But first I must second ProtoMonkey's sharp observation.

"Reading this article reminded me why there are so many columnists at Salon that I have very little time for. I have been reading Salon since its inception and have noticed a very definite trend. Salon is no longer a balanced (if left-leaning) source of information. It seems to have degraded into something that resembles a collection of feminist bloggers."

The hardcore of both old and new school groups tend to be insufferable. They both tend to see sexism in most everything. The only difference is the general focus. The old school tends to focus on broad (no pun intended) issues while the new school tends to focus on personal issues. The former have turned into self righteous "I told you soers" and latter have taken the "personal is political" to it's most extreme and navel gazing conclusion.

In terms of the article, are some male Obama supporters aka "Obama boys" sexist? Probably so. Are most? Probably not. Has Hillary faced sexist criticism during this campaign? Yes. Is all criticism of Hillary sexist? No. End of story. The rest is drama..

Please continue to prove how cool you are dataguyx.

"This is why I dislike Clinton supporters, and gets back to the "cool" meme noted by another. Obama supporters are correct, cool, and pleasant. Clinton supporters are wrong, hot, and lie all the time."

Yes and you are a perfect example of a "cool" Obama supporter. The unintentional hilarity continues....

"Which would make some sense if the issue were merely race. Obama, unlike Jesse Jackson, is the most inspiring person to articulate a vision since at least RFK, irrespective of race, gender, or place of planetary origin. That, m'friend, is the epic, historic truth."

LOL! Whooo, that was a good one!

The funny thing is that if you look at the Real Clear Politics compilation, McCain and Obama have traded slight leads in terms of overall votes but McCain has consistently led Obama in Ohio, PA and FL. The pattern is similar with Hillary but the big difference is that Hillary has consistently led McCain in Ohio and PA and is behind in FL. Now if Dems think they can win the WH while losing Ohio, PA and FL, well.....okay.

It really is odd that some view the period from 1993-2001 as some long ago time time seeing as how we just entered the year 2008. Strange...I blame VH1's "I love The..." series.

What "movement"? You haven't really convinced yourself that supporting a middle of the road Dem politician like Obama means you are part of a "movement"? If so, wow. I gotta hand it to Obama. His marketing is better than I thought.

Insofar as your Joan is "helping the enemy" meme. Stop it. Joan giving her opinion about how anti-Clinton sexism is playing out in this campaign is helping the Repubs? That's nonsense.

"Obama has been incredibly consistent and even though people criticize him it doesn't seem to take the toll on him that it takes on Clinton."

Obama has been intermittently criticized, and that's pushing it, in the public spotlight for the past few months.

HC has been consistently criticized, and that's putting it mildly, in the public spolight for 16 years.

Please Obama is no different than the rest of these clowns. He just looks better in the mud.

"You're right. She's poverty-stricken.

How fortunate that such a selfless soul is willing to apply her generous, giving nature to all of our lives."

IOW, when all else fails....waaaaaaaa.....waaaaaaa.....

"I have now officially heard everything. You just argued that $109 million (and counting! and let's not forget the library!) isn't a lot of money."

I didn't argure any such thing. Is basic math a problem for you? 109 million is the total gross income for both Clintons over a 7 year period and their after tax earnings were 57 million over that period. For the sake of argument, though it erroneously skews Hillary's portion upward, take that number divide by 2 then 7. You should get 4 mil per year for each over the 7 years. Great money but hardly super wealthy.

"You think there are even a thousand individuals in the US with as much money as Hillary Clinton?"

LOL! Absolutely. You need to stop ranting and look up some High Net Worth (net assets more than 1mm) and Ultra High Net Worth (net assets more than 30mm). In the US alone, estimates for HNW range for 2 to 9 MILLION households. In North America the 2006 estimate for UHNW was 38,400 households.

"And it all came from her husband, too. Oh, wait! It's sexist to say that! Guess I'll take it back.

Except I won't."

Good for you. I'm sure you can hold your breath until you turn blue too. Yeah, Hillary's book income and Senate salary came from her husband. Sure...

"My God. She's one of the richest women in the world now, and the amount of money the Clintons have grubbed in the aftermath of his presidency is sure to grow ever huger."

Hillary Clinton is not only not one of the richest women in the world she is not even one of the richest women in the US and probably not even NY, especially considering NYC. Here's a hint - take 109 divide it by 2 for the sake of argument subtract 33% and divide it by 7. You should get 5.2 per year which is perrty nice but hardly insanely wealthy.

Now back to you ranting....