Wow - who IS this woman writer? I was immediately turned off by the title (who is "they"?) and then read the article. I support Hillary Clinton, closely followed by my support for Barack Obama. Senator Clinton always came across as the more knowlegeable candidate. I listened very closely. She never failed me in that. Her gender wasn't an issue.

Obama would be a fool to make her VP.
Mrs Doubt Fire might make mistakes about getting shot at, but she would make bloody sure that an assassin hits his target.

I think for some, a white woman is next in line for president over a non white man.
They can also hide their racism by making it a gender issue.

They really need to find another woman candidate. Clinton is as unlikable as they come. She did a good job poisoning the water for a 2012 run.

There is no real reason that the women described above should forced into grave disappointment, ...any moreso than that supporters of Obama should be. We have chosen the nominee, but via the VP slot, there is no reason not to have both.

UNLESS Bill's business affairs are a "deal-breaker", I'm looking for it---because it would be leadership on Barack's part.

What rubbish.

Obama overcame a far bigger hurdle by being black than HRC did by being as woman.
Insulting to women too, nothwithstanding the feminist bigots planning to vote McSame if Obama is the Dem. nominee.

The women I know are a LOT smarter than that.

And naive! HRC and the Clintonista are remorseless in their ambition.
She'd nurture us in a.... kinder gentler USA, you think?

(oops, that line came from Daddy Bush but it's a good fit for your runner-up..)

Personally, it makes no difference to me if we have a female, or a black, or a black female, a white male or female, an American Indian, a Latino, or an Asian female with a Latino surname for our president.

What we sorely need is an honest statesperson who displays a high degree of intelligence, sobriety and common sense and is not owned by big business.

While I couldn't agree more whole heartedly that men have abused whole populations with their barbaric conflict resolution method -of war - for eons too long. . . and I am eager to see a woman change that. Hilary is a wolf in she's clothing. Hilary is a good ole boy. The old guard, the politition's politition. She has man- ipulated her gender to gain the support of women,while engaging in fear mongering and dirty tricks with the worst of the good ole boys! It's too bad that the first shot at the prize had to be a man in woman's clothing. . .but women need to look for a kinder person not JUST A FEMALE.
Hilary is the old guard. As a woman and a mother and as a gentler spirit - opposed to the barbaric act of war, which terorizes and tortures local populations I honor and respect the man who ran a principled campaign and not the alleged woman who voted for war.

Where to start...

Flanders bemoans that it is all become too personal and then actually is brazen enough to state that feminists supported clinton based on the fact that she was a women. Can't get more personal than that--and the stated case that:

"a woman president might put gender justice first. And by gender justice we mean human justice. As Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women explained on GRITtv Tuesday night, you can't teeter the welfare of the world on that part of society — the female part — that you treat the worst without consequences for the planet."

When Clinton sought to prove her worthiness as Commander-in chief with tough sounding militaristic blunder and maschismo as a the criteria of necessary strenth even after the complete Bush blundering with this sabre-rattling approach.

This argument is lame at best and dishonest at its core.
As a woman, I have found that som of the male politicians, including Obama with his compassionate patience for Clinton, have better demonstrated the qualities of human justice while Clinton made a mockery of herself and shames all women with her lack of integrity and gross selfish delusion.

No matter what gender. No matter what. The Dem nominee, like the Republican nominee, is .... more of the same, i.e., the corporate candidate that has made it through the corporate and media filters, one that, in the end, is expected to and will do their bidding.

Hillary was defeated because she was totally self absorbed and appeared morally bankrupt. Her actions in this campaign were seen by many as disgraceful. Washington appears to have corrupted her completely. She behaved badly and continues to behave badly. She lacked grace in failing to concede last night. She "had" to tarnish the evening for Obama. She is at war with men. Obama will appear weak to men if he places her on the ticket. Nor should he pay her significant campaign debt in the many millions. She borrowed millions and attempted to derail Obama with specters of racism, gender, and assassination. She deserves the hell she has made for herself.

Youre wasting youre breath Laura, they don't get it - it must be a genetic lack. But keep putting it out there. Thanks.

