Skip to content
Categories:

It Was Kinda Sexist…

Post date:
Author:

Guest Post by dnA

Some of Obama’s recent comments about Hillary Clinton have raised eyebrows, particularly these two, as reported by Jake Tapper of ABC:

“You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out,” Obama said.

The CLAWS come out? Really?

Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton’s latest attack ad, “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

The problem is that the second quote is being taken way out of context, while the first one is borderline. I’ve heard people use “the claws come out” not in relation to women, but given the way the press has treated Clinton, Obama should have chosen his words more carefully.

But the YouTube video shows that there was more to Obama’s second statement than Tapper reported. (Can’t seem to embed, so you’ll have to watch at the link.)

For those of you who can’t watch video at work, the transcript is below:

I understand that, you know, Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way to boost her appeal. But I understand that these kinds of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for. What they’re looking for is ways to send their kids to college of find a job and get health care.

On the one hand, he seems to be suggesting that Clinton is engaging in what Obama refers to as “the same old Washington Politics”.

But on the other hand, it’s hard for me not to read the subtext of this statement as “if you elect this woman, she’s going to act crazy every time she’s on the rag. You know how chicks are.” What does “feeling down” have to do with it? The two of them are competing for votes, so she’s launching attack ads. Why the psychotherapy?

Following Steve’s lead, I’d like to rate each incident for sexism on a scale of 1-5. But instead of “Hortons,” which Steve used to measure the level of racial subtext in the Clinton campaign’s references to Obama a few weeks ago, I’ll use “Coulters,” in honor of a person who actually suggested women shouldn’t have the right to vote.

  • Obama says, “You challenge the status quo and then the claws come out”— 2 Coulters

Obama’s ascribing the “claws” to an ungendered status quo seems to suggest he may not have meant it as a gendered comment. But it’s hard not to see a reference to “claws” coming out as not evoking the image of a “catfight”.

  • Obama says, “I understand that, you know, Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way to boost her appeal”— 3 Coulters.

Once again, in the larger context, the statement is more defensible, but Obama should have been more careful with what he was saying. I think it’s likely he meant to dismiss the attacks as desperate, but he ended up making them sound like they were a result of Clinton having some kind of emotional problem.

I doubt that the above comments were made with the intent of being sexist, especially since Obama needs women to vote for him a lot more than Clinton needs black voters to vote for her. It would strike me as uncharacteristically stupid for the Obama campaign to be deliberately attacking Hillary on the basis that she is a woman, and I don’t think a case for that can be made yet.

That said, Obama should be more careful about his language.

UPDATE: Ann at Feministing makes an important observation.

Clearly this isn’t Chris Matthews-level shit or anything. All sexist comments are not created equal, and pointing out that Obama’s comment comes from a place of male privilege does not mean I’m saying it’s as bad as him holding up an “Iron My Shirt” sign or something. But it’s pretty obvious to me that “when she’s feeling down” was a sexist way of characterizing the situation. As Lauren says, “If you’ve never been told you are “ruled by your emotions” in a professional capacity, you probably wouldn’t get it either.”

Word.

Comments

  • Andy

    says:

    I don’t think you can read this much into the comments. As far as “claws” coming out, HRC has repeated referred to herself as a “fighter” or someone who is capable of “attacking.” The comment seems more related to an animal (I don’t know, say a tiger) that attacks when it feels threatened. As for feeling down, she has utilized her emotions from the tearful moment before New Hampshire, to claiming she felt “ganged up on” by the boys after the debate. She has a way of taking a down moment in her campaign to legitimize attacking.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Ah yes, let’s Stir Up A Controversy and Get The Blood Flowing on this otherwise-slow newsday.

    “the claws come out” is a long-time term used to describe the reaction of any large, powerful entity, when a dissenting voice is heard. I’ver heard it used about organizations in Hollywood run by various assholes, none of whom were female. Unless one thinks that cats are uiniquely “feminine” this comment would make no sense.

    As to the second comment, a woman does not have to be experiencing PMS to be “down.” I am sure any man who has lived with any woman – and any woman, period – can confirm that fact.

    No wonder this comes from the geniuses at Mickey Mouse TV.

