

  • It’s all a matter of where you stand. -Alex

    Clearly; Hillary supporters see sexism, rational people don’t.

    Rational, but unnecessary explanation.

    In a tie race, intangibles like momentum, which are felt and not measured, can make one competitor feel like they are losing. It doesn’t mean she was depressed or melancholy; it means when she considered the immeasurable forces influencing the race she perceived she was at a disadvantage and that it was time to stoke the fires.

    This is more Rove 101 from Hillary. Attacking Obama’s strength. The Clinton camp creates a situation where Obama supporters are forced into a semantics argument so they can respond by disparaging his ability to speak well.

  • To TR — Thank you for a sane and reasoned response. I tried to be very careful in saying that I fear Liebermanitis (but am not by any means sure it exists), and some of this stuff plays into my feelings on that. Maybe I’m too partisan and angry to take the leap myself and reach out to these independent “yahoos” (I’m being fake condescending there) who somehow feel there are 2 sides to this issue when I “know” the Republicans are wrong and have done so much harm. I recognize Obama’s apparent ability to win across the aisle in November, but I am cautious about reading too much into it. Much like Rudy did once people got to know him better, Obama can only go down. However, Hillary can only go up from her current popularity. As voters (in New York in 2000 and in small forums, etc.) get to know her (and see that the smears from 1994 (don’t those seem quaint now — “oh no, universal health care is coming) are a crock and outdated), she may surprise people in the fall. Put it this way — other than some of the people who are for Obama and are now being turned off to HRC by his rhetoric (and that was my point in being upset with his recent actions/statements, in my comment above), name one person in this country who doesn’t hate HRC but will start to do so between now and November. All of her haters are already haters. On the other hand, Obama will be taken down many notches by the Republican hit machine. He also may be seen as Goreish/condesending in debates with McCain when he runs circles around him (much of the country doesn’t want somebody too smart as President — yes, it’s true!!!) — who knows? The question in my mind is how far down does he come, and how far up does HRC go. I don’t know the answer.

  • L Boom — I’m going to step in racial doo doo, I’m sure, but yes, of course WJC’s comment had racial (I don’t think racist) undertones — he was trying to belittle Obama’s accomplishment (although Obama outshone any expectations in SC). However, let’s put the statement in the context of what’s appropriate in a political campaign — it was pretty tame. And how is it any different from the Obama camp playing up his ability to win in overly white Iowa (or Kansas or Idaho, or _____)? Or saying that Huckabee can’t win among Jews or ______? It’s all about the expectations game and I didn’t see it as inappropriate at all (it may have been stupid (especially given Obama’s broader support than J Jackson) and I don’t have a problem with Obama people trying to say it was inappropriate). I’m just saying that I don’t think it was off limits in a campaign.

  • When I saw Clinton’s attacks on Obama as racist, everyone said I was being too sensitive, and I spent the last week pointing out how disingenuous Greg Sargent and Paul Krugman were being in pretending otherwise. Anyone who didn’t agree with them was being “sensitive” or playing by “Clinton rules.”

    When I saw sexist undertones in Obama’s statements, I said something. I calls em like I sees em. I don’t actually think what Obama said was close to as bad as what the Clinton campaign has said, but I didn’t see any point in letting it slide either, or even making a comparison, since that would look like I was justifying. Now lots of people are telling me I’m too sensitive.

    Maybe it’s just because I’m a black man who went to Vassar? Either way, I stand by the post, I don’t think it’s possible to read “feeling down” as “down in the polls” or “down in the delegate count”. I think he was making an implicit suggestion that Clinton was being too emotional because she is a woman. I don’t know that he did it on purpose, and I said that.

    I didn’t cite Big Tent Democrat, or Taylor Marsh, because they’re Clinton trolls and they’d say anything Obama said was sexist to make the man look bad. But I’m not like either; I very much prefer Obama to Clinton, and I’ve said outright that I might not vote for her if she gets the nomination. I’m not a Democrat, and I feel no obligation to vote for the Democrat reflexively.

