It may also be the thing that tears the Democratic Party apart for the foreseeable future. And this in a year when we should be united and on our way to an easy victory in November.

Why anyone could think this was a good idea is inconceivable to me, particularly since women democrats are easily in the majority. Why conduct a campaign guaranteed to piss off the largest block in your party?

So many women are not going to go along with the program if somehow Obama gets the dem nomination. The internal polling is already showing that 20% of democrats will vote for McCain if he gets in. There is also the pesky block of voters over 50 who are scared to death of what Obama would do to social security. I would never bet against that voting block. Can so many dems be so stupid? Yes, I guess they can.

Obama scared me to death from day 2. First, I was happy to see a new face, but on day two I realized that it all looks like Middle East decorum and pomposity of the run of the mill dictatorships I witnessed. (Take Syria, Egypt, Saudi, etc. as examples).

Now these type of people hate women; it’s the macho thing. Educated people have a more complex macho thing; it’s usually the Porche thing. In their educated world, women are looked down upon in a more sophisticated way. They are also good at blaming others for racism, etc.

To vote Obama, I’ll need a bodyguard to hold my nose with all the necessary muscles.

And when someone (a woman) tries to point out the misogyny, you get a bunch of posters (mostly men, but sadly, not all of them) telling you you’re playing the sexism card to get Hillary elected. I guess I can’t call myself “progressive” any more - there’s nothing for me in this “movement.”

Wow, what an endorsement:

Vote Clinton! Because people were nasty to women on the internet. And Hillary’s a woman.

Is that the takeaway from this post? What do Digby’s asshole trolls have to do with the election? Do you think that they were sent to Hullabaloo by the Obama campaign? Do you think that misogyny on the internet didn’t exist before Sen. Clinton started running for president? I’ll wait for you to post links to the other examples of misogyny to figure out what it is you’re trying to say.

The point, dmd76, at least from my perspective, is not that there are sexist assholes out there. It’s the stunning silence in the face of such misogyny by the DNC leadership (and yes, they can denounce the misogyny without endorsing Clinton) and other Democratic leaders and the direct appeal using sexist dog whistles by the leading male democratic candidate. I don’t blame liberal voices and democratic leaders for the sexist assholes, I blame them for not denouncing such assholes and, instead, seeking to win by leveraging their votes and using their hatred to benefit their chosen one.

The single largest block of democratic voters in this country is women. And yet the party, many of its leaders, and many of the Big Bloggers have no problem ignoring, if not outright promoting, sexism and misogyny. Even if they don’t care about morality, and I understand as Shirley Chisholm once said “men are men”, you’d think they’d care about the electoral implications.

Or, basically, what Tom Watson said,

What kind of progressive American leader would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party, a political foe perhaps, but a national Democratic leader?

See his excellent post, The Sexist Media Lynching of Hillary Clinton from January (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/colu…)

First, thank you, Lambert. As a guy, it’s depressing how rare it is to find other men, let alone bloggers, even acknowledge that misogyny is playing any factor at all, let alone a devastating one. If they do, they trivialize the bigotry to mere bad manners (i.e. no-holds-barred “truth”-telling).

This bigotry is so overwhelmingly blatant, ugly, and not just accepted, but also welcomed by so-called liberals that it floors me. We all know that if you replaced the open misogyny with antisemitism or racism and it’d make the top story in international news, triggering intense soul searching. And yet with misogyny, it open season because the human rights of women and girls are technicalities—at best. That’s the reality: women and girls are simply not seen as human. Period.

My (women) friends are fractured over it: the minority (OFB) say that Clinton brought it on herself or that the vitriol is solely Hillary-based (Think: I don’t have a problem voting for a woman, just not this one); the majority are Clinton supporters (including former Obama supporters disgusted by his exploitation of it) and they’re distraught. They had honestly believed—hoped—misogyny wasn’t truly as bad as they had feared and just now are they realizing that it’s worse. Sometimes they still wrap themselves in a blanket of denial, pointing to the likes of the Kennedy women or feminists for Obama (all who have been conveniently MIA on calling out the misogyny) as proof that they’re wrong.

God, I hate this.

