interests.

that many want to change from the old style politics to a new style politics.

It's a generational thing.

Not an attack on Hillary as a woman in any way, as you seem to think.

hahaha, you almost got me....I was typing a serious response and I caught myself

but yeah yeah Democrats will lose everyone is sexist, and only HRC supporters and Republicans can see the truth, everyone else was to dumb to see it....

got it.

Your premise is flawed.  The media serves no master other than itself.  The media benefits when there is conflict.  As such, it plays up anything and everything controversial that it can.

If any particular outlet doesn't run with it, the others will, and that outlet suffers.

We spent how long talking about the National Guard accusations on President Bush in 2004?  How long on Swiftboating?  What about Reverend Wright?  What about flag pins?  What about $400 haircuts?  

Face it - your candidate took some bodyblows, just like the others.  She took more than several others did because she was a more formidable and prominent candidate.  While I'm sure there is some sexism endemic to some in the media, the media is only a sample of the populace at large.  What you find scattered among all of us, you will find scattered among subsets of us.

There is no meaningful bias against Hillary Clinton because she is a woman.  There is a heck of a lot of dislike of her by some.  That dislike is often irrational and wrong, but some of it is borne of her own record and her own words.  She's never been afraid of making waves, which is admirable, but making waves makes enemies.

When she steamrolled Democratic congressmen during Hillarycare, she made enemies.  When she attacked the women who, rightly we later found out, claimed sexual relationships with her husband, she made enemies.  When she continually added to the list of states that "do not matter" she made enemies.

She is hardly unique in pissing people off.  Most every prominent politician does this.

Please accept the fact that she is no more a special and unique slowflake than is anybody else up there.  The media may have dogpiled her, but no more so than they dogpiled Obama over Wright.

Look, there might be angry feelings and resentment from Hillary supporters towards an Obama-led ticket, but from a RATIONAL perspective, there is NO way that "sexism" costs the Democrats this year.

You know what's sexist?:

- McCain laughing along with the crowd when he gets the question "How do we beat the bitch [Clinton]?"

• far right-wing anti-choice positions
  
• every single f'ing word out of Limbaugh's, Glenn Beck's, Coulter's, etc.'s mouths
  
• the kind of federal judges that a Republican president would put in place

Maybe you lack faith in the rationality of Democratic women, but I believe they will make the smart choice and pick the pro-choice, progressive Democratic candidate.

This woman is proud to have voted for Obama, and feels very strongly that Hillary's treatment by the media was not only fair, but was entirely justified given the negative campaign she chose to run.  If Obama had her numbers he would have been laughed out of the election months ago.  Take a look at what happened to Huckabee when the numbers turned against him, he became a big joke.  The same happened to Edwards, Romney, and every other losing candidate in this and previous presidential elections.  Hillary was treated with a deference that is unprecedented, and given that fact it is amazing to me that her supporters continue to complain about how she is being treated.

so, we should let those sour hillary supporters blackmail the convention???

and that is sexism how?????

pretzel logic cangal

Here's your logic:

Sexism cost Hillary (the MOST ELECTABLE DEMOCRAT [TM]) the nomination in the Democratic primary...where the voters generally are less sexist.

But...wait...sexism wouldn't affect her at all in the general election!!!

LOGICAL!!!!

Has there been sexism against Senator Clinton during this nomination process? Yes. Has there also been racism directed at Senator Obama? Yes.

But any person who votes for McCain in November is damaging the cause of women's rights. I wonder how many true feminists are comfortable with the idea of four more years of a Republican President?

I cannot believe that you actually attached that citizens united not timid shit of a graphic with your diary. What a disgrace! How the hell does that relate to "sexism" that cost dems the white house? Wouldn't you think that sexism caused by dems would cost them the white house? If the media is sexist, why should Obama pay the price? Why should we all (yourself excluded) pay the price and end up with batshit crazy McCain?

Whatever point you were trying to make, it was in poor taste, with poor judgement, and little to no sense.

There's got to be a surrogate for Obama that can talk to women and assure them that Barack Obama is not sexist, that he will defend freedom of choice, hire women to cabinet and judicial positions, and speak out against discrimination of all sorts.

Hey, I know!