    Whether you do or you don’t believe what Obama said was sexist, I think in general there’s a desire to avoid discussing issues of tolerance and sensitivity in this race, and generally the supporters of one candidate only see one side, which is disappointing.

  • Perhaps, instead of using a fine tooth comb on Obama’s rhetoric, Hillary’s people had used a fine tooth comb on the Texas primary rules, she’d be in a better position.

  • Thanks for responding. I guess it reveals my own leanings (Obama supporter here), but I did find WJC’s comments a little … surprising is probably the best word here. The intent was pretty clearly to paint Obama as “the black candidate” and, consequently, out of the mainstream. This, of course, summons up the idea that black candidates can never be mainstream in a presidential race. Clinton’s an excellent politician and he leaves much of this to inference but the point was pretty clearly there, as many, many people have pointed out, given that his answer was a complete non-sequitur to the question that was actually asked. He knew exactly the talking point he wanted placed in the media and he dropped it in when he had a chance.

    I can see how Obama’s statement could be construed as sexist, although I honestly don’t think it was intended that way. That said, there was a crime nearly as bad in there for a presidential candidate: sloppy language. When I read the comment, I mentally supplied “… in the polls” at the end of the phrase, but it does leave the door wide open for a variety of reactions. This is pretty clearly a tempest in a teapot, I think, but hopefully will be a powerful reminder on how careful he has to be with his language when he’s speaking off the cuff.

  • “there really is no good reason to back Clinton”

    How sad to see CB’s rather balanced coverage of this race supplanted by such a brusque dismissal of the views of the millions of women and men who support Senator Clinton.

    The “feeling down” comment, combined with the “claws” comment suggest a lack of sensitivity to sexist language. This is not the crime of the century, and it does not mean that Obama will betray women on the issues. Nor, for that matter, was it the crime of the century when Bill Clinton followed dozens of political analysts and suggested Obama had a demographic advantage in South Carolina by citing Jesse Jackson. Insensitive yes. Racist, no.

    This Democrat wishes the CarpetBagger a speedy recovery.

  • L Boom — Maybe I wasn’t clear — I think you and I both agree that WJC was “ghettoizing” Obama, but I don’t see that as substantively different from Obama playing up his ability to get white votes in Iowa. Both are trying to make a point about expectations and saying that “generally, blacks vote for blacks and white people don’t.” I wish that weren’t the case, but… If Obama can make a big deal out of Iowa, I think that WJC can make the flip side argument in SC (which wouldn’t have seemed so stupid if Obama had won SC by say 5 points…).

    And my point exactly that our leanings seem to be really shading how we see things (although I can’t say I’m that worked up over the “feeling down” comment, but I’m not a woman, so maybe it didn’t hit me that hard).

    Agreed on sloppy language — remember this one: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it”

  • Maybe it’s just because I’m a black man who went to Vassar?

    You’re black??? Will you be my friend?

    I live in Houston inside the loop. The odds of us conversing like this if we met in person would be hovering somewhere around nil, and like every upper-middle-class white guy, I’ve always wanted to be able to use the coveted, “I can say this because some of my best friends are black.” Hey, I’ve seen Boys in the Hood, I know what you’ve been through. We can hang!

    You know what this means? I have Jewish friends, too! — probably. It’s possible. Lord knows I need them. Are there any Jews out there? I’m fine on the homosexuals at the moment.

    God, I love the Internet.

  • Clinton Supporters Make Me Feel Down…

    Clinton of course has a right to attack. The real problem is that in one of her recent attacks she has made a very bad play: Having not made a pledge to accept public financing in the General, she urges Barack to honor his “pledge” with McCain. This is a venal sin against the democratic party.

    Here’s why:

    To score a few mean debating points today, she is willing to hamstring her competitor–the potential democratic nominee–with some “pledge baggage” that makes it difficult for him to win in Nov. If she should lose the nomination, she has undermined the real democratic nominee along the way. But that consideration is obviously not part of her calculus.

    This tells us two things:

    1) Clinton doesn’t care about the democratic party per se.
    2) She will go to court to seat FL and MI. She will divide the party if there is 1 chance in a 1000 she can be nominee.