  • Stacy6

    says:

    Sorry, I don’t see anything sexist about the second comment. I don’t interpret it as any kind of backhanded reference to pms, or any kind of woman-centered reference. It’s just something that some people do, attacking others to make themselves feel better. Like the old story about the guy who yells at his wife, who then yells at her daughter, who punches her brother, who kicks the puppy.

  • Stan

    says:

    Hasn’t the Obama camp a number of times made the argument that HIllary attacks when she is feeling behind or down “in the polls” or “in the campaign.”

    I read his statement that way, not to be saying that she attacks when she’s feeling personally bummed out, which would be a pretty weird comment for him to make.

  • SmilingDixie

    says:

    The Clintonista who wrote this article is really stretching things to ‘infer’ sexism. Is the point of this that Obama MUST BE SEXIST as he is a male? You not only have to ‘read between the lines’ to ‘infer’ sexism; you have to have one hell of an imagination!

  • TR

    says:

    Ah yes, let’s Stir Up A Controversy and Get The Blood Flowing on this otherwise-slow newsday.

    My thoughts exactly. Sweet Jesus.

    If you can somehow find that “periodically” statement to be a reference to PMS, then you need to immediately check into the Michelle Malkin Home for the Perpetually Outraged.

    Periodically means “every now and then.” And yes, every now and then, whenever she’s down — and he clearly meant down in the polls, obviously, not that he had psychoanalyzed her and found her to be sad and clinically depressed — she has lashed back, just like any other flailing candidate would do.

    Should Obama have been more careful with his words? No, I think some people need to be better
    versed in the English language. You sound like those morons who think “niggardly” is a racist slur just because they don’t know what it means.

    We’ve dumbed things down for seven years with Emperor C-Plus Augustus. Enough is enough.

  • DaveWoo

    says:

    I’ve gotta agree with all of the comments posted thus far. When I first heard those comments, I saw nothing even remotely sexist about either one. And Tapper’s “analysis” strikes me as ridiculous: to suggest that the terms “periodically” and “launches attacks” have sexist implications is, well, laughable. This is the biggest non-issue I have ever seen.

  • Matt

    says:

    Sometimes I am truly amazed at how much negative spin can be placed on the most benign comments. Claws coming out is a phrase that’s been used for years to metaphorically describe a strong defensive reaction. And feeling down might be narrowly construed in a sexist light had it not been paired with boosting appeal. That means the subject is her appeal and not her feelings.

    The media and bloggers are looking for anything that they can grab and make sensational, and does it seem to anyone else that this is really reaching? For example, blogger Taylor Marsh, as cited via the above Political Punch link, says, “Seriously, Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman running for president. Not some emotional menopausal diva popping pills because she’s depressed she broke a nail.” By taking simple comment and construing it to such an exaggerated degrees like that, those reader should pause to look at their own gender bias, and not the candidates.

  • TR

    says:

    You’re actually missing the clearest evidence of Obama’s underhanded misogyny.

    His campaign is predicated on the word “change” and as we all know “the change” is an old piece of slang for menopause.

    Clearly, he’s claiming that Hillary Clinton is menopausal. By this sinister line of argument, he’s not just claiming she is irrational and prone to mood swings, but also pointing out — cruelly, callously — that she is past the prime of her child-bearing years and therefore unable to bring new life to our political climate.

    Have you no sense of decency, Senator Obama?

  • doubtful

    says:

    I’m a guy, and I was told repeatedly by a former boss that I was ‘overly passionate,’ and ‘ruled by emotion.’

    I thought that when Obama said “when she’s feeling down” it wasn’t in reference to emotional depression but in reference to her position in the primary.

    And a simple Googling of ‘the claws come out’ will reveal its gender free ubiquity.

    Let’s examine the motivation: what benefit would Obama seek to gain from wink, wink, nudge, nudge sexism? He’s making inroads with women, even having won that demographic in several recent states. I simply don’t see him employing a tactic which would alienate them.

    However, I can see why Clinton supporters, who have watched one of Hillary’s strongest demographics slip away, would want to make the argument.

    In daylight, however, the argument simply doesn’t hold.