Maybe Hillary Clinton can do it!  She wants to have a Democrat in the White House, and she seems to be respected by many women!  She can go to any women's groups that feel disappointed that some people were sexist against a female candidate for president.  Clinton even has credibility on the subject, having been a female candidate for president!

I have resolved your potentially troubling issue.  Hooray!

Hillary supporters are pissed at the media and rightfully so. Here's a clip where Matthew's "mispeaks"

A lot of commenters seem to be missing the diarist's point, if I understand it correctly.

She's not necessarily saying that the people voting for Obama are doing so because they are sexist. Rather, she's saying that many Hillary voters, such as myself, have been outraged at the blatant sexism-tinged hostility the media has shown Hillary from the outset, as well as the silence and occasional complicity of the party elite. Given all that, we're feeling a bit alienated from the party and less enthusiastic about the party's nominee.

Silence can be betrayal, as Martin Luther King pointed out.

it disgusts me that any female Democrat would use "sexism" as a reason to vote for McCain over Obama.

It makes me want to vomit.  When McCain got asked "How do we beat the bitch [Clinton]?", and we laughed along, and some other asshole wisecracked "I thought she was talking about my ex-wife," and McCain laughed some more, I was furious.  My wife is an incredibly intelligent, hard-working, dedicated person, and if she ever ran for political office, and was treated like that by her opponent, there would probably be an incident involving me storming the asshole's campaign HQ on that evening's local news.

But hey, take a dump on woman's rights, and freedom of choice, and Hillary Clinton herself (who will support Obama) --- that's your right, and no one can stop you from foolishly using that right other than yourself.

Is part III of "how to destroy a candidate" coming soon?

I agree with the sentiment that the media has generally been more unfavorable to her than it has been with Obama; sexism may very well be the reason.  However, receiving unfair media coverage also has its benefits; it galvanizes one's supporters and also provides a candidate with the ability to adopt an "us v. them" mentality.  I'm not sure if Hillary would have been able to assume that "populist fighter" theme had she not received such distorted media coverage.

She lost because of Mark Penn and her staff.

B.O. had everything break perfectly for him.

Michigan and Florida breaking the rules gave him the opening

he needed. Let's be clear here. She won California, New York on

name recognition. You do those primaries today and the resulta

might be alot different. Same goes for Michigan and Florida.

She would have won those, but the states decided to break the

rules. The fact that she didn't even try to compete in 12 straight

states was all her fault. Alot of things went wrong for her but

I don't think sex had anything to do with it.

I still have no idea how she could let this slip away.

If she does not win, the best way to honor her legacy is to listen to her wishes in this case and vote for the Democratic Candidate for President.

The SCOTUS arguement should be reason enough.

Would they be complaining about how unfair it is for the election to have been cut short if as Hillary believed, Obama would have been forced out after Super Tuesday?

I believe no one---not the DNC, not the Obama hopefuls, not the media---understand how angry women are right now.  All aspects of this campaign [media, Obama supporters, all of it] have assumed that Hillary's supporters, mostly women,  can be overlooked, blasphemed, insulted, maligned---and that, miraculously, they will nevertheless forgive, forget, and fall in line.  Forget that!  I, and a staggering number of my colleagues, am done.  We're done with being doormats for ALL these creeps.

We're NOT going to lose the White House.... Oh, and Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of sexism.  She lost because Obama ran a better campaign and is the slightly stronger candidate.  I know plenty of feminist women who voted for Obama because they felt he was the better candidate.  To chalk Clinton's loss up to simple sexism is disingenuous. Clinton may have won come November, but Obama is going to fare even better, win with a mandate.  He's the leader of party and future of our country.  The sooner you move on from your hurt feelings, the better for our party and the better for our country, and the better for you. So snap out of it!  We need you to win in November!

Women's choice:

* Elect Obama, who Clinton says is very close to her, is not sexist, and supports women's causes

* John McCain, who thinks he can and should legislate their wombs

That's a tough one.

Great diary, totally interesting analysis.  Women identify with her, we don't feel sympathy, we feel her pain.  And we greatly admire her courage and her ability to keep going, she's winning America, she's the real come back kid.  

You know I support you on how the nedia has acted, but please don't be down on November yet, polling looks good.  Check out Openleft.com for an article by Chris Bowers (the wonky guy) about 6 macrotrends going against the republicans.

