Obama tries to deflect criticism from Sotomayor - "I'm sure she would have restated it..." (AP)

[jefferson_dem]

Q: What is "that word" Gibbs is referring to? Better? Change "better" to "different" and no fuss...or they would have found something other than this quote to fuss about.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.

The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That debate is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process.

Said Sotomayor in 2001: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

After three days of suggesting that reporters and critics should not dwell on one sentence from a speech, the White House had a different message Friday.

"I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

<SNIP>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_sotomayor

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. The GOP are 'scraping the barrel'

they really don't have anything to say.

[DURHAM D]

2. Why do men always think they have carte blanche to change the meaning of women's words?

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what Sotomayor said. What in the world are all the boys so afraid of?

[Cha]

3. I thought it was already

established that the quote was taken out of context and the whole story was needed to put it in perspective?

Not that I give a shit what they whine about..they've made themselves irrelevant.

[moondust]

4. Isn't this about context?

If the context surrounding this remark is a case involving Hispanics or women or poor people she would naturally have a "better," more informed perspective than some rich white guy.

On the other hand, if the context is a case involving an all-white country club then the rich white guy would likely have a "better" perspective from which to judge.

What the fuss?

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Should she heck! You go, girl/lady/Judge! It's an infuriating myth that clear thinking

precludes emotion. All things being equal, the reverse is true.

By and large, La Sotomayor (If I may call her that - it's such a fantastic name, I feel it merits some kind of honorific), is surely right. I'm sick and tired of hearing dim-witted wasp judges in our egregiously disUnited madhouse of a Kingdom on this side of the pond, enjoining jurors not to allow their emotions to play any part in the decisions they arrive at!

[defendandprotect]

6. There should be no apologies . . . you'd think it was the Dems who nominated a PERVERT . . .!!!

And, unfortunately, the Dems at the time betrayed the truth in not properly

investigating Clarence Thomas and permitting him to get on the court -- thus

clearing the way for the Bush 2000 steal -- and eventually 9/11, the Patriot

Act, Katrina, etal --


However, I think Sotomayer said on reflection she would have chosen a different word.