Hillary's candidacy showed a number of things. Some that are particular to the Clintons, such as that incessant attacks no matter the source on a family's character will have undue influence.

But as I consider what her candidacy says to my daughter, there is definitely a very high level of sexism in this country that at times can escalate to outright mysogeny. Hillary had to deal with attacks on her being a woman in a way that if Obama had been attacked for being black would have caused a national uproar.

As I think about the person in this piece who said he does not feel he is sexist or mysogenist for "loathing" Clinton I have to ask -- what is the source of that loathing and why has it been so easy to loath her? Can he point to any instance or group of instances where he could prove that her behavior and personality warrant loathing? My guess is that he couldn't and that he is having a visceral response to her candidacy that is provoked in part by twenty years of non-stop right wing attacks on her and her husband as well as the propensity to believe that she or any woman who is aggressive, strong and ambitious is a bitch.

I am not saying that to vote againts Hillary is a sexist act, but to react with such deep hatred betrays emotions that run deeper than whether her health care plan is better than her opponents (it is if you believe in universal, portable health care; for the record) or if her opponent represents an opportunity for Americans to turn the page on a very rancorous time in our politics (it does if he can overwhelm the right with public approval for his candidacy and then ability to lead).

To detest her, as many obviously do from reading months of posts here on Salon, requires something more than a policy disagreement and that often includes the sexism that is prevalent in our society.

I read Brook's piece on Obama on Friday and then reread it after seeing what you infered Brooks was saying in it because your assertions don't and didn't match with what I read.

First, Brooks listed a number of points and then asked if Obama agreed with them because if he did then it would place him far on the left when it comes to Hezbollah. He did not say that Obama is in the Chomsky wing of the Democratic Party.

In fact, Brooks says in the piece that he called Obama (or initiated an interview in some way) to ask what Obama's views are and then turned the rest of his column (about three-quarters if not more) over to Obama allowing him to fully explain his position and why it in no way equates to appeasement. From the way it reads Obama did not have to call him, he merely assented to be interviewed, which believe it or not is a fairly common journalistic practice.

Second, Brooks in no way declares Obama suspect. He does the opposite, he all but says Bush is wrong for his attack on Obama.

The entire piece was more pro-Obama than anything else and emminently fair. If you had placed the blurbs from Brooks' piece in context and fully quoted them your readers likely would have seen his op-ed for what it was.

I understand what a link is, but it requires people to follow it rather than assume you are accurately portraying what was written.

From my reading of your admittedly minor reference to Brooks' piece and reading what Brooks wrote I really don't think you accurately represented what Brooks said or was writing about.

Your post about Kristol relates to accuracy, so if you inaccurately describe someone else's writing, well...

That the neocons (Bush, Cheney, et al) would like to make sure that the next president is unable to achieve any form of detente with the Iranians and the best way to do that is to attack Iran in the closing moments of the Bush presidency.

Such an act would hamstring Obama, but also set McCain on a course that he likely supports, which is continued confrontation with Iran.

After all, Bush and the rest are not exactly the most ethical, moral or intelligent bunch.