Also lets see how this all plays out...
It is too early to cry doom as in June of 2000 51% of McCain supporters said they'd vote for Gore.  They came home, I am not saying it will be easy or a fun choice for Clinton supporters to make, but based on policies a good number of them will come home.

And about the republican 527 whose name i won't say...

The founder of that group should:
be tarred and feathered
beated with socks full of raw onions
whipped with towels by drunken frat boys
have rocks slung at his groin and thyroid (very painful to get hit in the thyroid)
suffer a million papercuts on his tongue
have tiny specks of rubber forced into his skin
be infected with Ebola Zaire

That is close to a fitting punishment...

because of sexism from "the media, party establishment and some BO supporters"?  None of those people are Obama.  Why would someone vote against A to punish B?

Give women more credit than that.

Oy vey.

Enough of this.

You can't take the IN exit polls in the way you are doing. 10% of voters in the IN primary said that they voted for Clinton in the primary, and that they would vote for McCain in the GE against either Clinton or Obama. Obama's poor ability to hold onto Clinton supporters in the GE comes from this group. Without them, he does as well as Clinton does holding Obama supporters.

In NC, 7% of voters were Clinton voters who would vote for McCain over Clinton in the GE. If we remove them from people who would vote for McCain over Obama, we again get a perfectly normal ability to hold Clinton supporters.

The poll highlighted on the front page showed Obama losing 2% of women to the undecided category compared to Clinton. These would be the women you are talking about (although it will also include women for whom race is the most important criteria). That isn't zero, but it isn't a big number either. It seems that the vast majority of women are actually able to value their own (and their country's) best interests above ire at sexist media, and to vote for the candidate who is best for the country, rather than refusing to vote or voting for Evil because the better candidate won against a woman in the primary.

I actually think that she would have won this if she had chosen to campaign without Bill and without the leftovers of his campaign staff and the old Clinton bunch.  He did a huge amount to undermine her campaign and his legacy is such a mixed bag, it became hers, and her foundation is really something very different, much more progressive, much more interesting.

I would have found her an infinitely more appealing candidate as Hillary Rodham, minus the baggage and the advisors, and the foot-in-mouth spouse who is not really half the person she is.

and I notice not one of the obamapeople have commented on this terrible poster, nor given "sexism" any credence at all.  Even the women...is this self hatred, to think that the blatant sexism is not a factor?

And of course these people say, "oh, if Obama lost it would be about racism".  No, it is Obama people that will blame Americans for not voting for Obama because of racism, just like they are doing that now in discounting the WV win.

No, the women will just quietly not vote, vote McCain, or otherwise just disappear. And yes, with 51% of the population, that just might cost the election.  

(And no, women will not be bullied into being afraid of McCain when the dems will have the house and senate with wide margins.)

They did this to you!
In Germany it was the Jews.
For Lou Dobbs and his followers it is the Mexicans. Or immigrants.
To whites they said it was the blacks and the communists.
To blacks they said it was the whites.

Sometimes it is true, and there have been dark days in our history where it was true for women and blacks.  And in pockets it is still true.
But in this race, the biggest promoter of sexism was Hillary Clinton.  And the biggest reason why she failed was the Clinton campaign.  You can assign blame anywhere you like, it doesn't change the truth, and when you are wrong, you add to the problem, because if you can not identify what it is and the cause, then you can't fix it.
Keep beating your chest and being self destructive in your anger, I am sure that will make the world a better place.

Sexism probably cost Hillary Clinton the race, the problem is it was her own.   And since Hillary tried to fool women into thinking her campaign was a referendum on women.  She has the people that bought into it believing the rejection of Hillary Clinton was a rejection of women.  

Have you noticed that they go on and on and get some poor smuck on TV claiming they wouldn't vote for a black President but have you once seen the question asked of would they support a woman for President, did sex influence your vote for President?

The fact that NARAL endorsed Barack Obama is one hell of a slap in the face today as well.  

I hear what the diarist is talking about all the time.  I have heard many, many women who are Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, and a few that say they will vote for McCain.

I don't mean to tip off another cascade of "what are they, idiots???"  I'm just saying that the phenomenon does exist.  I hear it all the time.