    All that shouldn’t make you feel down…
    It should make you mad as hell.

  • I agree with Dan S (and disagree with the end of dnA’s comment saying there isn’t enough focus on tolerance/sensitivity) — I can’t believe we’re even talking about this crap with everything else going on. It’s like Congress investigating whether the Patriots stole the Super Bowl (I’m a big Jets fan and hate Belichick with a passion, but there are better things for them to focus on). I don’t believe Obama is a sexist or even meant to make this argument. I don’t believe WJC is a racist. Let’s move on — this is tame stuff. For all the talk of hostility in this race, this is a very tame race. Think back to some of the stuff of the past. You want bad stuff — think LBJ/Goldwater and the little girl picking the flower; think Willie Horton.

  • Obama might have been obliquely calling to mind Hillary’s infamous “choked up” moment at the diner: In describing the “horse race” of this election, she said “Some people think it’s a game, you know; you’re up, or you’re down…” and on “down” her voice fell to a strangled whisper. He knows what he’s doing, alright. I agree with the people above who point out that if you mean “down” politically, you don’t use “feeling.”

  • Admittedly, I didn’t read all the posts, so someone may have mentioned this. If not it bears repeating. Obama didn’t just say that Clinton was “feeling down” when she criticizes Obama, as you cite in your third paragraph. He says she “PERIODICALLY” is feeling down. Dog whistle to the sexists. And that you would dare finish the posts without mentioning makes me suspect your motives. Why shove it under the carpet? If it wasn’t sexism, it was surpassingly bad judgment, and I believe in either case he owes women an apology.

  • Admittedly, I didn’t read all the posts, so someone may have mentioned this. If not it bears repeating. Obama didn’t just say that Clinton was “feeling down” when she criticizes Obama, as you cite in your third paragraph. He says she “PERIODICALLY” is feeling down. Dog whistle to the sexists. And that you would dare finish the post without mentioning that makes me suspect your motives. Why shove it under the carpet? If it wasn’t sexism, it was surpassingly bad judgment, and I believe in either case he owes women an apology.

  • Well, I must admit to a thorough lack of surprise in seeing all of the Clintonistas (amazing how a little perspective on years of ditching and dodging responsibility, crying “wolf” everytime one (or two) is criticized, and going negative when all else fails–irregardless of one’s own failings can cause this way-left-leaning, two-time Clinton voter, to use a term coined by the Blustery Rush) howl at the thought of poor Hillary being criticized. For me it boils down to two points….

    1) A vote in favor of the use of force in Iraq–not out of a real belief in the policy but because of practical fears of being perceived as unpatriotic (or, in this case, principled).

    2) Solutions not speeches. I believe the table was perfectly set for Health Care reform during Clinton I and someone we knew BLEW IT…couldn’t even get that off the ground and, through her own “leadership” and “experience” and “solutions”, effectively tabled any substantive national healthcare from all political dialogue for nearly 16 years.

    I am a supporter of Hillary, however she wil not get my vote unless Bill disappears (I know, this is tantamount to sacrilege…criticizing the finest moderate Republican president of the last half-century) and she stops compaining about negativity as she goes negative. Criminy…be a LITTLE objective, folks….

  • Just more proof that those who are looking to be offended almost always get what they want. It must be a sad way to exist, seeing coded insults and attacks everywhere. Outrage is certainly a powerful motivator, but I have to think the long term effects of being constantly outraged aren’t worth it.

    I’ll accept this whole story if/when the League of the Perpetually Outraged acccept Hillary’s “coded racism” in referring to Obama’s posotion on crack versus cocaine. For the record, I think that is also an example of looking to find offense where there is none, but I can at least live with the LPO; it’s the hypocrites among them who only see subtle coded messages that confirm their already-held believes that drive me nuts.

  • I don’t think it’s possible to read “feeling down” as “down in the polls” or “down in the delegate count”. -dnA

    But, like I’ve said repeatedly, can it be an emotional response to the intangibles driving an otherwise tie race, like the three Ms, momentum, media, and money?