Flander's notes the following:

"It's a convenient way to take systems of wealth and power and privilege out of the picture and a happy-for-some way to eradicate history. We've privatized prisons and health-care and education and war and we do the same to our politics and our politicians. It's all about them."

Right! It has always been about THEM! So why is this empty pantsuit going to vote for Obama? Obama, Clinton, and McCain are married to the status quo, they are married to corporations and corporate investments. (Note a recent article on CD documenting the corporations that poured millions into the Bush campaign, now pouring millions into the Obama campaign.)

Obama is rattling his sword about Iran on another CD article and is on record as asserting he would bomb Pakistan. Obama takes refuge in his oppossition to the Iraq war while at the same time funding it for 7 years. Obama's environmental plan is married to the Nuclear lobby and the Bio fuel Lobby. Both are inimical to our Earth Mother.

Flander's like her good buddy Hartmann (and others of their misguided ilk) talk out of both sides of their mouth. My native friends call this speaking with a forked tounge.

Follow this dim wits advice if you want more of the same.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs ---77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

House Vote

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Excuse me, but rooting for Hillary JUST becuase she is a woman is completely irresponsible. In fact, it's sexist. If you think she's best for the job, fine. But it amazes me the number of Americans who can't look past gender and race to support the person they think best suited to lead the country.

Neither of the Dem potential nominees are white males, so does that mean I should ignore them both?

Grow some brains.

The gender cult of Hillary Clinton is a reactionary force ready to accept anything she says or does. She uses religious smears that's okay. She uses race baiting that's okay. She talks like a neocon true believer and wants to obliterate Iran and that's okay. Is there anything she says or does that is not okay? I am for Obama but I certainly do not agree with everything he says or will do but the Clinton cult will accept anything.

"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought…

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, the next President of the United States

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

feminists need to be cautious with the claim that a female leader would automaticaly cater for greater socail justice...as the lady says

you can't teeter the welfare of the world on that part of society

the masculine and feminine concepts do not exist in seperate universes and are not seperate species...they exist as two sides of the SAME coin...to expect a female leader to pull a socail justice wand out of her backside and be more caring than a male leader by default is utter madness

once in power it doesn't take a genius to work out that it all gets a lot more compicated than that..

here in the UK we have dozens of female MP's heads of departments etc etc..
and they all without exception come out with the same old garbage that the men came out with..if anything it is even more unsettling when coming from a woman than a man...as most men will be a poltician first and a man second whilst i don't feel that the majority of women can comfortably seperate their work from their "gender"

tho it can be claimed that this is in it self the result of sexism within the workplace..but that can be and is a circular argument

Why do we have to have a President?

Obama is going to get burned in a wicker man by McCain. We are about to see the most vicious presidential fight in U.S. history.

Thanks democrats, for nominating a guy with a name that rhymes with Osama.

Yes, its going to get that far below the belt.

McCain will be our next president.

I think a qualified woman president would be great. The thing is that H.R.C. is a female with penis envy. Trying to "keep up with the boys" is NOT a woman in the W.H. but a "Poser" in drag.

By the way, Laura, Dennis Kucinich would have been the answer to your dreams. Where the F&*#% were you when he needed you?

Remember, Cynthia McKinney is still in the race. The Progressive black female candidate who terrifies corporate America. Get behind her campaign!!

Any woman who thinks that the woman who cast a yea vote for the criminal war in Iraq and who serves on the union busting board of directors of Walmart is going to make it a better world for women simply because she IS a woman is not looking at hard fact. Get out from behind the skirts, quit cutting off your noses to spite your faces, and get behind the candidate who will give this nation the new direction it sorely needs. Any woman who yearns for the empowerment of women and is now considering switching her vote to McCain is the sorest--and blindest--of losers. And with a President McCain, everyone regardless of gender will LOSE.

I always thought that Obama used the feminine in himself, that anima in every man, better than Hillary uses her own feminine side which she seems to want to quash into nonexistence. He appears to me to be more at peace with the different aspects of himself as a human being, whereas Hillary is at war with her softer side and with everyone who opposes her.