Now, I too will not vote for Obama because my state will go blue in the general election easily, so my vote doesn't matter.  He is not someone I feel particularly positive about, and so I'd rather not vote for him if I have a choice.  I do have that luxury because my state's electoral votes will go to the Democrat regardless.  If I lived somewhere my vote might matter, then I'd hold my nose and just do it.  God knows I've had to do that many times in my life, and it's fine.  It just has to be done.

But yeah... that sentiment is out there.  I wouldn't call these women lunatics, they just feel like this whole Hillary bash-fest is that last straw.  I think some of them will soften, especially when Clinton urges them to, but there are some that most definitely won't... because it's not just about Clinton, it's a reflection of the crap they've had to deal with their whole lives.  They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore.  Make sense?  To some it will, to others it won't -- but it's a real thing.

Sadly, many people who have posted are the same nasty people who will not entertain the fact that Hillary Clinton has ever received any type of bad treatment. It's always countered by the magnificence of Obama's campaign and tactics. I would love to call a few of you out but the toxicity is too great to expose good Democrats who will support whatever nominee is chosen for President, and every other race. Never run up to an angry or crazy person and shout and expect anything but more shouting. It's time for the fake Obama supporters that cause all the dustups just to get lost. I've lost patience with them, not Obama or Clinton or the Democratic Party - all of whom have made some pretty bad mistakes and said some lame things, but none of whom even come close to the rabid fetid rectal spewing of just about every Republican I've encountered during this primary, and my life for that matter.Call me a bigoted partisan but I have never advocated harming or becoming violent over who someone supports for any election. But these people do, and have against women, gays, Blacks, Hispanics, etc. for my entire life. Intercourse John McCain.

John McCain is the ultimate lying through his teeth panderer. The only maverick thing about him is that he hasn't been caught sexually abusing a young man or women. Vulgar statement, yes. True? Yes. Just listen to the woman and say you hear her and will work to be the best person you can. Isn't that all we can ask of anyone? If ego is getting in the way, the claim of sexism is probably accurate or at least close enough to warrant introspection. Just do it offline if you need to.

"deny AA their first president"

Up thread Jessie88 made that statement. It is my opinion that Obama is running for POTUS. While I understand the sentiment, it could be considered as divisive as the statement Jesse Jackson, Jr. made as he said, "do you want to be the one to deny the first black man his chance at the Presidency." Very inadvisable statement.

I think sexism is hurting this election process, but I believe it is the historic sexism to Hillary supporters.

I don't really believe that sexism has been a big factor in this race. You're really good at finding offensive ads like the one's attached to this diary, but you probably just gave the group twice the exposure they'd get otherwise, and there's just as much, if not more racism in this campaign, so I tend to think they cancel out.

What is happening, I think, is that many women have invested in Hillary Clinton every hope and dream of womankind, and conversely assigned to Obama every dirty sexist slight from the long history of sexism in their lives. Neither of those is right or correct. Both are understandable.

What has been forgotten, to an extent, in the process, is that Hillary is a human, a politician, a candidate, and not a perfect one. She's lost this race not due to sexism, but because she didn't compete well enough to win, and because many people didn't think she'd make the better President. We can disagree with them, but it's wrong to automatically assign them sexist motives.

Which is not to say that there aren't a lot of sexists in this country. My wife and I joked yesterday about John Edwards' 7% in West Virginia, that faced with the choice between a woman or a black man some voters had to find a white male to vote for or their heads would explode.

Hillary has shattered the highest glass ceiling in the land. No one of sound mind believes any longer that a woman cannot be President. Hillary's coattails are more important than how many lower ticket races she could have maybe brought along with her. Hillary's coattails are the many women who will now be swept into congress, and governorships, and state legislatures because those who could never see in their mind a woman in the White House now can. This includes the next woman, already probably waiting in the wings, who will run for President, and win, not because she's a woman, but because she's the right candidate.

Having commented on the sexism part of your diary, I also have a viewpoint on the "losing the White House" concept, and since I'm apparently chatty over my Cheerios this morning, I'll weight in.

I think to think that because Hillary is not the nominee we'll lose the White House is to sell women incredibly short. Yes, there will be disappointment, hurt, anger, even resentment, but then they'll look at things in the cold light of some new day (hopefully before November).