    For example, after Obama’s win in Iowa, Clinton clearly went on the attack. At that time Obama had momentum and media on his side. The Clinton wins in New Hampshire, and suddenly the big mo a diminished and Clinton backs off.

    Obama is clearly only saying that, when Clinton perceives (or feels) those intangibles trending Obama that she tends to attack then.

    Let me again ask what Obama has to gain by making sexist remarks? He is doing much better with women lately. It seems like Clinton supporters have more to gain by accusing Obama of sexism, to me.

    If Obama wanted to make sexist remarks about Clinton, he had a perfect opportunity when the media focused for two weeks on her ‘tearing up,’ but instead he acknowledged that campaigning was hard on them all and that he’d not comment on it.

    There’s no history of sexism, in spite of opportunity. All of this leads me to believe that people are just looking too hard for it.

  • memekiller,

    I’m Jewish too. By being friends with me, you can fulfill almost all your politically correct needs.

  • Much ado about nothing. People see (hear) what they want to (me included, of course); what they should do is (at least) hold back the fires of anger and finger-pointing to things that are clearly black or white (don’t go there), and not things that could reasonably be interpreted either way.

    Things such as this.

  • Alex, agreed. Sorry if it wasn’t clear, I was just expounding a bit on my thoughts there rather than responding to anything in yours I saw in disagreement. The biggest, most important lesson here, I think, really is: DON’T USE SLOPPY LANGUAGE! I really don’t think Obama intended it to mean anything other than down in the polls, but he gave the opposing campaign an opening to attack him and there’s enough there to get some traction.

    All I know is we need a Democrat taking that oath as POTUS on 1/20/09 or we, as a nation, are pretty much fucked. We just need to make sure that neither candidate torpedoes the other’s chances in the GE, whoever wins.

  • Over the past year this race has evolved from being a referendum on a ‘Clinton 3rd term’ to a referendum on a ‘President Obama’.

  • A guest post assured to bait Clinton supporters. the CB “lets play nice” lecture.
    one of these things is not like the other.
    get well, CB.

  • He says she “PERIODICALLY” is feeling down. -gloria

    Oh, please. Aren’t we supposed to be in the reality based community? This silliness hardly deserves a response, but:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periodically

    periodically

    Main Entry:
    pe·ri·od·i·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of periodically
    Pronunciation:
    \ˌpir-ē-ˈä-di-k(ə-)lē\
    Function:
    adverb
    Date:
    1646

    1 : at regular intervals of time 2 : from time to time : frequently

    Of course, Obama couldn’t have possibly meant from time to time. No, he was wink, wink, nudge, nudging in order to push women voters back into Hillary’s camp. Wait, that doesn’t make sense at all. Then why on Earth would he be so sexist?

    Oh, it’s because, as Occam’s Razor dictates, he wasn’t. Let’s stop this absurd parsing.

    The GOP must be eating this up.

  • The baiting is coming from Clinton supporters who are pushing this type of bogus attack. If they are going to repeatedly launch attacks like this it is not baiting to respond and debunk their charges.

  • He says she “PERIODICALLY” is feeling down. Dog whistle to the sexists.

    You know, I work with a couple of the most sexist men I’ve ever met. I mean, horribly, stereotypically male chauvinist pig sexist. Good ol’ boy, let’s go see some strippers tonight, hey there pretty lady, Al Bundy sexist.

    So I ran this quote by them, and they shrugged. Not one of them caught the supposed dog-whistle call that you’re claiming was meant to appeal to them, not on two readings, not until I pointed out what the connection ws supposed to be. Not one. And even after I spelled it out for them, they thought it was a ridiculous interpretation.

    And you know why? Sexists aren’t that smart, and they aren’t that clever. They don’t parse the language the way you seem to believe they do. Their idea of subtlety is that asshole Republican donor who formed a mock anti-Clinton organization whose initials spelled out C-U-N-T. That’s about as much finesse and sophisticated a slur as they can handle.

    If there’s a dog whistle being blown here, it’s calling all the people who get outraged over the slightest thing.

  • memekiller,

    I’m Jewish too. By being friends with me, you can fulfill almost all your politically correct needs.

