a whiff of subversion in the morning.

I’d say you have been, yes.

I have to stick to what I said - I expected plenty of Clinton hatred, a little from the left and a ton from the right. But I didn’t think it would have such horrendous sexual overtones.

Then you were naive.

It’s one for the history books.

I can only assume you’ve been caught off guard because you haven’t seen the sexism that’s been with us all along. It’s been a lot more blatant and public regarding Clinton’s candidacy, but as even a somewhat public woman I assure you that I’ve enjoyed garbage just as vile aimed at me since I’ve been blogging. Any woman who become the least bit public gets it, publicly, and if you aren’t public you can still trip over it from time to time. You get used to it.

So, dude — wake up.

he should speak out, in my view.

That would be fine, but I still don’t understand why it is his unique responsibility to address nonsense that’s been going on since before he was born.

I have to stick to what I said - I expected plenty of Clinton hatred, a little from the left and a ton from the right. But I didn’t think it would have such horrendous sexual overtones. The sheer overwhelming size of the sexist reaction to Clinton’s candidacy - and it’s surely not the only reason for her defeat - was what stunned me. That and the tacit ok that many of her leftist opponents (especially the younger demographic, frankly) gave to the incendiary language used against her. It’s one for the history books.

I’ll gladly support Obama, but if he wants to truly lead the Democratic Party, he should speak out, in my view.

I suppose I don’t think it’s either sexism is the cause of Hillary Hatred or it’s just a rhetoric in which that hatred is expressed. I think it’s a complicated combination of both.

Sexism lies near the heart of many people’s hatred of Clinton, but I also think it’s a language in which some people express a hatred of Clinton whose roots lie elsewhere.

One of the lessons of this campaign is that it is more acceptable to engage in openly sexist rhetoric than openly racist rhetoric (the racism we’ve seen aimed at Obama has been a bit more dogwhistley than much of the sexism aimed at Clinton). Yet I don’t think that means that sexism is a worse problem than racism…or vice versa, for that matter. Sexism and racism are apples and oranges, two different economies of privilege each with its own rules and rhetorics (public and private).

I certainly don’t think that one can conclude from any particular person’s dislike of Hillary Clinton that that person is unprepared to have a woman for president. I’d love to have a woman president. If, say, Barbara Lee were the Democratic presidential candidate, I’d be devoting lots of time and money to getting her elected. But I can’t stand the kind of “New Democratic” politics that the Clintons pioneered; I left the Democratic Party as a result of them, in fact. I look forward to the day when both Hillary and Bill Clinton play a much smaller role in our public life.

Good point. (And Jeane Kirkpatrick too.)

All due respect, my ass. That is such a vile and stupid question, and one that shows you didn’t give the post an honest reading, you just earned yourself a spot in the twit filter. Bye.