On the one hand we've got Barack Obama, whose one great fault for many may be that he's male, but whose policies are at least very close to Hillary's, is not almost identical.

On the other hand we have John McCain:

• Calls his wife a c**t in public
  
• Cheated on his first wife and married the trophy bride
  
• Whose militant stance may just lead to a draft of our sons and daughters
  
• Who is anti-choice and likely to nominate at least 2 Supreme Court justices and countless lower court appointees.
  
• Who differs with Democratic principles, and with the principles of both Clinton and Obama, on almost everything.

Isn't there a kind of perverse sexism in thinking that women are stupid? That they put their own personal feelings above the good of the country and our children and grandchildren? I don't sell women short. I know that in the end their patriotism (yes, that's not just a word co-opted by Republicans) will outweigh their hurt feelings. Don't you think so?

for President against Clinton is truly astounding and has many, many women furious - Kerry, Dodd, McGovern, Edwards, Kennedy, Richardson, and probably Carter.  Look at the list of WH losers!  

Who knew how much sexism was lurking within the party itself?  These guys must be TERRIFIED of HRC, so scared that she is the real talent for the White House, something they each botched in their own clumsy way, that they have to go after her in a pack.

Please keep posting about this issue.  Edwards' late breaking endorsement the day after Clinton cleaned Obama's clock in West Virginia looked like the most cowardly move of them all.  

Women are furious at the way the party is treating her!

Hell hath no fury like feminists who didn't get their way.

you argument hinges on this belief of yours:

"I believe, amongst other things, that these polls reflect a genuine inconsolable anger at the sexism bestowed onto HRC from the media, party establishment and some BO supporters."

there's no way to know this or gauge this without polling data. the mydd echo chamber, or even lefty blog echo chamber, is simply not enough.

besides, this argument doesn't speak very well for the women who feel this "genuine inconsolable anger," because it would mean that they can't separate anger the media, party establishment, and bo supporters from their reaction to obama himself. an inability to do so is serious emotional and rational failing. i think it's offensive to believe that women can't do this. and, well, i believe your analysis is just wrong, and we'll see that in the general.

Hillary lost the nomination in 2002 when she put her presidential ambitions over the lives of American Service members, and voted for the Iraq war.

Well, one good thing about this post is that is proves (again) two things that have been dreadfully obvious for a long time: (1) Hillary supporters are not contained in their support by things like logic and common sense; and (2) MyDD remains bizzaro-world.

For those who did not take Logic in college, it is a logical fallacy to assume the truth of the proposition you seek to prove.  Ergo, when Canadian Gal states: "As we all know, based on BO's current coalition, it would be impossible for him to carry the votes needed to win the presidential nomination without getting most, if not all of HRC's supporters." --she is being illogical.  

In fact, we don't "all know" this.  And, in fact, this premise is the proposition you need to prove in order to make the argument that sexism will "deny" Obama the White House.  

I'll take sexist over stupid any day.  

The only sexism I see here is women who are so vehemently anti-Obama because he's a man who beat  a women candidate. (fair and square I might add)

Stop polarizing people, I would never vote for Clinton, not because she's a women, but because she's untrustworthy and a liar. Just like her husband I might add.

As a parent to two young girls, I hope the first women president (and it will happen soon) is someone with more character and stronger ethics.

Do you think we've seen 1% of the sexism we'd have seen from the right in a Hillary/McCain race?

Sure, Rush Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage are now the woman's friend- please give them the White House.

A large percentage of Clinton supporters that wont supporter Obama if he's the nominee, also wont support Hillary if she's the nominee.  The exit polls show that too.  Many of these voters can't stand Hillary, but just want to Obama because they fear Obama is a muslim.  A lot of Hillary supporters are also part of Rush Limbaugh's operation chaos.

"How do we beat the bitch/"

And McCain laughed

The media will treat a Republican woman differently. That's one reason why Republicans would be wise to choose a woman on the national ticket.

This is a world wide phenomenon. Conservative women like Margaret Thatcher are treated with more respect than progressive women. If McCain picks Condoleeza Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson as his running mate, he may be able to pull off a big upset victory in Novemeber. (I still do think that the Democrats have to be highly favored to win the WH in November)

I have been saying for months to anyone who would listen to me (and my poor husband has been very patient) that "we are watching the media destroy the first woman running for President of the United States."  This entire episode will become infamous in the history of women's rights in America.