    Please, please, please tell me you’re gay.

  • Point the blame wherever it makes you feel better but a title “Clinton Supporters Make me Feel Down” is hardly a big welcome to the Clinton supporters – admittedly fewer, but this is a reason why – who still read this blog.

    I stand by my comment and concern expressed above.

  • doubtful – from time to time doesn’t change the meaning of what Obama said. He insinuated that from time to time Hillary feels down and goes on the attack. Duh! Of course it’s sexist.

    I read elsewhere that what Hillary said that led Obama to his statement was a criticism of Obama’s watering down of nuclear legislation to suit the industry. That’s a pretty valid criticism on Hillary’s part and makes what Obama said even more specious.

    And I’m really getting a chuckle over a few comments about how if Obama wanted to come off as sexist he’d try harder…of course he doesn’t want to come off as sexist. Maybe he just can’t help himself. Do you think Senator Macaca wanted to come off as racist?

  • OK, for one, the OP can’t know what Obama really meant, unless he’s mind-melded with him in a weirdly Vulcan way. We’re all in the same boat – assigning meaning and motive to what we hear the candidates saying. Having said that, two points: 1. The Obama people need to be able to take a punch. The Clinton camp isn’t dishing out anything like what they’ll get from the Repugs. You think the Clinton camp is distorting your positions? Just wait. 2. Sexism is in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder. Quit trying to argue it away. I didn’t think most of Bill’s comments that caused the stir sounded particularly racist but, then again, I’m not black, so I assumed I was listening with different ears. A lot of women heard the same thing. You don’t have to like it, you can even argue that you don’t think Obama probably meant it, but I’m allowed to feel that those comments wouldn’t have been made or at least phrased the same way if his opponent was a man.

  • When you’re down in the race, down in the count, down in the polls, downtrodden, down in the mouth, feeling down, feeling blue, or having the blues, having a competitor point that out will piss you off. Simple as that.

    I have a large collection of grips. Anybody wanna get one?

  • Memekiller,

    No, sorry to disappoint. But maybe I’ll start pretending to be, just on the intertubes, so I can speak with authority about absolutely everything.

  • A pointless irrelevant post except for this…”…The tendency of Clinton, or in this case Clinton supporters, to dwell on non-issues also strengthens the argument that after Clinton’s arguments based upon inevitability and her non-existent greater experience have failed, there really is no good reason to back Clinton.”

    As much reason as there is to back Obama and isn’t this exactly what you are doing…dwelling on non-issues. Obama supporters attacking Clinton supporters…waste of time. Let’s work on getting a not for profit healthcare system and a new energy plan. Let’s regulate Exxon/Mobile so they aren’t making 11 billion in profits off our energy needs.
    btw…super delgates don’t stand for the will of the people (independents and cross over republicans) they stand for what is best for the democratic party…democrats only. Democratic party rules…the way it is.

  • memekiller,

    I’m Jewish too. By being friends with me, you can fulfill almost all your politically correct needs.

    Please, please, please tell me you’re gay.

    Not to derail the thread, but that totally reminds me of one of my all-time favorite movie scenes from Stripes, when Bill Murray and Harold Ramis are talking to the Army recruiter.

    Recruiter: Have either of you ever been convicted of a felony?
    (they look back and forth at each other a few times, then): Convicted? Nope. No, never convicted.
    Recruiter: Are either of you homosexuals?
    Harold Ramis: No, we’re not homosexuals. But we are willing to learn.

    Man, need to queue that up in Netflix now.

  • He insinuated that from time to time Hillary feels down and goes on the attack. Duh! Of course it’s sexist.

    Duh is right. You people are insane.

  • Do you think Senator Macaca wanted to come off as racist? -Just Me

    Yes.

    I’m sure he was surprised it didn’t help him in the polls.

    doubtful – from time to time doesn’t change the meaning of what Obama said. -Just Me

    It certainly does when someone is insinuating that by ‘periodically’ Obama was tacitly referring to the menstrual cycle.

    Sigh. Try rereading my comments with an open mind and a dose of reading comprehension.