Knowing you read this blog regularly you know your comment was just nonsense. Lambert and others have clearly stated why they preferred Clinton to Obama on the substantive issues, including policy, rhetoric, and actions (think: Harry & Louise ads)

This was an indictment against bigotry. Period. Here, try this on for size: I detested the few instances of racism directed at Alberto Gonzalez, by “liberals” no less. I didn’t defend or endorse him, but combated the racism aimed at him.

And I’m glad to see you naming Obama’s complicity.

This is why the last phase of the women’s movement took off. Because of the virulent sexism of the men on the left.

And why the phase before that took off too.

In both cases women were enthusiastically committed to change and anti-racism, and then realized the lofty ideals did not apply to us. We were supposed to smile when being insulted and follow along behind.

I dearly hope it happens again.

I forgot in my earlier response to thank you for posting this. I know they shouldn’t count for more, but men’s voices are still listened to more than women’s even on - no, especially on - issues of sexism. You and many others here at Corrente, Tom Watson, Big Tent Democrat, and a few other male voices have been terrific and give me hope that perhaps we won’t need more than four or five more waves of feminism to get somewhere.

Sigh.

And with that I suddenly see the huge emotional appeal of Obama, he tells everyone that if they elect him the fight will be over. That’s a fairytale, of course, but I can see how it has a certain appeal.

It’s this post that’s nonsense. I’m sure that Lambert has lots of good reasons for supporting Clinton. That people are jerks to women bloggers is not one of them.

Davidson, it’s not an indictment against bigotry. First we get an indictment of Obama: he’s “a Democratic candidate [who] leverage[s] misogyny as part of his appeal”. Then, a little misdirection, a list of people being jerks to women bloggers (maybe? Lambert doesn’t provide links, and, honestly, I don’t take Lambert’s interpretation of anything at face value. See here, in response to his comment diretly above). Following that, the strange accusation that people are remaining silent on the issue of misogyny. Which people? In which situations? Should the DNC get involved when Digby’s commenters are assholes?

BTW, I’m pretty sure I there werer quite a few denunciations of Tweety at the DK and pretty much every other liberal blog out there when he made his odious remarks about why Sen.Clinton had been elected NY Senator. Does that count?

Normally I don’t have very many good things to say about my Senator, Dianne Feinstein, what with her repeated caving to the Bushies, but via Taylor Marsh, I was glad to see that part of her argument for why Hillary should continue on in the race is the historic importance of her candidacy.

WALLACE: … ..Both campaigns — and let me start with you, Senator Feinstein — say that their opponent has to win both states on Super Tuesday 2. Who’s right?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I don’t think anybody’s right. I think we have to wait and see how this plays out. There’s been a lot of talk — well, if Senator Clinton loses this state, she should kind of pack it in. I disagree with that. I think she should stay in the race. Her candidacy…

WALLACE: Even if she loses both…

FEINSTEIN: Her candidacy is extraordinarily important. If ever a qualified woman could hold the presidency of the United States, this is the qualified woman. And for those of us that are part of “a woman need not apply” generation that goes back to the time I went out to get my first job following college and a year of graduate work, this is an extraordinarily critical race. And I hope she stays the course and stays in it. And then we count up the delegate votes and we make a decision.

Full transcript - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3343…

..At least on the point that when Lambert has a chance, links should be added to that list of events/accusations in the original post. (Or if someone else can supply them, great.)

What I don’t get is how many so-called ’progressives’ ignore the fact that the Hillary-hatred that they’ve embraced is merely a manifestation of misogyny. The first time the word “co-president” was uttered, a backlash of enormous volume and venom was created — Hillary Clinton represented the worst fears of tens of millions of men (and quite a few women as well) — a wife who was truly equal to a husband.

Hillary represented a threat to the ’natural order of things’, and had to be ’contained’ lest the earth fall off its axis and drift off into space.

’Hating on Hillary’ (including its milder forms, ala Josh Marshall) is so acceptable throughout the male progressive blogosphere, but is virtually absent among prominent women bloggers. But the men don’t even notice it — which is the true measure of sexism and misogyny among so-called ’progressive’ male bloggers.

