I think we've learned more about Broadsheet's writers than we have about the electorate.

Lessons learned about Broadsheet writers:

1. It's all about me and my pwecious feewings.

"There has been an ugliness about much of this, something I can't quite shake." Go see a doctor about it. That's not an argument; that's expecting your emotional problems to be taken as logical thoughts. They are not.

2. Equality for women includes special protections.

Politics is an ugly business, and never uglier than when Clintonistas get involved, but nothing bad must ever be said about Hillary. It might hurt her pwecious feewings! Broadsheet writers will switch spastically between asserting Hillary's equality and appealing to chivalrous sentiments against treating a woman in the same nasty way that every other candidate gets treated.

3. Racism is fine, because black people, they love us!

Rebecca Traister can call for "Obama boys" to shut up and she'll never be called on her racist implication. After all, she's supporting a Democrat, and Democrats are never racist.

4. Appealing to racists is no problem, as long as we never do anything for them.

Clinton supporters talk up her popularity among whites without ever acknowledging their appeal to racism. After all, they're not racists (see 3 above), and it's fine to bilk racists out of their vote. Is that actually better than appealing honestly to racists? It's hard to divorce your acts from your political appeal, unless you like being a one-term President; the likelihood that she would be anything but a somewhat racist President seems small.

5. If we look and sound honestly concerned for Obama's candidacy, we can propagandize against him without being called out for it.

Yeah, that's working out for you really well, isn't it?

Excellent point, but it'll never make much headway here. Broadsheet is full of man-hating garbage, both the authors and far too many of the respondents.

Look at Le Castor, who pre-emptively declares that no woman should ever be criticized for anything she deems sexist, and then immediately declares herself closed to further debate.

Look at Kate Harding's little slam on teenage boys, posted today: "On the other hand, can a high school administrator honestly believe that anything good will come of having more teenage boys at a formal event? I mean no disrespect to teenage boys, but ... well, maybe I do mean some. Just a little. Come on."

Anti-male sexism isn't just tolerated here, it's de rigeur.

"On the other hand, can a high school administrator honestly believe that anything good will come of having more teenage boys at a formal event? I mean no disrespect to teenage boys, but ... well, maybe I do mean some. Just a little. Come on."

Here's some disrespect for you, you boy-hating troll.

I don't think the principal's action is all that great, but your mean little slam is despicable.

Your article should be deleted and Salon should issue an apology for it.

What the heck is an "Obamaboy"? I've never heard that term.

Rebecca Traister used that racist and sexist term in the title of an editorial here:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/

Until Traister apologizes for the racist use of the term "Obama boys" in her editorial of April 14, she shouldn't get to complain about anything Obama says. In fact, she shouldn't publish on Salon at all until that matter is taken care of.

Shut your racist mouth until you apologize, Traister.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/

The AAUW has gone from issuing sexist lies about girls being underserved in education to issuing sexist lies about how boys aren't underserved in education.

This is called losing. People do this when they lose. The AAUW, a nasty body of partisan hacks, knows that the tide has turned and that their lies have been exposed, and has gone from the offensive (in two senses) to the defensive (in two senses). Having been exposed as liars, they are trying to avoid losing ground.

It's not going to work, no matter how many Broadsheet writers try to promote awareness of this sexist crap. Boys are still underserved in education, and boys' advocates are going to win this fight.

Get used to the defensive, losers.

And this Broadsheet article helps to demonstrate that.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/61-bicycles/

This "social agenda" she's pushing is not exactly nationwide castration; she's simply saying that this story of a heroic Chinese policewoman should give some perspective on the right/ability of a woman to breastfeed her child in a quote-unquote public setting.

And that's total crap...which is par for the course on Broadsheet.

Just because you're gazing into some other woman's navel for a change does not make you less of a feminacentric jerk.

That was a truth so large, I doubt it will leave any room in her mind for sanity.

When any Broadsheet writer rises to Stepp's mediocre level, that'll be an accomplishment. Of course, it will probably also leave most of its sympathetic audience behind, but maybe it will attract a better one.

If you promote the idea that Hillary Clinton's failure is the death knell of a female Presidential candidacy, you are probably shooting for one of a few outcomes:

• People are guilted into voting for her, or accepting her if the Democratic convention screws Obama out of the nomination. Both seem very unlikely at this point.
• People feel sorry for Hillary and push for her to get a consolation prize when her candidacy finally kicks the bucket. This is likelier, but it seems less likely with every gaffe she makes. That RFK nonsense might be the last nail in the coffin.
• Feminists get to whine for all eternity about how they got screwed out of the Presidency.

I get the strong impression that far too many Salonistas will go for option 3, and it's pathetic. It's self-fulfilling and it's stupid. When you'd rather win than whine, you won't win!