Like you, I've been reading and rereading Obama's words (and watching the video as well), and although at first I didn't think much about the argument that his comments were sexist, the more I think about it and the more I watch him, the more I think it is a sexist comment. I put someone else in Hillary Clinton's place, McCain, for example, and honestly can't imagine Obama ever saying the same thing in the face of a McCain "attack" (although I think "criticism" would be a better word than "attack" in nearly all the contexts regarding Clinton criticizing Obama, but the press and Obama prefer to use more highly-charged language).

Seriously, can anybody imagine a male candidate suggesting his male opponent was "feeling down" even? It's kind of laughable. Sure, there's a scenario for you, Obama very patiently noting one afternoon, and sort of pensively too with a little sadness creeping into his tone, that:

"I understand that Senator McCain, periodically when he's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost his appeal."

Now *that* would be a comment worthy of total scorn and derision. It makes me laugh out loud.

People are not truly as negative about Hillary as is the myth.

One of my sisters had been influenced by all the negative attitudes she had heard, and she thought she didn't really like Hillary, but when she went to see Hillary speak she was immensely impressed, and loved her.

Her negativity rating has more to do with gossip than actuality.

Most people who meet and know the real Hillary like her.

And sexism does wrongly influence how she doesn't get as much respect as she deserves. You can hear it in the way some people say her name.

Still there are many who are not irrational, who use their minds, and can see through the smearing to the truth of the woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Go ahead, tell me that the republicans are not going to milk (oops!) that one for everything it's worth.

Monica, Jeff and now Larry - oh those presidents!

There are what? 340 posts to this thread? And so far no one has explained how it's supposed to make sense for Obama to alienate half the electorate by making misogynistic remarks. As far as I can tell, he's too savvy a politician to do that. Those of you who are willing to go through the mental gymanstics required to construe his statement as demeaning to women have the burden of answering the question. Someone explain it to me; why in the world would he do such a thing?

By the way, my sister who is very impressed by Hillary was valedictorian of her class, went to an ivy league college, and has a Ph D, and has worked with state government for 30 years.

After all we've been through in the past seven years, this is what it comes to? You would think that having two good candidates would be cause for celebration, but instead it threatens to give us McCain in November.

Can't we just accept that either way will pretty good? Democrats sure can find a way to lose any election...

First, last week Barack Obama and Deval Patrick talked about the attacks Hillary Clinton was launching on Barack Obama's speechmaking abilities, and Deval Patrick gave Barack Obama permission to use the rhetorical flourish that Barack used. By the way, Barack has never claimed to write every word of his speeches. Hello, the man employs speechwriters. So does Hillary.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/obama.patrick/?iref=mpstoryview

Also, the London Sunday Times reported that Hillary Clinton's campaign circulated the "cult" myth as a way to scare voters:

"Clinton’s camp has been circulating stories criticising the “cult” of Obama in the hope of portraying “Obamania” as a mass delusion. Media Matters, a watchdog organisation sympathetic to Clinton, compiled a report headlined, “Media figures call Obama supporters’ behaviour ‘creepy’, compare them to Hare Krishna and Charles Manson followers”. It was forwarded by Sidney Blumenthal, a top Clinton adviser, to select reporters."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382295.ece

Yeah, she's got a lot of people fooled.

The attacks on Hillary won't have any new affect; they are stupid and old, and have been overdone as it is.

They have lost what pathetic power they ever had on some sad people.

There are many who don't care.

I think we should come examine and expose the intricate details of the sex lives of all those who like to bring up the Clinton's personal business.

Let's expose your sex lives to the nation. I'm sure there'd be a lot of "interesting" stuff, and that you would have nothing you wouldn't want the country to exploit and gossip about.

No other countries have ever put their leaders on trial for a personal marital affair because they know it's ridiculous, unimportant, and a huge waste of tax payer money and time.

Many men (and even women) who are sexist or make sexist comments don't perceive themselves or their language as being sexist. That doesn't make them bad people. More often than not, it simply means they are as inextricably prey to cultural influences as the rest of us. We all say things every day that come out of pretty profoundly unconscious ways of reacting to others. We're all affected by sexism. We've all been born into a world that is profoundly sexist. There's really no way of avoiding it. We can learn how to think about it differently and try to be better about it, but it's still there. You have only to look at the places of greatest political and fiscal power in this country to see the imbalance in the way we do business every day. It's not surprising that Obama would say something sexist, whether he understood it was or not. It's a wonder more men haven't done it, and I suspect they work pretty hard not to.

I don't think all of his responses to the situation are productive and as a result our political views are apparently quite different. In fact according to some I am a female hillary supporter, which is only half true (for the moment at least).