Obama and Edwards have reacted to the news that Hillary Clinton became a bit emotional recently. Take your time to read these reactions, to me, Edwards has just made himself even more irrelevant than he already was, whereas Obama showed that he – at least – has some class.

Edwards: “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.”

Obama: “I didn’t see what happened. I know this process is a grind. So that’s not something I care to comment on.”

That comment isn’t exactly defending Clinton, but he’s not going after her either.

Bloggers reacted to it all as well. Joe Gandelman of TMV worded it perfectly (I agree completely with him): “Yes, Ms. Clinton showed that she’s human. But President George Bush has teared up several times during his time in office. Did anyone then suggest he was unfit for office? If he someone did, it would have been silly. And it is in the case of Clinton, too.” He then goes on to urge readers to also read this post by David Schraub “on Hillary hatred… and hatred for women.”

I suggest you read it too. As I wrote yesterday, it’s perfectly clear that we’re seeing sexism in action here.

Matt Stoller of OpenLeft isn’t happy with the reactions of Edwards and the press either: “tics, with sneering comments. The headline on the ABC News piece is ‘Can Clinton’s Emotions Get the Best of Her?’ When Edwards almost gets choked up and talks about how personal XYZ person is on the trail, he’s just passionate. When Clinton does it, she suddenly becomes a hysterical weak woman.”

Amanda Marcotte (about press accounts and other democrats’ reaction): “Completely unacceptable amounts of sexism. It’s bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she’s too feminine or too scary, but if she’s more stoic, she’s a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much. I’ve been reconsidering moving my Edwards support to Obama, and unless someone can show me evidence that Obama is just as likely to take cheap, sexist shots like this, I think that’s what I’ll be doing in light of this.”

Jessica Valenti at Feministing: “I was [...] grossed out by John Edwards’ related attack.”

Michael J. Stickings: “What is wrong with emotion? A lot, it would seem, if it is shown on the campaign trail, and, yes, by a woman. A man’s emotion could be expressed as anger, and he would be applauded for it. It’s a different story with Clinton. She’s a bitch for expressing anger, a weakling for expressing.. what?”

Tom Watson published perhaps one of the best posts on Hillary’s treatment. He calls on Barack Obama to defend her and to criticize those who attack her:

his silence in the case of the cynical media lynching of Hillary Clinton by a national press corps obsessed with her gender is telling. And unless Barack Obama speaks out, his campaign’s chilling acceptance of the gender bias stirred by our national media will also remind many of Ronald Reagan’s acceptance of the race-baiting southern strategy – because if Obama accepts the presidency, at least in part, because of abject sexism, a brutal gender attack on a female rival – the most famous female Democrat in history – he will set feminism in our country back a generation.

Via Taylor Marsh, by the way, we get this interesting video. Watch Hillary dealing with Chris Matthews.

Clinton: “I’m not on your show, I’m answering your question.”

Matthews: “Please come on the show.”

Clinton: “Yeah… well, right.” (laughter)

Matthews: “Is that an answer?”

Clinton: “I don’t know what to do with men who are obsessed with me. I honestly have never understood it.”

Matthews sounding hurt: “Obsessed… I’m not obsessed…”

Clinton: “Ooowwww Christopherrrr… baby.”

She hugs him. He looks very happy suddenly.

Matthews: “It’s not an obsession… How you doing?”

Clinton: “I’m good.”