that the stereotyping of women who are angry is disturbing. I think the focus on women swinging the election (or having the potential to swing the election) is a good thing. Nothing gets a party's attention like pain.

IMNVHO.

The women who are fed to the teeth with the treatment they received -- not just Hillary received, but women in general received -- in the primary campaign are not uniform in anything other than their general fed-upness. The degree varies; the reaction varies; the action it spurs varies.

Lithwick would like to be part of anything that powerful.

Lithwick burbles:

The suggestion that irrational, emotional, self-referential women are swinging the election is not a theme any woman should endorse.

Indeed. But you know how women are.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

are they talking about me?
Messy hair, stains...

I thought Lithwick used to post on legal issues, not literature, could be wrong, don't go to slate much unless someone links.

Lithwick is echoing "you're getting raped anyway, so you might as well relax and enjoy it" sexist rhetoric. Women who are angry and want to stand up for themselves in the face of sexism and injustice -- who do blog posts with titles like "NO MORE MS NICE GIRL" -- are designated as "harrdans".

This is the exact same rhetoric that anti-feminists have used to describe any woman who stands up for herself and her rights. Lithwack should be ashamed of herself.

--a much more accurate take that isn't about blaming everyone else on Earth for Obama's obvious flaws and weaknesses.

It's up to Obama to erase the doubt -- http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor...