1. Because there was a pause (of less than a second, hardly a "long" pause) between "feeling" and "down", the comment isn't sexist?

There was a larger pause between "to boost her" and "appeal": if we're going to make pauses so significant, I can suggest that he paused to save himself from saying "ego".

2. How can someone "feel down" in the polls?

Obama isn't talking about her numbers, he's talking about (his perception of) her self-esteem. He's equating negative campaigning with shoe-shopping or hot fudge sundaes: as little pick-me-ups.

3. Is this the worst comment ever made? Does this make Obama "evil" or not worth my vote? Of course not. But it is part of a pattern ("You're likable enough, Hillary," etc.), which is worth watching. And it's not how he would have phrased remarks against McCain.

Anonymous writes:

This is a misquote.

He didn't say '..when she's feeling down," he said "...when she's down."

I'm sure anonymous believes this. It's not true. Sheer fantasy occupies the place of analysis.

melthough writes:

After reading the quote, I couldn't believe he would say Hillary "felt down." I am glad some people posted the clip, though, because "feeling" and "down" are so far apart that he obviously didn't intend to put them together. Katherine, you need to put all the ums and ellipses in.

An interesting variation of Anonymous the First's theory that he didn't say what, well, he said, this time because he paused and prevaricated, suggesting a lack of intent. There's nothing "obvious" about this contorted "explanation." I'm sure you make it in good heart, but to me it's sort of absurd. He was searching for a word. He found it. You couldn't find a clearer instance of intention, in fact.

Anonymous the second agrees with melthough:

(I completely agree with your assessment of it, by the way -- he didn't want to put too fine a point on it and say that he is in the process of kicking her ample ass back to Arkansas).

And here endeth the slide from contorted logic to sexism, oh ample ass.

FWIW, I suspect Obama's intent here is to portray Hillary as less than even-tempered, probably because that's what he thinks. Fair enough. His manner I find condescending, but I think that about him a lot -- he's rather more pompous than I can handle, but that's a matter of taste not policy. I suspect he'd be just as condescending if his final opponent were a man. There's nothing particularly good or particularly bad about the sentiment here, on face value. The fact his comment chimes with the misogyny of cable news and elsewhere is I suspect an unfortunate coincidence. But to suggest he didn't say it, didn't mean to say it, etc, etc, is ... odd.

The simple truth is that Hillary's most vocal and virulent supporters, are in fact the exact same sort of people who are Bush's most vocal and virulent supporters - natural born victims.

Obama makes a innocous statement, that isn't even really an attack never mind a sexist one, and here you have the Hillbots jumping up and down because someone used the word "Periodically."

you wrote:

"Real Feminists

Don't support Hillary.

Just woman who use the term for leverage, rather than as a descriptive."

________________________________________________________

ITA. I'm a feminist and a woman who cannot fathom the choices HRC has made in her life...except as a means to an end. Talk about selling your soul. I would have so much more respect and admiration for her if she lost about 180 Lbs. It's dead weight for her.

I'm the one who posted the "ample ass" comment. I'm a woman and in fact my ass is more ample than Hillary's. I used those words because I wanted to see how long it would take a Hillary supporter to leap to her "rescue" and howl, "Sexism!"

Way to prove my point. Hillary's strength really does lie in getting people to feel sorry for her.

Well, I feel sorry for her too. Because she's going to lose.

"I'm the one who posted the "ample ass" comment. I'm a woman and in fact my ass is more ample than Hillary's. I used those words because I wanted to see how long it would take a Hillary supporter to leap to her "rescue" and howl, "Sexism!""

Who cares how large or small your ass is? Who cares what kind of naughty bits you've got?

Dismissing a presidential contender by (inaccurately) calling her "fat" is, according to Mirriam-Webster, an example of sexism.

sexism

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

I'll speak nice and slow this time.

I. Was. Making. A. Point. About. Hillary. Supporters.

I mentioned the size of my own butt only to illustrate that I too am sensitive to "fat girl" jokes and would NEVER make one. Those words hurt and I am the first to admit it. I was not calling her ass ample. I was calling your sense of manufactured outrage ample.

My point was that Hillary supporters have bought into a cult of female victimization. I admit I wanted to stir the shit a little and watch you prove my point. It won Hillary New Hampshire but I don't think tears can stretch all the way across a big state like Texas.

To those who seek to play this as an innocent choice of words, sorry, these are professional politicians at the top of their game in the fight of their lives. Although such politicians do misspeak; they also pay people a great deal of money to find specific ways to refer to their opponents. So when something is an effective subtle slam on a candidate it was probably focus tested and worked on months in advance.

The question of sexism however is a little more subtle. Senator Clinton is a woman, as such criticisms of her that fall into female criticisms are likely to be called sexist, but that doesn't mean that they are sexist.

The term down is clearly meant to invoke Senator Clinton's emotional states (which she has put forward as a candidate) while at the same time remind people that she is down in the polls. The point is to say Senator Clinton's emotions are directing her away from reasoned discourse and making her use cheap shot tactics to win back voters.

Senator Clinton started her campaign down the road of emotionalism when she returned to a chocked voice and wet eye as a method to secure votes (I'll give her a pass on the first one). And emotionalism can be seen as a negative in the general populace. Reminding people of her emotional states and the behavior they cause is no different than (as will happen in the general campaign) issues of McCain's temper will be brought up.

While it would be sexist to bring up Hillary's emotions out of the blue, once she has had such a display that display becomes fair game. Would anyone question a similarly subtle reminder of McCain's temper after he goes off in a public forum? Or more to the point, would it be sexist if Obama's chocked voice and near tears were brought up to show his own weakness?

Now here's the difference between what say Bill has said and what Obama has said. Referencing the fact that Jesse Jackson also won the South Carolina Primary is intended to marginalize Obama specifically by his race. It also suggesting that African Americans in general are voting not by reason but by loyalty, a critique that could be leveled at Senator Clinton's support among white women over thirty, but that has not been raised, perhaps because white women by their whiteness are just obviously much more reasoned than black people.

Going after Senator Clinton for her emotional states is fine so long as its based on her actual presentation. If her emotion had been anger, Obama'd have said when she gets wound up she goes negative, and watch for a similar statement made about McCain regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.

It's not sexist to go after someone for being emotional. Even if your sex has been derided for being emotional. A male candidate doing the same thing would receive the same treatment, and that's what equality is all about.