They had clips of  W Va white WOMEN who said they could not trust Obama because he was MUSLIM, black, and whatever reason they could come up with.

You want to bring up sexism, fine. It does exist. And Hillary has certainly been a victim of it though it has been offset by her powerful incumbency style network of friends thanks to her days with Bill and some of her own.

And can you guarantee a Hillary win in the GE? You do realize republican shills have been holding back their attacks on Hillary until the GE campaign? All that attack bullshit she went through was as First Lady. Watch her get demolished over the Iraq issue which would force her to give McCain a free pass on the issue at some point.

Why insistence that every single thing that doesn't go your way, or disagrees with you is sexist may have diminished the voices of honest people who believe in equality under the law.  Now that would be an interesting diary.

I'm not saying that there hasn't been lots of sexism and racism in this nomination contest, but...

There used to be (and to a degree still is) this tendency on the part of some on the left (and I myself am far left) to label all things conservative as fascist.  Now neoconservatism comes along and is truly virulently fascist, but if you say so everyone else goes: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, everything is fascist.  We know.  Get a job hippie."

This tendency that we're seeing to split along racial and gender lines in our voting pattern suggests more self interest than true belief that neither attribute should be a factor in our decisions about a person.  That's disappointing.  The tendency on the part of some (some not all) to struggle mightily to find racism or sexism where it isn't is damaging to the cause of equality.

Two thoughts:

1.) Why do we assume that Clinton can get all of Obama's voters, but that he'll have such a horrible time getting hers?  Such an assumption (which is played out CONSTANTLY in defense of her electability versus his) needs to be better grounded in logic.

2.) The numbers in exit polls "Who will you vote for if..." questions are right, but aren't reflective of the current situation.  For Clinton to overcome Obama's lead, she'd probably have to override the will of the people, as expressed through pledged delegates, with the superdelegates.  If that happened, I guarantee you that that Obama supporters' number would rise significantly before, as I expect the Clinton supporters' number to do, it would fall back to Earth.

I don't think it's difficult at all to imagine how a female candidate for the presidency might emerge who taps into a general wellspring of good will for the idea that a woman should be president (the way Obama, clearly, has tapped into something similar with respect to African Americans).

Here's the problem.  Hillary Clinton arrived with a history.  No reasonable person can dispute that Bill Clinton is a polarizing figure in American politics (and even within the Democratic party there are people who run hot and cold).  There is a strangeness to the whole idea of "his" and "her" presidential terms, dynastic successions, and so on.

The people who back Hillary Clinton for president, and are most invested in the importance of her making history, let's face it, are also those who thought that Bill Clinton was a fantastic president, the dynasty issue was no big deal, etc. (and I won't even mention the impeachment and a progressive critique of the BC years which, by now, almost everyone knows).

It's this conjoining of issues which prevented some general wellspring of good will from developing.  And while I'm not surprised many Clinton supporters have difficult appreciating this (what does this require but acknowledging that people can have politics and sympathies which you don't share), spend just a little time thinking about it and it's obvious.

I wish there were some way we could run the general with both candidates and then pick the winner of that contest.  Hillary Clinton was always going to have a difficult time getting past the 50% mark (and not simply for reasons of sexism, Bill Clinton never passed the halfway mark, he won both times in fluky three-way races).

Last fall, before the primary season shifted into high gear, I called Clinton the "Florida" candidate, because her chances in the general, to me, seemed to turn on whether she could win that state (and if she could secure the nomination through normal means still suspect that's true).  If every Dem voter in these primaries turns out in November they'll make up perhaps a third of the electorate.  

Fully expect that the first woman president will be a Democrat, but think she'll be an a-lister senator or governor who basically does what Obama and even Bill Clinton did (comes from no where and then energizes the broad electorate, the US just doesn't have a great record of elevating senators who are well-known, or politicians who represent a faction of the party, to the presidency, and Clinton, like it or not, fits both slots, with the additional unique status that she used to be First Lady).