    Not one single commenter has disputed my interpretation that ‘feeling down’ is about the emotional reaction to the intangibles, like momentum, which, occurs, say it with me, periodically.

  • As a black woman, my ears are not unaccustomed to being on the alert for racist and / or sexist comments. This is a stretch of a stretch and one of those things that you wil find solely because you’re looking to find something.

    Disclaimer: Yes…I am an Obama supporter, but one who has (in the past at any rate) had a lot of respect for Senator Clinton. That wanes daily

  • doubtful: You are in denial. Jeeez, the root of “periodically” is “period,” as in “a woman has her period once a month.” Look that one up in Webster’s, take two asprins, and lie down. Your candidate isn’t perfect. Deal with it.

  • Wow. I may have to stop teaching trig functions lest I get fired. We out and out use the term ‘period’ while talking about how our functions move up and down. I am so screwed.

    Or people could maybe relieve episty of his grips.

  • Gloria, the root of periodically is actually “period,” as in a course of time, a recurring portion, a cycle. Interestingly, this usage dates back to 1413. Its first usage in the sense of menstruation didn’t occur until 1822. If you’re going to argue semantics, please at least try to be right . There’s really some amazing info out there on the internets. I still fail to see any sexism regarding the passage of time.

  • Your candidate isn’t perfect. Deal with it. -gloria

    I know. He skipped Kyl-Lieberman, and I’m not happy about that. He’s missed more than a reasonable share of votes in my opinion, and he’s failed to provide the necessary leadership on some key issues recently that is becoming of a Presidential candidate.

    Those are substantive issues. I know they’re new to some of you, but they are realistic reasons to criticize candidates. Maybe you should try to focus on those.

    You are in denial. Jeeez, the root of “periodically” is “period,” as in “a woman has her period once a month.” -gloria

    The etymology of the word periodically isn’t a slang term for menses. What a simple view of the world. It is actually derived from the Greek periodos, meaning a circuit, period of time.

    Is it sexist for me to end a sentence with a, dare I say it, period? Or maybe I should avoid the library because of their obviously sexist periodicals section?

    Is the word ‘periodically’ now seriously not politically correct? Sigh.

  • Clearly all this HYSTERIA about Obama’s comments is due to the upcoming full moon on Wednesday.

    I kid.

  • following up on socratic_me, there has to be a good Periodic Table of the Elements joke here somewhere were I not too mind-addled from work to find it. . .

  • Alex @ 17, Obama’s performance suggests to me that he actually does better as people get to know him. That’s how he moved into the lead in the race.

    I wouldn’t say that’s because people like HRC any less. I suspect that when people get to know HRC, they probably like her more as well. But, I wouldn’t say that her negatives couldn’t get worse. Whether that depends on a number of things she can’t control like GOP smears and how the press responds. Of course, her own response to the inevitable smears will be important. However, given the performance of her primary campaign, I’m less sanguine about her ability to respond than I was two months back.

  • It certainly does when someone is insinuating that by ‘periodically’ Obama was tacitly referring to the menstrual cycle. – doubtful.

    I wasn’t arguing the use of the word periodically. I was merely pointing out that his meaning wouldn’t have changed if he had said from time to time.

  • Memekiller,

    No, sorry to disappoint. But maybe I’ll start pretending to be, just on the intertubes, so I can speak with authority about absolutely everything.

    Ah, man. I was hoping I could ditch one of the ones I know.

