If Obama was running against Nancy Pelosi and her husband (I actually don’t know if she’s married, but just for the sake of argument) and Obama made that comment, the point would be much worthier of this analysis. But this case is unique and on that basis I don’t think the comment was sexist.

I doubt that that’s the case, which means he can’t make statements that suggest it without sounding sexist.

I don’t. But someone else might. And if they think so and make the argument, that doesn’t automatically make it sexist just because Hillary is a female. The fact that you may think it is ridiculous and not rationally sustainable is fine for you, but I think that the argument that President Bush is a mental weakling and is out of his depth in political situations and needs VP Cheney’s support is ridiculous and is not rationally sustainable. If people can make that argument, then people should be able to make the same argument about the Clintons without it being automatically sexist.

Regarding the actual issue– I think there are situations where I would consider the remark completely legit– I think it’s fine to acknowledge and examine the fact that the candidate’s husband was a popular president. Or that the candidate’s daddy was a popular president. These things can’t be off limits.

I think the comment was over the line because I really don’t think HRC is, or appears to be, a mouthpiece for her husband. She’s acted on her own agency as a senator, and I think she’s doing so during the campaign. Plus, she was a politically active first lady– anyone remember the jokes that HILLARY was the one running the country when BILL was president? I remember comments way back in 2004 that if she ran, she could be a 4-term president.

So, bottom line, I think it’s silly to pretend that her family connections have nothing to do with her political career–like it would be silly to pretend that about George W. and Jeb. But I also think that this comment was entrenched in a sexist tradition, and that there’s not enough justification to call it a legit complaint. Barack Obama should know better (although I’m still voting for him).

Edited to add: I don’t think Obama was deliberately being sexist. I think he has latent sexist tendencies, just as we’re all a little everything-ist, and it slipped out here. Not cool, but also not too surprising, or too big a deal as long as it’s not part of a pattern, as someone said above.

Do you think you can sustain a persuasive argument that Hilary is a mental weakling and out of her depth in political situations? If you can — and if the basis of your argument is more than “she’s a girl, which means she’s automatically a mental weakling and out of her depth in political situations” — then probably you’ve come up with something that can be acknowledged as non-caveman-level discourse.

However, I think such an argument would be impossible to sustain. Hilary — despite the fact that I disagree with her on a number of issues — is clearly intelligent and capable. I could say the same thing about any number of Republicans and Democrats, from McCain to Obama.

Unfortunately, the meme “she’s a girl, so she must be a weakling mentally and out of her depth politically” is subliminally, culturally pervasive, which means that people can call on it without having to sustain a more legitimate argument. That’s what allows people to suggest that Hilary is a shill for Bill — which Obama is not the first to do, but plays into here — and have that allegation stick. Thus, the sexism.

For comparison, I imagine Bob and Elizabeth Dole are also a good team with equal political skills, but they present a different image from the one that Bill and Hillary present.

[Edited to add: I do think there's a pattern of behavior from culture and society, yes. Is that what you meant? Sorry. I don't think Obama is particularly more sexist than others, no.]

I’d wait to see if more such comments pour out of his mouth before trying to suggest a pattern of behaviour - but that’s partly because I detest the “GOTCHA” nature of sound-bite politics.

Regardless of what’s legitimate or acceptable… saying Bush is a front for Cheney certainly isn’t sexist or playing into the idea that husbands call the shots, wives follow their leads. It’s more along the lines of implying that our president is a hapless idiot who can’t think for himself, so the Grand Vizier must be pulling the strings.

Not sure I follow you. Does this mean that if people think that Bill is playing Dick Cheney to Hillary’s George Bush, they can’t criticize it purely because it plays into a stereotype?

Now excuse me while I go make $1 to your .76

Well, that’s substantive. And not snarky at all.

Directly? How about “I don’t like the way in which Bill Clinton interacts with Hilary Clinton’s campaign. He seems to sort of act like her id, able to say things that she can’t publicly say without coming across as mean.”

See how that’s different from “Hilary is really a shill for Bill?”

“But the question of ‘who is calling the shots’ is a valid one in ANY election (see, e.g., bush/cheney). And thus, issues of who’s behind the podium are not necessarily sexist. Aren’t they?”

Lots of things aren’t necessarily sexist in any context, and are sexist when they’re part of a systemic, historically consistent kind of oppression — such as the suggestion that women cannot hold authority in their own persons.