  • Dan

    says:

    It’s totally sexist! Obama would have never referred to McCain or any man as “feeling down.” It’s just not in the male lexicon when referring to other males.

    Another example of sexism is the use of the word pantsuit. Why isn’t it just a suit? I suppose it’s because some still believe you should be wearing dresses.

    The difference between racism and sexism in America is that sexism is tolerated and openly pervasive in our society.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    DNA – I gotta tell you, anyone who would take any of Jake Tapper’s toilet paper subsitute as anything but toilet paper substitute is in dire need of having their pundit license revoked.

    I mean, you are aware of Tapper’s history of “journalism” right? That he’s involved is even further proof of what I said about Mickey Mouse TV. He’s even more braindead than most of the graudates of “Disney University” (the studio’s name for their New Employee brainwashing program). Now that Mickey Mouse TV has its main offices on the Dizzy lot, I wonder if guys like Tapper have to run around in shorts and color-coded polo shirts like the other mice on the lot?

    You can understand a lot about what happens at ABC-TV if you consider what a friend who’s a Very Good Writer once said to me about his experience: “I’ll never have any trouble about writing a science-fiction story set in a not-so-benign police state – I’ve worked at Disney.” There’s a reason those in the know call the place Mauschwitz.

  • Jim

    says:

    Some of you forget its not what he said its how the media plays it up. And believe me they will play it to the hilts. It will be misused just as Pres Clintons “Give me a Break” in NH which I found nothing wrong with and I find nothing wrong with these statements.

  • Tamalak

    says:

    This reminds me very strongly of this post:

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14197.html

    And I get the exact same feeling of desperate frustration from it. So my comments may be familiar.

    Men are allowed to say “claws”. Men are allowed to talk about their opponents’ feelings. NOTHING in Obama’s statements actually referenced Hillary’s gender except for the goddamn PRONOUNS, so any sexism you read into the statement is just that, READING IN.

    STOP with the obsessing over subtext. SO many words have some kind of racist or sexist history. If we are going to try to tiptoe around them for the next few months and freak out whenever someone slips, I might go insane.

  • SmilingDixie

    says:

    Thanks Dan (#12)

    Did I miss something in this article that referred to pantsuit? Or are you just pointing out that Hillary is sexist for her continuing usage of the word ‘pantsuit’!

    The level of despiration of the Billary camp is getting a bit carried away…

    4 yrs of Bush I + 8 yrs of Clinton + 8 yrs of Bush Lite = 20 yrs of the screwing of the American worker

  • dnA

    says:

    I understand a lot of folks here don’t agree with my assessment, but one quick question: How does one “feel down” in the polls or in the delegate count? Either you’re down or you aren’t. It’s not a matter of feelings, so I don’t know how Obama’s statement can be read as referring to polls or delegates.

  • Racer X

    says:

    I hope the PC police tone it down when McCain goes negative, because this level of hypersensitivity really turns off the middle, who no doubt use terms like “claws” sometimes too, and are no more mysoginistic than any of us.

    For chrissakes, stick to the issues, we don’t need this kind of stupidity.

  • Steph

    says:

    This is a stupid non-issue cooked up on a slow news day.

    To me, what is sexist is the idea that because Senator Clinton is a woman, her opponents can talk about her using Normal Words.

  • dnA

    says:

    Oh and Smiling Dixie,

    You’re right. You’ve unmasked me as an unapologetic Clinton shill. Feel free to read all about it at my personal blog, which is linked to at the top of the post. I also sell Clinton memorabilia, like signed photographs and previously worn pantsuits.

  • SmilingDixie

    says:

    dnA – you seem to be ‘reading’ whatever the hell you want into these statements…

    Obviously, if we do not agree with your ‘mis’interpretation, then we are just not understanding enough. If only we had your abilities to read the minds of Obama, then we would know whether we really should support him.

    One way or another, ABC…

  • Jen

    says:

    Another example of sexism is the use of the word pantsuit. Why isn’t it just a suit? I suppose it’s because some still believe you should be wearing dresses.

    “pantsuit” is sexist now? Now that is a new one on me. Possibly Dan is unaware of the two kinds of suits which women can wear. Suits with pants, and suits with skirts.