If you look at Obama as a symbol of male power, you are missing his actual strengths as one who bridges over to the strengths of the female, as a negotiator and a uniter. If Hillary hadn't been in the race I think those who support her now would have flocked to Obama as the bridge that would connect those on opposite sides of the gender wars. He is the antithesis of the caricatured war male McCain who doesn't know himself and will not negotiate, who is so oblivious that he constantly contradicts himself, lost behind his fake mask of male power.

to lordanthony who says "Obama overcame a far bigger hurdle by being black than HRC did by being as woman."

Oh enough crap, already, k? If there is ANY lesson to take from the primaries, and if there are any smart progressives and Dems out there, it is this: do not fall for the victim competition between being female in America and being an African American of either sex in America. No less than Shirley Chisholm said that more hurdles were put in her way because of her sex than her race. I expect that there are African American women out there who would both agree and disagree. It is not for me or anyone else to invalidate any African American or woman of any race or to judge or gainsay or disagree. The FACTS are these: up until now, no one without a white penis, especially of the Anglo-American kind, need apply. Nor will being a woman or African American cure anything - see Clarence Thomas (I'd like to be there to hear what Justice Thurgood Marshall says to Clarence) and see also the likes of Phyllis Schlafley, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc. Being of a particular skin color or sex means nothing more than its own fact. It guarantees nothing. What counts is what's in your head, your heart, your soul - and what you intend to do with all the accumulated experience your head, heart and soul has undergone in this world.

Oh puhleeeeze, sour grapes is all I can say. I have a question, what of the women who didn't support Clinton? I didn't and I am very happy she did not win. I can imagine the post mortem the campaign staff will have to endure as the Clintons rail at them for the lost bid for the presidency. After all, the Clintons NEVER own their failure allowing young staffers to fall on their swords instead.

JRuebl says: "Thanks democrats, for nominating a guy with a name that rhymes with Osama."

Republicans nominated a guy with a name that rhymes with Cain, pain, insane, inane, same, shame.

I cannot vote for a warmonger, and Hillary Clinton surely has been that in her years in the Senate. Woman or not, she's the wrong person, and her presence on the ticket would be a deal breaker for me. I'm all in favor of a woman for president, but not her. Not a warmonger who has been willing to support mass slaughter to advance her career. No way.

APEuroHistorian's post says it all in one paragraph !!!

If you were to make a table that listed all of the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential contenders vertically and all of the "womens" issues horizontally, and rated the candidates on their track records concerning those issues, Dennis Kucinich is way ahead of Hillary and several of the other white male contenders would have been neck and neck or slightly ahead of her.

There are many female elected officials who have a good track record supporting womens issues, unfortunately Hillary is not among them.

Laura --

SMARTER WOMEN . . . understood HRC's attachments to the DLC -- the corporate-sponsored wing of the party which
exists to move the party to the RIGHT.

HRC is part of DLC Leadership --- !!!!

Now, why would you want that, Laura????

Meanwhile, let's also keep DLC members out of the VP office --- !!!

******************************************************

NO HRC/DLC in the VP spot --

No DLC members in the VP spot ---

*********************
*********************

Hillary based her campaign on the Karl Rove model. She would base a vice-presidency on the Dick Cheney model. Say NO!

"woman president might put gender justice first. And by gender justice we mean human justice"

Really, you mean this particular woman didn't help enable the killing and maiming of women and children and the orphaning of children in Iraq, and the human misery of women and children fleeing the country?

"IT TAKES OUR HILARY TO BOMB A VILLAGE!"

Hikerwoman
New York

If you don't want the DLC to play a big part in the next administration, I think that it is only fair to point out that Austan Goolsbee, who until recently was Obama's chief economic advisor, is also the Senior Economist to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Check out Obama's economic advisors, his Senate votes on "free" trade, and his policy proposals (hint: big giveaways to insurance and energy companies (and not for clean energy)). If you think that he will abandon the "corporate-sponsored" wing of the Party, then I think that you will be sadly disappointed.