No time to add now, though they are scattered elsewhere in various of my posts. The blogger who had to close her comments section was Digby, however; this case is very well known. I remember Avedon saying she was hesitant to post (Avedon!!), and BooMan was Jeralyn’s interlocutor.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Here’s the BooMan/Jeralyn link. I don’t dispute that BooMan’s using some pretty heated language here. Not the way I think we should talk to each other. But is it misogynistic? I don’t see it. Is it just because he’s a man criticizing a woman?

Where the hell do I start?

Davidson, it’s not an indictment against bigotry. First we get an indictment of Obama: he’s “a Democratic candidate [who] leverage[s] misogyny as part of his appeal”.

Right there, Obama is being blasted for exploiting misogyny (i.e. bigotry). If you want to state that there’s no proof behind those claims that’s one thing, but to say that the post is not about combating misogyny is just not true.

Following that, the strange accusation that people are remaining silent on the issue of misogyny.

Are you serious? You think it’s a “strange” accusation? Draw a list of everyone—of some measure of influence or power—who has condemned the insane bigotry leveled at Clinton? What has the Democratic leadership, including elder statesmen, said about it, if at all? Showing one or two examples of a few bloggers condemning MSNBC doesn’t mean that the left as a whole hasn’t been silent, especially when compared to how they typically react to instances, even hints, of racism, antisemitism, or homophobia (e.g., Ann Coulter being slammed for using a homophobic slur against Edwards).

This is not simply about a few commenters on blogs, but about a massive media and online misogynistic feeding frenzy, from the top down and it includes “liberal” media figures from the Times op-ed pages (e.g., Frank Rich) to blogs to talk radio all viciously thrashing Clinton, with facts and evidence be damned as long it allows them to demonize her. Do they all explicitly use slurs or state, “I hate her because she’s a woman?” No, but the sheer hysteria, utter irrational hatred, and glaring double standards are misogyny-based—especially when it gets to personal matters (How else do you explain it? Any other rationalization of all this bizarre madness would make it all but impossible to ever spot misogyny or any other bigotry).

The following thread deals with but a few examples of major media figures and misogyny:
http://www.correntewire.com/women_cant_l…

Since I’m obviously not being thorough enough (At this point in the day, I’m too tired to care), check out Daily Howler or Media Matters for extensive documentation of the pervasive misogyny in the media and tell me how the leaders of the left or the Democratic party have spoken out against it (Somerby has great posts on the silence of the left).

’Tweety’s the enemy. Has no one told you? He’s part of the dead, stinking carcass of the corporatist press.

As for misogny at dK the place reeks of it. I was in thread there last night which was comment after comment about how great it was that Hillory Clinton was getting her comeupance. How sweet it was to see her losing it. Flailing away…wearing the worst clothes etc.

See….there’s something you and those vicious assclowns at dK do not seem to understand.

Now pay close attention. We, those who post here and elsewhere in Left Blogistan, supposedly belong to the progressive community. the progressive movement. Those who went before us fought for women to be able to educate themselves…for women to own property and take their share with them when divorce happened….to get divorced in the first place…to vote.

The half-dead fools in the Senate of the United States are what? Almost all men, way out of line with the population demographics of those the ’represent’. Obama may be younger than most but he still shares in their innate, look that word up, sexism and he still would score equal to his peers on an IAT for attitudes towards women.

Want specifics? Okay. What the fuck in his ’judgment’ argument about but the implication that he, a man with far, far, far less experience in government than Hillary, would exercise better ’judgment’ than her. He has no grounds for advancing that argument except for the trump card every sexist wants to play against a woman….any woman but specifically Hillary Clinton, ’I am a man you are just a woman.’ She was unable to secure healthcare for all accuses Senator ’SnakeOil.’ Yo! O-man, have you been successful at everything you’ve ever done?

You sure don’t see any ’progressive’ success in the record. His PP when the ’Chips are Down’ sucks compared to hers. And I sure as hell don’t see it when I view this clip:

http://takeaction.wordpress.com/2008/03/…

To fail to see the sexism which our society is built on and how Obama is exploiting it only shows that you spend most of your time with your head up your ass. Pull it out, knock the chip off yer shoulder and….