  • AK Liberal @59 — Yes, Obama has done better in this hype, as he gets better known, but that’s another point. We should be wary about going with the guy we don’t know that well. Most of us have known this guy for a couple months. I would argue that it’s highly likely that we may be at the peak of the wave, and that we’ve been so hungry. We may not think he walks on water (although still be a tremendous candidate) with the passage of time and some sobriety. Purely from the view of a junkie, I thought about this in the context of Super Tuesday (and particularly California). I would argue that w/o California, this would already be over, but HRC won California. However, there were a LOT of absentee ballots (which clearly she won). Now, is that fair/properly reported? No — HRC appears to have “stemmed the tide” v. Obama, when in fact it’s because she had a ton of votes banked weeks earlier. On the flip side, do we want to choose a president based on this tremendous (possibly overhyped) tide? I don’t know the answer — but it’s worth thinking about (no matter who you support). On a somewhat related note, yes, I’m an HRC supporter, but I like having some superdelegates in this situation — maybe not as many as we have, but I think there should be some seasoned/reasoned thinking on this. I am NOT in favor of seating FL or MI in their current situation, but I would support some sort of revote. It’s interesting that people talk about how the deck is stacked against Obama in the superdelegate situation (although he’s doing a good job of winning people over), when in fact we had a race stacked (through no fault of the people of FL or MI, or HRC) against HRC — those were 2 states favorable to her given their demographics. So, although as noted, I don’t support seating them as is (although I think a decent argument could be made for seating FL, but not MI), I do think it’s fair for HRC to talk about the unfairness of it (just like it’s fair for Obama to talk about the fairness and to guilt the superdelegates into voting for him). All’s fair in love, war and politics! And, finally, wouldn’t it be ironic if HRC were to surprise in Wisconsin and then ride to victory in TX, OH, and PA, to take the lead in pledged delegates. Where would that leave Obama after his campaign’s position that the superdelegates should obey the wishes of the people?

  • ROFLMLiberalAO @25 – To score a few mean debating points today, she is willing to hamstring her competitor–the potential democratic nominee–with some “pledge baggage” that makes it difficult for him to win in Nov.

    If you guys are wilting at this, you are in no way ready to run in a general election campaign against the republicans. Good grief. Should Obama win the nomination, McCain will throw the same elbow to Obama’s jaw…’made a pledge that he thought sounded good at the time…weaseled on his pledge…sign of inexperience and poor judgement…will say anything to get elected…’ on a daily basis.

    The republican attack machine will eat him up. He doesn’t appear to have the stomach for the tussle.

  • Alex@63: So you’re basically saying that Clinton is the safe choice because we know exactly what we’ll get, while Obama may disappoint us by not being as different as we would like to believe.

    I’m just having a hard time rallying behind the “lowered expecations!” banner.

    And, hopefully, if Obama does end up behind in the delegate count, he will stick by his guns and stay consistent in his superdelegate message*. If he reversed himself, he would definitely be proving himself to have no more integrity than Hillary, and would therefore lose a lot of support and respect. So far, though, the Obama camp has been a lot less craven than Hillary’s, and I am hopeful that he would accept defeat with the kind of dignity and honor that will never see from Hillary if things go the other way.

  • I’m just thankful he didn’t say she was “feeling BLUE” 🙂

    Imagine the ensuing shit-storm… Accusations of not just being sexist (she’s “feeling”; that’s a womanly trait) but suggesting she’s more temperamental than most and nasty with it (holding her breath or yelling till she’s BLUE in the face; beating her opponents black and BLUE). And ageist (those BLUE rinses)…

    Gloria@52,

    My — smallish but handy — Concise Oxford dictionary lists 8 meanings/usages for the word “period”. They’re listed, presumably, in the order of importance; ie the most commonly understood meaning on top, the less common further down. “Period” as in “menses” is 4th; not as unequivocal as your:
    the root of “periodically” is “period,” as in “a woman has her period once a month.”

    You suggested that Doubtful ought to take two aspirin and lie down. May I suggest you take one Midol and do the same?

  • Not to get to far off the track of attack/defend, attack/defend…or delve even further into innuendo and mind reading; however, Sen Clinton is 60+ years old. Given the average age of menopause, periods may not be an issue for her anymore.

  • Sen Clinton is 60+ years old. Given the average age of menopause, periods may not be an issue for her anymore.

    My point exactly — Hillary Clinton has likely undergone “the change,” which is why that sexist Obama has made the word “change” such a central part of his campaign. He wants to portray her as someone who’s given over to irrational mood swings, and also imply that she’s past the point of bearing a child, so therefore she’s incapable of giving birth to a day new in politics.

    And anyone who can’t see that obvious truth is clearly a sexist too.