What is being left unsaid is the elephant in the room: the age cleave. Hillary's women supporters are mostly above the age of 45, while their younger compatriots have largely jumped on the Obama bandwagon because he has spoken eloquently to the wants and desires of the post Baby Boom generations irrespective of gender & race. While Hillary represents a redux of the social struggles that has ensnared the USA since the 1960's and which the larger world can ill afford, Obama has managed to personify moving into the future where said tiresome struggles are spoken about in history class.

The "sex pistols" are coming out against Bill Clinton all ready, so it appears that, should Hillary get the VP spot, we'll get nothing else from the media for the rest of the year except Bill's supposed sexcapades, and should she become the VP, it'll be for another 4 -8 years of the same.

Obama's policies are unimpressive, though basically good. Even during his admittedly rousing victory speech last night, he still avoided mentioning single-payer health insurance (he said "lower premiums") and a speedy exit from our imperialist follies in the Middle East. But the reason that Obama scares the shit out of our rulers is his ability to mobilize a spirit of rebellion, to harness the energy of the young, the humane, and the educated among the populace, to bring hope to a despairing nation. Identity politics is a trap that the rulers use to keep us divided. Divided we remain powerless. Hillary keeps us (progressives) divided. Obama is the valiant brakeman on a runaway train. He'll have a lot of careening boxcars to slow down.

Clinton will buck tradition and put "gender justice", "human justice" first?

What is this writer smoking? Clinton is the ultimate insider who constantly triangulates in order to give her the greatest political advantage.

Or is her vote authorizing war an example of her excellent "human justice"?

Dear Juliann June 4th, 2008 12:27 pm

The bigger problem is that you don't know who Laura Flanders is...

As a long time feminist, I was completely offended by hrc's tactics and behavior. her only firm belief is "be the consummate politician" in other words, believe nothing unless it is politically expedient -- very much like Feinstein and her ilk.

and frankly, i've considered dropping my support of NOW (and other feminist groups) because of their blind obedience to the "a(ny) woman at any cost" belief that seems rampant right now.

i'm hoping that Mr. Obama chooses a woman as VP (other than hrc) but time will tell. My current choices would be Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or John Edwards....

GO OBAMA!
Peace,
CS

Gender justice and human justice are fine terms, but what do they have to do with Hillary Clinton? Do Iraqi women have any more gender or human justice because of Clinton's war vote? Do Palestinian women and children have justice due to Clinton's ties with AIPAC? Flanders--get your head out of the feminist propaganda and look at the facts on the ground: human rights is the issue, not gender.

I can't wait to vote for neither Clinton, Obama or McCain. These candidates are foisted on us by the establishment media. They should be recognized for what they are-people who will change nothing in Washington.

With the exception of old dem, the people on this list are deluding themselves into believing whatever it is that suits the decision they made to support Obama. It's wordy, irrational drivel.

It's obvious, painfully so, the CD crowd's fascination with Obama has nothing to do with his positions on any policy whatsoever. Because he has no clear position on policy. except for health insurance, which is the same position exactly as Hillary Clinton. Most of the comments made here are out to lunch, it's the la la of teenagers. even the comments about "feminism" are dimwitted pretensions at self-assertion.

No one here has provided any research or cited anything to support any of these "facts" they supply.

I don't think Obama is any better than Clinton. Sure he is handsome. He is a slick, Ivy-league trained lawyer. If you were head of your class at the country's most presitgious law school,
a) you are extremely ambitious for yourself
and b) you are one hell of a talker who can make a case for anything, even on the basis of nothing.

Which is what Obama is doing, since he has no track record.

KEM PATRICK June 4th, 2008 12:37 pm

"What we sorely need is an honest statesperson who displays a high degree of intelligence, sobriety and common sense and is not owned by big business."

That is the truth. I don't care who they are, but what they are is truly important.

dougnwagner June 4th, 2008 1:07 pm

Terrific post! I hope you are right.

I think its truly time to move on.

Obama is the fantasy candidate. The only message from Obama is that he is whatever a person fantasizes that a President should be. We hear this constantly when we are told that he has to take all these awful positions just to get the office. We are supposed to believe that he's secretly very different from what he says he is when he takes one awful position after another. And since the candidate won't tell us who he really is (under this theory), the only thing left to believe is for every voter to pretend that Obama is really their secret fantasy about what a President should be.