…recognize that over half the folks on the planet are women and that you have to deal with them; not dismiss them as has been done in the past by the classist, rankist, sexist society we progressives are supposed to be changing.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

For the record I support Edwards and…guess what? The primary ain’t over yet….

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/p…

here. There are more rips on Pomfret at Eschaton, but this one, I thought, deserved repeating.

(Pomfret? Egads … Pomfret!)

Yes, Hillary has been the victim of viscious sexism, but don’t blame Obama, unless of course you want to also blame Hillary for enabling the racists by engaging the Farakhan card during the debate and by refusing to refute the claim that Obama is a Muslim. Both incidents are as well known as Digby’s horrific experience, so I’ll provide as many links as Lambert.

don’t follow the slate; create debate

Hillary on the Muslim rumors:
“It’s just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired

“Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time,” Clinton said.

So, Mike? you got anything to refute that?

She called it a ridiculous rumor.
She said it was a smear.

What do you want? That she should personally apologize for the racism and bigotry of a nation that thinks being a Muslim is a bad thing?

I will call you out on this point, because I am tired of seeing people use falsehood and misdirection to slam a woman who has earned her right to run for the White House and who has far more experience in governance and diplomacy, as well as in fighting for those whose rights the rest of the world would gladly trample over without muss or fuss, than has the sentimental champion of the “Change!” movement.

Hillary said she took Obama’s word for his faith. Short of sitting next to him in church and eavesdropping on his prayers, which would be impolite at the least and incredibly vulgar at the most, what should she do?

And if you say quit, I say why doesn’t Obama quit, now that with 11 straight primary victories under his belt the best he can do is barely hang on to polling even with the woman most completely vilified by the press over the past two decades?

You’re right Davidson, I should have said “It’s a completely ineffective indictment of misogyny and/or Obama”. At least one example isn’t misogynistic, none have anything to do with Obama’s campaign (unless you believe in guilt by textual proximity, Lambert’s examples say nothing about Obama), and the responses by you and everyone else who’s responded to me so far are defending an article that Lambert didn’t actually write. He didn’t point to examples of Obama or the media using/encouraging misogynistic attacks (which isn’t to say they don’t exist), he instead chose to refer you to the stupid insults of some troll in Digby’s comments.

A. Citizen, fuck you, you half-wit. Learn to read. Then, slowly, sounding the words out if it helps, reread the OP. What examples of Obama exploiting sexism do you see? That’s right, there are none, because that’s not what Lambert’s post was actually about. By the way, just because I’ve disagreed with people on this thread, doesn’t mean I can’t and don’t deal with women just fine. What is that? Some chicken-shit way of calling me a misogynist? Say it if that’s what you mean.

If Hillary wins in Ohio and Texas tomorrow (a pretty big if for the latter), then I’m prepared for an even bigger onslaught by the Big Blog Boys and so many of their diarists. They will throw a shit fit. You can see it starting already. It won’t be - how on earth could a transformative leader lose with so many advantages? It’ll be that bitch Hillary played the fear card (as if a candidate who fell because of that wimpy ad has any shot in a general election). Or she played the race card with Farakhan at the debate (nevermind the issue was raised by Jack Welch’s boys, who have done Obama so many favors in the past months it’s hard to keep track). Or she used the Muslim smear when she denied Obama was a Muslim but failed to jump up and down and demand Steve Kroft recognize that Obama isn’t just not a Muslim, he’s the second coming.

You wait, if she wins, it’s going to get worse, at least on the blogs.

As for the MSM, I’m beginning to think that if Obama loses Texas and Ohio, he may face a backlash from some of his media supporters. They’ve fluffed him, they’ve loved him, they’ve been mocked on SNL for him, and still he can’t do the one thing they most desperately want him to do and knock the bitch out? What good is he?

Ack, I don’t have emphasis coding in my answer, why is it in italics? It previews in normal font.

I, for one, hope Sen. Clinton stays in after tomorrow, regardless of the outcome. Both she and Sen. Obama are compelling candidates that are liked and respected by large segments of the American electorate. They are, if not the best, then among the best the Democratic party has to offer. I see nothing wrong with having them both front and center in the public eye for a few more months.