    Ditto the utter rubbish about “periodically” and “feeling down”.

    I’m going to suggest that if you take a word or phrase, say it to a group of relatively normal American women, and for 90% of them you have to EXPLAIN where the sexism is — then it’s probably not sexist.

  • Mark

    says:

    I agree with the general trend of comments here; I don’t find anything Obama said deliberately sexist – although he would not likely use “the claws come out” if he were referring to John Edwards. I disagree that the allusion was not overtly feminine: I can’t see any other way to take it, but there’s certainly no harm in recognizing that Mrs. Clinton is a woman, is there? After all, when a study comes out that says women are smarter than men, or more nurturing or whatever, you don’t see women lining up to disavow it. It should therefore be fair to assume that women have their faults as well. “The claws come out” is manifestly not complimentary, but it implies that the action makes Mrs. Clinton want to fight. What’s wrong with that? Not enough women are major figures in the boxing world to make, “She comes out swinging” a popular tag line; but the distinction has nothing whatever to do with a woman’s ability to defend her position and to achieve victory.

    I think all Mr. Obama meant to suggest is, any suggestion that business as usual is not the way of the future made Mrs. Clinton want to fight. Since Mrs. Clinton ran on a platform of experience and being a Washington insider, this is a fair criticism. Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s supporters would expect her to fight, and she doesn”t disappoint – she wants to be president, and she will fight for it. Whether she claws or punches will be meaningless overall; either she will prevail, or she will not.

    I’m for Obama, but Mrs. Clinton would be a fabulous president compared to any Republican that side cared to shove into the ring. I lean toward Obama because Clinton is so polarizing that I fear her nomination would galvanize Republican solidarity, possibly even resulting in another Republican president. Obama looks more likely to win easily. But there are no differences between Clinton and Obama that require PC’ing the situation to death.

  • TR

    says:

    The subtleties of misogyny are often elusive even to women, especially the young!

    Here’s a zen riddle for the outraged brigade — if a misogynistic slur is so subtle and elusive that very few people get it — not even women how exactly is it a misogynistic slur?

    It’s nonsense like this that lets Limbaugh and the rest of the mouthbreathers caricature the women’s movement as nothing more than “feminazis” and an oversensitive P.C. police.

    There are real issues affecting real women’s lives out there. This isn’t one of them.

  • Steph

    says:

    dnA look at the whole statement:

    “I understand that, you know, Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way to boost her appeal”.

    According to Obama, Clinton launches an attack to “boost her appeal”. Her “appeal” needs “boosting” why? Because she’s personally depressed? Or because her polls or delegates are down? Which is the more sensible conclusion, once we take off the sexism glasses?

  • Dan

    says:

    SmilingDixie, you missed nothing except the pervasiveness of sexism in our society which is often only inferred. Deny it all you want but it exists!

    Tamalak, whether or not Obama’s comments are sexist, I will not argue but to suggest that they aren’t because he did not reference her gender, is foolish!

  • Shalimar

    says:

    Kinda sexist in your mind. I personally don’t see it at all. If you think these statements are a sign that Obama deserves further scrutiny in the future for examples of real sexism, knock yourself out. If you think there is anything actually outrageous or even worth noting about them, then you need to tune into Tucker Carlson or Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity or Rush LImbaugh or Michael Savage for a few minutes and get a refresher on what outright misogyny sounds like.

  • TR

    says:

    According to Obama, Clinton launches an attack to “boost her appeal”. Her “appeal” needs “boosting” why?

    I’m pretty sure that was a reference to a push-up bra, but I’m going to have to wait for the Outrage Police to decipher it for us first.

    So many subliminal slurs, so little time to sort them out and get distracted by them.

  • MaryL

    says:

    I’m a woman in her late forties (still have my period regularly, thankyouverymuch). I’ve seen some genuine sexist crap thrown at Clinton in the media, and think that the “claws” comment, even if it can be applied in a gender-neutral way, has a strong feminine component and was a stupid and dismissive thing for Obama to say, although it’s likely that this was more unconscious sexism at work than true malice. (Everyone’s a little bit sexist, just like everyone’s a little bit racist.)

