Thanks for the link to the DameDomain:

http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/parsing-obama.html

Went there and had a great chuckle. Everyone who wants a little amusement at Obama's expense should take a peek.

She repeatedly asserts: "It will take more than just speeches to fulfill our dreams, it will take a lot of hard work." To me, this plays into the stereotype of a lazy black man who just shoots off at the mouth without ever doing anything.

There is certainly room to criticize him, but there is simply not a shred of truth to the idea that he doesn't work just as hard as she does. Anyone who buys into this crap should examine how this jibes with their own preconceived notions and educate themselves about Obama's record.

If Obama's offhand rambling comment was sexist, then this calculated campaign message about Obama=lazy is certainly racist. And I've not heard a peep from anyone about it. I'm sure any black folks who bring it up would be called hyper-sensitive.

The bigger sleazebag can convince the voters that the other one is the bigger sleazebag.

Look at them! They are playing politics! How undignified!

The voters are apparently as stupid as both parties and the press consider them to be.

They both want war and the public be damned.

"Noting that sexism exists - and is deemed acceptable - in contemporary politics, and desiring that that attitude change, is not the same as being an "insane Hillary supporter.""

I agree. I note that sexism exists - and is (tacitly) deemed acceptable by many in contemporary politics. I would also like those attitudes to change. And I am not a Hillary supporter because I am not insane. It is insanity to think that someone as despised as Hillary by wide swaths of the electorate is a good choice for a Presidential nominee.

The difference is that even if clinton is "wrong" in her tactics she isn't going to ruin the country if she wins. This lack of perspective on the part of many obama supporters (and a few, but as far as I can see far fewer, Clinton supporters) is a bigger problem than any disagreements over tactics.

Linda Tripp? What a hideous monster that woman was! There are few things worse in terms of inflicting feelings of betrayal than people who pretend friendship only to stab you in the back.

I have been reading through here trying to make up my mind about what Obama said. While I find your arguments persuasive, I actually think there is another possibility. First, on the face of it, the words were certainly condescendingly but subtly sexist. The fact that it was subtle actually goes to your point that it was probably deliberate.

Possibilities:

A. It was deliberate and calculated to undermine her as emotional and erratic. As a form of dog-whistling for conscious and unconscious sexists both of the male and female persuasion, it can't be beat. One cannot positively prove sexism but it reaches its intended audience of those who fear power in the hands of a woman. I also have no doubt that its intent was immediately audible to the Hillary-haters who are like pointers at the slightest rustle of Hillary-derision that freeze in ecstasy and then go berserk, as many of them did in this very thread. These are not rational people. They have actually trained themselves to foam at the mouth. Not a pretty sight in a human being, is it? As if on cue, they begin posting their Hillary-hate. Trained, they are, like Pavlov's dogs.

B. His sexism emerged from his own unconscious. Is that a problem? Not as much as if his remarks were calculated. Sexism, like racism, may be harbored in the unconscious of otherwise good and decent people. I think this is especially true of many of the men and women who do not really remember the feminist battles of the sixties and early seventies. Sexism is like crab grass. You can't let up for a moment. It may look like all that other grass, but close up it is not. The notion that we are past either sexism or racism is both idealistic and hilarious. Thanks for doing your part in this thread to point out the crab grass.

C. He simply chose his words poorly. Many of defenders in this thread have said as much. However, I cannot help but laugh a bit if this is truly the case because it points to his greatest weakness (besides a certain truthiness). Obama can read a teleprompter on his feet but he cannot think on his feet. He is a rather poor spontaneous speaker with a poor memory for facts. In a debate, one on one with Clinton, she has a clear advantage.

I might add that John McCain loves to debate and he is good at it. He is a media favorite because he can think on his feet and give good quote. Moreover, he does have a sense of humor and both Obama and Clinton are quite humorless. In a debate with McCain, Obama would be at a great disadvantage. I predict mincemeat. Clinton would struggle to seem natural and less stiff but on the level of policy -- especially economic policy -- I predict that she will be more than John McCain's match.

to whichever anonymous this is (and I've decided from now on not to respond to any "anonymous" anymore because it's too confusing to sort you all out.... Anyway:

"@Cdevlin & anon @ 12:24.... I'm not a man. I know it might be shocking to realize that not all liberal women support Hillary Clinton, and it certainly would have reinforced your stereotyping if I just ignored your conclusion that I was Just A Man Who Doesn't Get It, Sister, but I am happy to burst your bubble on this one. I don't want Obama to win based on my desire to enforce the patriarchy. I want Obama to win because I think he would make a better president. And also because he is not Hillary Clinton.... So... who's the one making sexist assumptions, doll? --Anonymous"

I never suggested you were a man. It's interesting that you'd say I did.