Over the years I've watch the Democrats get more and more desperate to try to convince voters to support their pro-war, pro-corporate candidates who don't represent or support anything that the Democratic voters want. But this really takes the cake.

By Laura's theory, Margaret Thatcher would have been a progressive woman's dream of a wonderful leader. Not!

On the other hand, if all these women really want to vote for a progressive woman who will change the world, they still can. Cynthia McKinney is running for President.

Anytime they try to get you to vote based on superficial values like gender or skin color, you are being conned. Make a candidate promise to you what they will do, vote for the candidate that best suits your values, then do all you can to force them to live up to that promise. And you'll have a better chance of that with a grassroots candidate that gets elected based on your support and work than with a corporate backed candidate that gets elected based on corporate money.

ah yes Maggie Thatcher...the working class here in the UK will probably never recover from the damage done by her psychotic vision of the future...the rich did ok by her tho as did the economy ..in the end... but any sense of community and socail cohesion was beaten to death like a baby seal with a merciless club

it still creeps me out thinking about it

"Hillary was defeated because she was totally self absorbed and appeared morally bankrupt."

Amy Poehler's dead-on Hilary, "Unlike Senator Obama, I have no ethical standards," captures the whole thing.

Obama should agree to offer her a major ambassadorship & then send her to Baghdad.

NATE W: Polls lie. I am a woman over 45 and Hillary is not my bag, and I've seen others comment on CD in agreement.

MAIRS: Very enlightened post!

CHRIS B: How women behave is like asking how mice in a maze designed by Pavlov behave. What we take for human nature is the product of centuries of conditioning. In Education it's all logic based, and too often a proud summation of wars and so-called victories. In religion, God is seen as the father, a male entity and in the Catholic church the female caste is known as "nuns." The conditioning in most cultures has held an extreme male bias which to me is equivalent ot asking mankind to write with one hand tied behind its back. This extreme left brain, masculine conditioning has caused strong women to identify with THE model. Traits of compassion are seen as "compromising with the enemy," especially in a make-war state like the US today.

DUGONIT--Good points.
APEUROPEAN HISTORY: Excellent points.
AUSPICIOUS BUNNY: At least it's not the same damned dynasty! It's time for a new "product" in this commercialized nation. And as others have noted, Obama gets the juices flowing and could inspire more than that which he himself is capable of manifesting. Indeed, time for a change from the dynastic 2-family rule of the past 20 plus years!

Wow, if Clinton supporters think they got screwed, imagine how us Kucinich supporters feel!
BTW, did everyone hear Obama sucking up to Israel today?

Not quite your traditional "sucking up":

He had the chutzpah to lay this on his AIPAC audience:

"I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security,"

plus said in so many words that military action against Iran was not in "our best interest",

and paid tribute to the many Jewish-American progressives in US history.

Discussing non-quantifiable characteristics only lends credence to the notion that somehow being concerned with "leadership ability" or "charisma" is as worthy a pursuit, and thus as deserving of coverage, as what candidates actually have to say about ISSUES. The characteristic of "elect-ability" seems to get more attention in the media than all the issues put together.

Reread the article by Laura Flanders and notice that she starts off the piece by noting the poor coverage of the issues by the media. So most voters may have latched onto what the media has given them to latch onto, namely these BS ineffable qualities. Flander's above piece is really just a cry to unify democrats behind the idea of calling on Obama to turn the campaign more toward addressing structural problems, i.e. ISSUES. Don't misinterpret what has been said here.

Also, if you were a person set on Hilary being the nominee, why be so down? If you have progressive views, losing Hilary from the mix was nowhere near the blow as losing Dennis or even Edwards. With Dennis we lost single payer and pacifism and with Edwards we lost angry anti-corporate rhetoric. With Hilary we lost...what exactly? Last I checked Nader is still running.

And then, in response to a fresh Lieberman attack on him and his AIPAC adress:

"During a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances."
(Daily Kos)

...this is getting really good!