    But the “periodically” comment, in both its truncated and full forms, does not even evoke a faint whisper of sexism to me. Get a grip, guys! (Not meant as a reference to male masturbation.)

  • Mr Furious

    says:

    If Obama wanted to overcompensate and make sure he maintained a 500 foot distance from anything that could be miscontrued, I suppose he could have gone with “The gloves come off” instead of the “claws come out.” But I do not read any intent in this choice of words.

    As for the second comment, this is parsing and dissection to a ridiculous degree. Clinton is DOWN in the standings. And every time that happens, the campaign goes negative. That’s it.

    Trying to attribute anthing else to that statement is frankly preposterous.

  • beep52

    says:

    Without being an apologist for either Dem candidate, HRC has long been the object of gender-based discrimination, but Obama’s comments barely register on any scale of what’s been said. If he keeps it up, that’s another matter.

  • Mr Furious

    says:

    MaryL makes a good point. I will concede that Obama probably chose “claws” over “gloves” due to a subconscious word / gender association, not out of actual sexism or some malicious intent to dogwhistle…

  • Michelle

    says:

    I’m a woman in my early forties and was subjected to a lot of sexism in my first, male-dominated career. I’m with MaryL on this.

  • SmilingDixie

    says:

    This entire sequence has been frivilous but fun…

    Everyone should have a great day thinking about the replacement of the Bush Criminal Empire with the Constitution & laws of our country!

    336 days left until the end of the Evil Empire…

  • doubtful

    says:

    How does one “feel down” in the polls or in the delegate count? -dnA

    In a close race, like the one between Obama and Clinton, I think it would be overstepping for either to state they are the front runner. That analysis falls to others. Other intangible factors, such as momentum, which are felt, rather than measured can influence the race.

    More plainly, in a race that is for all intents and purposes, a tie, it is intangibles that give the impression of a front runner. Therefore, Clinton, while logistically tied, could ‘feel’ down based on her perception of these intangibles.

    It has been close the whole way, so Obama’s assertion is that when Clinton feels the intangibles swing in his direction, she strikes.

  • memekiller

    says:

    particularly these two, as reported by Jake Tapper of ABC:

    You lost me at “Jake Tapper” of ABC.

    Shouldn’t he be referred to as Future-Washington-Times Editor?

  • TR

    says:

    He meant “down in the polls.”

    Of course. But he couldn’t say “in the polls” because saying a homonym for “pole” would’ve been phallocentric.

  • Stacy6

    says:

    “The subtleties of misogyny are often elusive even to women, especially the young!”

    Wow, that is a far more sexist statement than Obama’s. Condescending, too. I’m in my mid-thirties, I’ve experienced sexual harassment in a pre-Anita workplace, and in 1989 (!) I was told by my father that women weren’t worth the cost of a college education. I know perfectly well what sexism looks like, thank you very much, and this ain’t it. But according to you, “Jane”, young women are so stupid that we can’t even recognize when someone is hating on us ‘cuz those “subtleties” are beyond us.

  • g8grl

    says:

    Face it, Obama made a sexist comment or two. Personally I find the second one even more offensive. Why use the word “periodically”. Most of the time people would use “from time to time,” “when” or “occasionally” instead. Obama used “periodically” to get the word period in there.

  • Steph

    says:

    g8grl, it’s worse than you think. The actual Obama quote is:

    “I understand that, you know, Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches Tampax as a way to boost her appeal.”

    And notice how HIS name is OBama? So the “OB” will remind people about periods?

  • MaryL

    says:

    He’s used the word “periodically” at least 2-3 other times in this campaign. (Sorry, I saw this cited on another blog but can’t dig it up now.)

  • Darren

    says:

    Blame it on Obama going through male menapause.

    That’s a joke for those who seem to take things far, far too seriously [ahem…dNa]

    Sweet Jesus…you know, the more I waste time thinking of this, the more I conclude this is stupid as hell. We’ve been busting our ever-lovin’ asses down here in Texas, and every time we take a step forward someone pops out some bullshit like this and puts us two steps back.

    Christ, if you’re that bored, go feed the poor or pay for someone’s doctor visit. Just stop the “Oh my! I’m offended!” rally cry.

    dNa, you owe me 2 mins. of my life back.