Lambert, you and the rest of your Clinton supporters on this site do the same thing. Anybody that disagrees with Clinton and prefers Obama is stupid. One points out actual polls and those polls are stupid as well. Heck you pretty much ask for another word to call Obama supporters to disparage us. Supporters of Obama on this site were called a cult for christ sakes. In fact you were searching for suggestions to come up with the most insulting phrase to call us. Obviously just saying Obama backer, does not have enough venom behind it.

Now you are angry because people point out what a flawed candidate Hilary Clinton is, and the only plausible explanation in your mind is that if you prefer Obama to Clinton, you hate women. That is about as stupid as me saying you hate black people because you don’t support Obama. It is an argument a 12 year old makes. And when the hell did Hilary Clinton become a referendum on women? Just because somebody dislikes her does not mean it is because she is a woman. My girlfriend, sister, and mother all dislike her. They have all been diehard democrats forever and are supporting Obama. Heck my mother has voted democratic in every election since 1964. Good enough for you?? Of note they will support the Democratic nominee, despite feeling Obama is far superior a candidate.

Tom Brokaw called Obama the most charismatic candidate since Bobby Kennedy to hit the democratic party. Must be because he is a man? Obviously he has no creditability whatsoever. Either does Caroline Kennedy, I guess.

One request,

if you’re going to call yourself sane, please be rational.

phat

Every human being has a mother. Not all are perfect, but all of them gave us life. It is hard to understand why anyone would dislike or disparage or demean another person on the basis of things like skin color or ethnicity or religion or sexuality, but it happens and that sort of petty bigotry is everywhere. But to view half of all human beings as less than worthwhile, as objects of derision and brutalization specifically because they share the same physical characteristics as our mothers, the people to whom we owe our very existence, is unfathomable – and unforgivable.

As with other forms of bigotry, the illogical nature of misogyny does not limit its prevalence, and believing that it is not present in the liberal world must now be seen clearly as a form of denial. Historically, this is not so surprising. Even in the most radical and revolutionary leftist groups of the 60s and 70s, women were largely relegated to cheerleader roles and in spite of the very real advances that the feminist movement achieved, there has never been enough support for the notion of equality in any segment of society including those most liberal.

While it may be disillusioning to have it be so forcefully clear that so many apparently enlightened progressives are closet misogynists, things are better than they used to be. Not that long ago having a woman as a serious major party contender would have been unthinkable, and Geraldine Ferraro was only spared the worst of insults because everyone knew she had no real chance of getting into office. Hillary Clinton has already fractured the barrier that prevented women from being taken seriously for the Presidency; she may yet pull this out and destroy it completely.

While the level of misogyny in this country is appalling and that of the left especially repulsive, having the scab ripped off this festering poisonous suppuration is a necessary step that will, in time, allow a healing; win or lose, the candidacy of Hillary Clinton will have played a singularly key and vital role. Lambert, while your mother as you say would have been appalled at how much misogyny remains, as are a great many of us, hopefully she would also have been pleased that a woman is finally taken as seriously at this level as is Hillary Clinton.

85 years old. She will vote tomorrow in Rhode Island for Mrs. Clinton. My mother rarely says anything negative about anyone. The last President she criticized was Nixon. Called him a crook.On Bush, she goes well he is not the nicest man but they attacked us and it is not easy being President.

On Obama she told me: “That man is so full of hate. I can’t believe that his wife lets him so those things.”

The sexist and the misogynistic comments and attitudes from Obama to Matthews & Olberman to even Bill Maher are something I did not expect. On the blog I contribute, we get comments like she is a whiner, or she would throw that red phone if they called at 3 AM or even that she must be menopausal. She is 61. Honestly.

On the plus side, it is clear that he is fraying at the edges. He threw gays and lesbians under a bus in Beaumont Texas today, he cut off a press conference over questions about Rezko, he blamed the Clinton camp for an AP story about the flap with Canadian officials and a meeting he said never took place but for the minutes of that meeting that every major news outlet now has. He is a cold calculating politician. Worse than any other of the ones still running for President.

I met a black lesbian over the weekend. She is not voting for Obama in the Fall. Her rational was simply a thing of beauty, as beautiful as she is, she said simply “He is not a Democrat.”

