The toughest task remaining for Barack Obama in this twilight phase of the neverending Democratic primary battle isn't avoiding embarrassment in Kentucky (he won't), finding a consensus solution to the Florida/Michigan dispute (he might) or racking up enough delegates to finally clinch the nomination (he will, eventually). It's earning the trust of Democratic voters like Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, of Columbus, Ohio. The organizers of a new group called "Clinton Supporters Count, Too" that plans to work actively against Obama in swing states this fall, Ruccia and Dixey represent a sizable number of Clintonites, many of them women, whose initial preference for the former First Lady has hardened into an unyielding opposition to her rival. The reason? What they perceive as the "intense sexism" of party leaders, the media and/or the Obama campaign itself. In Indiana, two-thirds of Clinton voters (57 percent of whom were women) said they'd be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; a third said they'd vote for John McCain instead. "It’s been open season on women," Ruccia and Dixey told the Politico yesterday morning. "And we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it’s wrong.”

Obama is well aware of the challenge--especially because he made it more daunting earlier this week. During a tour Wednesday of a Chrysler plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., local television reporter Peggy Agar asked the senator "how [he was] going to help the American autoworkers." Obama's response? "Hold on one second, sweetie." Unfortunately, Obama didn't follow through, and Agar closed her segment that night with the tart phrase "this sweetie never got an answer." Soon, the Politico, the Atlantic, the New York Times and other outlets posted items on the exchange; reporters noted that Obama had also called a female factory worker “sweetie” in Allentown, Penn. Thus, a pattern. Obama supporters chided the media for not covering "the issues"; Clinton supporters sensed paternalist condescension--and even sexism.

Who's right? Addressing someone as "sweetie" isn't necessarily sexist, as any diner patron can attest; it can easily be a term of endearment, depending on whether or not it's welcome. (Agar, for the record, was "more offended that he didn't answer the question"--hardly a rare occurrence on the trail.) Regardless, thousands of voters like Ruccia and Dixley cringed (justifiably, given the professional setting); they already felt that system that enabled Obama's rise--if not each and every participant--was sexist, and his slip merely reinforced that impression. And that's all that matters. Should the media obsess over "sweetie" instead of climate-change policy? Of course not. But when it represents the chasm between Obama and a sizable segment of his own party--unlike, say, Obama's plan to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050--it's impossible to ignore. Going forward, Obama has to win over at least some of the world's Ruccias and Dixleys (or their less vocal brethren)--even if he didn't fashion the Hillary Nutcracker with his bare hands or use Photoshop to depict Clinton as a witch. The reason he said "sweetie" is less relevant* than the reaction it produced, and the sense of marginalization it reinforced.

For his part, Obama immediately acknowledged as much. Shortly after three o'clock yesterday afternoon, the Illinois senator left a message for Agar apologizing for failing to answer her question--and for the word he used in doing it. "Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie,'" he said. "That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front." Gentlemanly mea culpa or necessary political maneuver? We report, you decide. But if Obama's "sweetie" episode illustrates anything, it's that the senator and probable nominee still has a long way to go on the dangerously narrow road to Democratic unity--especially where the passions of gender are involved. Kicking this particular "bad habit" is only the first small step.

*To clarify my choice of the word relevant here: I meant in the sense that obsessing over whether or not someone is a sexist simply because he said "sweetie" is a bit of a dead end. We can't really know that on the basis of such skimpy evidence. What we do know is that a lot of women who support Clinton are dead-set against Obama, and incidents like this illustrate how difficult it will be for him to win them over. How he will do that or fail to do that is, in my mind, the more rewarding topic of discussion.

UPDATE, 5:19 p.m.: Reader "democrattotheend" makes some interesting points. Debate away; the comments are yours.

Saying "sweetie" is a bad habit that Obama needs to break, but I don't think he meant anything sexist by it. I also think that Clinton has at times been the victim of sexism, just as Obama has at times been a victim of racism. However, I believe that Clinton's failure in this campaign has been a result of a poorly run campaign, not sexism. It insults me as a feminist to hear people say that she is losing because she is a woman and has received disparate treatment. If anything, she has been propped up by her gender, making her (like Obama) a celebrity candidate who got more attention in the beginning than the other candidates and has been given more chances to bounce back. I know some Clinton supporters feel that she, as a woman, is being "passed over" for a "less qualified" male, but the bottom line is, more voters, knowing the resumes of both candidates, have voted for Obama over Clinton, even when you include Florida and Michigan. And if the primary were a resume contest, wouldn't Richardson, Biden or Dodd be the nominee?