There is no disagreement on my part that the media has treated Hillary with contempt, immaturity and triviality. There can be no doubt that is the case. My contention with your piece however is that the media treated all the candidates this way. You may see someone in the media commenting on Hillary's pantsuits, or something to that effect and look at it as something that the only woman candidate has to deal with. That's just ridiculous. Can you tell me how much John Edwards pays for his haircuts? I bet you could. Could you tell me whether or not John Kerry enjoys windsurfing? I bet you could. Can you tell me whether or not Barack wears a flag pin?

My point here is that as I read this diary, I don't come to the conclusion that the media is sexist against Hillary, I come to the conclusion that you think Hillary should be treated differently, read better, than everyone else. The media is in a sorry state, I would agree, but they are most definitely equal opportunity offenders. Have they told other cnadidates that there time is up, that they should drop it of the race? Ask Mike Huckabee or John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich. Politics and political reporting are superficial in their nature, for you to expect that Hillary would be treated differently than anyone else shows that it is you and not the media who hold Hillary to a different standard.

Finally I have to say, while there is an argument to be made that Obama's coalition of supporters can't win the GE without  the rank and file Dems that support Hillary it is equally worth mentioning that rank and file Dems have been unable to win elections, without either a strong 3rd party participation (Perot in '92) or the advantage of incumbency. THe rank and file Dems need to be greatly expanded for it to be a formidable voting constituency. In short, Hillary's coalition can't win without Obama's either. Don't forget that.

I don't think there's an argument about sexism in this race, btw, which couldn't be made about race if one did some simple substitution of words.  Eg., many Democratic voters won't turn out for Obama in November because of sexism.  If Clinton gets the nod (especially since her prospects for doing this depend upon things like superdelegates), we know many African Americans would conclude Dems took it away from Obama because they thought he was a "little to black" to be the nominee.

Here's my challenge (and I'm curious if people disagree).  I don't think these sentiments are showing up in the blogosphere.  It's not a problem of My DD--you'll find the same phenomenon on Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, really across the board.  With some notable exceptions, this is not the medium of choice for African Americans who support the Democratic party (whom, remember, have cast 20% of the votes in this contest, are among the most loyal of Democratic constituencies).

And rather than get on a soap box, let me suggest that we're missing some important voices.  I'm a white guy in his early 40s who gets most of his impressions about the vox populi from forums like this one.  I have a few black friends, of different ages, we've discussed the election, and, well, call it a hunch--there is a range of opinion out there which is just not showing up here.  It's certainly not my (or anyone else's) place to tell you what it is, because it's not one thing, but it's nearly absent.

And, well, that's curious.  Just wonder if others have a similar impression.

and that's how the media treats the issue. maybe the likes of paris hilton has made it ok to be sexist again. i'm not sure. but hillary is no paris hilton, yet most media pundits and bloggers has treated her equally. and worse in some instances. i have been so thoroughly disgusted. or maybe the pundits and the bloggers felt so good to vote for a minority that it made it ok to be sexist. this is sort of like the carbon tax. cut your pollution in one area (racism), get credit in another (sexism).

people keep telling me that i still should vote for obama anyway in the general if he is the nominee, for the good of the party and country. i would rather sit at home or write hillary in. i do not want to be part of this mysoginist cuddle fest that the media and the obama campaign/supporters have perpetuated. i do not stand for it, condone it nor will i support this process come november. i think that's equally as important as voting against mccain.

Sex and race have nothing to do with making an intelligent political decision. Voters who do not make intelligent decisions contribute to the downward slide of the United States. And that's a fact. (Through my profession, it's become clear to me that the US can perhaps lose its competitive edge to European nations and rapidly developing nations such as China, India, and Brazil. Uninformed citizens might lack knowledge of what is really going on in this regard.)

Although I agree that Clinton has been mistreated at points during the nomination battle (as have Obama, Edwards, etc.), I don't believe that her media treatment during the end game has been sexist.  Anybody other than a Clinton would have been forced by party leaders to drop out weeks ago, when it was apparent from the math, the respective warchests, number of volunteers, etc. who would be the nominee.  But, until IN and NC she was treated as being virtually equal with Obama in terms of the likelihood that she would win.  The media even focused on Wright 24/7 in preparation for the "Obama campaign in shambles" narrative that would be rolled out after those results.  When an upset failed to materialize, even they could no longer perpetuate the idea that there was significant doubt about the nominee.  It may be a hard truth, but it is what it is.

The forced child birth movement thanks you for your vote.