I ain’t shy. If someone is wearing a political button, I will go up and talk to them. I ask the Obama supporters why they like Obama. At times I think I am talking to evangelicals, they are conversion stories like “He made see the light” or “I believe that he is the one.” or “I’ve never met a better person.” So you met him? “Oh no only on TV.” Ask for an accomplishment. Nada, blank stares or “they are on his website, you should come to a meeting.” A meeting of what? Jevohah’s Witnesses? Honestly I get more reasoned thought from religious adherents. They at least can quote bible and verse.

But Mrs Clinton’s supporters are far different. They tout policy accomplishment. SCHIP for instance or how she extended benefits to 9/11 survivors. They also note flaws. They are more balanced. They think about it. Obama is an emotional attraction. Clinton’s support is a reasoned one. Clinton supporters also say one thing again and again.

She is a Democrat.

Now that is something that I have never heard from an Obama suppporter.

That my conversations with Clinton supporters last longer. A couple have lasted 10-15 minutes. The ones with Obama supporters are generally over within 20-30 seconds. They are deer in the head lights. They are simply buying the hype. The BUY IT NOW marketing strategy. They are buying a personality.

Effectively a personality disorder. The man is uncomfortable with criticism. He doesn’t know how to handle it. His response is akin to well “Why don’t you love me?” “I am so adorable.” “Don’t you realize that I am the one you have been waiting for all these years?” “I am the deliver of hope, the agent of change.” And his wife levels rather odd threats:

To quote Nina Simone, it’s love me or lose me.

That language, the now or never, the seize the moment stuff, here today but gone tomorrow, is very dangerous stuff. Richard Nixon used that language. And he, like Michelle Obama, once threatened to leave politics for good after his loss for the governorship of California in 1962-the old you won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore- only to run for President six years later. And on criticism, Nixon did not take well to that either. Witness the Checkers Speech or worse Watergate.

Obama is another Nixon. His politics is no doubt different but their approach is the same. And their need to be loved, adored, worshiped is a clear sign of a personality disorder. It is called narcissism.

Say it ain’t so!! And Hilary is not of course. And you say Obama supporters have our head in the sand. What a joke.

Nice find, Blue. Stay classy.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

But it’s so ludicrous that it’s almost comical. It really is. It really is. And the whole crying now before every primary? You’ve got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I’d be embarrassed for her,” he said of Hillary Clinton.

Craig Robinson, Michelle Obama’s brother in the current New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/…).

It’s like they don’t realize women are going to make up more than 50% of voters in the Fall. They do know that even some of those very important independents and Republicans are women, don’t they?

The New Yorker profile of Michelle Obama is interesting and worth a full read, btw.

Ooops, after reading Lambert’s comment, I realized I forgot to h/t No Quarter for the find. It was a nice find, it just wasn’t mine. I did skim the article, however, and I think it’s worth spending more time reading the entire thing. They can say whatever they want about Hillary now, but Michelle Obama is going to get the Hillary Clinton/Teresa Heinz Kerry treatment if Obama is the nominee.

First of all, there is nothing misogynistic about my post. Period. Nice smear though.

Secondly, the link you gave is the proof that she won’t refute that Obama is Muslim. The portions you left out were hedging qualifiers such as “As far as I know”, and “I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that” when a simple, “No, he’s not” would suffice.

In fact, her hedging was so obvious, she had to be prompted by the interviewer to agree that it was “scurrilous”

Heaven forbid she do anything to help put the smear to bed once and for all.

Also, she did not call it a ridiculous rumor. Hillary said she was the victim of ridiculous rumors. For someone who says denouncing is not the same as rejecting, this is not a fine point at all.

Also, what about her jumping on the Farakhan smear during the debate? No refuting that one is there?

don’t follow the slate; create debate

I am also glad that my mother died before witnessing the pervasive sexism of this race and “a Democratic candidate leverage misogyny as part of his appeal.” Breaks my heart but I am no longer in denial about how Democrats and the Boy Blogz have enabled the sexist attacks against Hillary. How could I? It is so in one’s face.

Thanks for articulating this issue so succinctly.