  • As with any other statement open to interpretation, it has to be assessed in the context of what you know about the person.

    I don’t think Obama is above that kind of sh**. Heck he’s talking about not settling for the same ole okie doke, not getting hoodwinked and bamboozled again – with reference to Hillary Clinton. Those are the words of Malcolm X, and when Malcolm X used them, he was referring to how much he hated white people. Using those words against Hillary is pretty damn hardcore. Not to mention that he’s not above demagoging (sp?) health care, or social security, or running away from telling the whole truth about his very long relationship with Mr. Rezko.

    So slap me.

  • Brooks — Now you’re twisting words. I didn’t say anything about “lowered expectations.” Reread what I said — I said that I don’t buy all the hyped positive numbers, and I don’t buy the supposed negatives for Hillary. I would argue that he will come down and she will go up. I don’t know which will be more electable in the end. That was my point — the whole point. If you want to vote on electability, I’m not sure that a snapshot poll in February (especially when people really don’t know B.O. that well) should be determinative. Useful, yes.

    Geez — I didn’t say anything negative — I was just putting out a post to try to make people think about how we are choosing a nominee. I didn’t think I had any judgments in there.

  • Clinton is not down in the race and getting desperate. She is neck and neck in an extremely close race where she has won the large states and Obama has picked up the south and the red Midwest (unsurprising since he is the more conservative candidate). Obama supporters have an ugly habit of counting votes they haven’t received yet. You can’t make something happen by talking as if it has already occurred.

  • Mary,

    Clinton is down in the race and she is desperate. It’s simple math when you look at the Obama’s current lead in the delegate count and popular vote, along with the delegates currently at stake. Her campaign realizes that, unless there is a major shift in momentum, Obama will go into the convention with a lead in delegates won, even if Clinton holds on to win both Ohio and Texas.

    Obama didn’t pick up the south and midwest because he is more conservative. Obama is by far the more liberal candidate on civil liberties issues, government reform, government transparency, limiting Presidential power, and on foreign policy. He is winning because he is able to convince voters that he provides a meaningful alternative to the politics of Bush and Clinton–which are essentially the same.

    They may differ on some issues, but Bushes and Clintons are just the opposite sides of the same coin. After twenty years it is time to get rid of that coin. If Obama was more conservative, how does he have a more liberal voting record than Clinton, and why did he get the endorsement of MoveOn?

  • Obama supporters make me feel down.

    Instead of apologizing for a poor choice of words, they turn it into more slime to throw at Clinton.

    Do you have no Shame? What would Steve say?

  • Crissa,

    The only slime is being thrown by the Clinton supporters who have been subjecting us to a steady stream of such nonsense attacks like this.

    The real issue here isn’t the words that Obama used, or even how Clinton supporters choose to twist them. The real issue is the question which led to this answer and the fact that Clinton does quite frequently, launch attacks on Obama over nonsense.

    There is nothing wrong with Obama’s words compared to the vast number of dishonest attacks being launched by Clinton and her supporters.

  • TR said: “..broaden our base…”. You mean how we tried in 2006 and ended up with Blue Dog Demos who haven’t helped change a thing. I think Rahm Emmanual thought like you but you gotta be real careful who you let in the door.
    I think anyone to be considered should have to take a “Kool Aid” urine test.

  • This is a riot. Yeah, it’s the Clinton supporters who have been saying bad things about Obama. What planet was this post from?

  • Hillary Clinton has never called Obama a sexist. The white cowboys chauvinist pigs spend all their time the shooting animals that come on their land. They hide behind a gun. I call them gunmongers. I reason why they behave that way is because their ding a ling between their lags is no bigger than their nose. I for one love to have a woman in the white house.

    Harry
    Go Hillary

  • Tricky Barack in the white house,HA.
    What has he accomplish since he has been in office as a Senator?

    Harry

  • Read this,
    Already endorsed by two of Latin America’s communist leaders, Barrack Obama is a favorite among the region’s radical Marxist terrorists who believe the Illinois senator will help them if he becomes U.S. president.

    Harry

    • Comments are closed.