Joan,

earlier in this comments thread I wrote:

"While I happen to agree with you that HRC seems to have faced more openly-expressed sexism than Obama has faced openly-expressed racism..."

I realize that I didn't communicate my meaning clearly-- racism has gone underground in its open expression in many ways, but it's still a more toxic and significant factor in US society than sexism.

While I still agree that, among the TV punditry, Hillary has faced more nakedly-expressed sexism than Obama has faced nakedly-expressed racism, I question the significance of the sexist expression that Hillary Clinton has faced.

As far as whether or not sexism has substantially hurt her campaign, I don't know. She is such a well-known figure I don't see how she can dramatically change the minds of large numbers of people at this point-- and by that same token I question the pundit class's capacity to significantly affect the general public's impression of her.

Maybe the TV pundits' rhetoric is largely an expression of what their viewers want and will tolerate, and nothing else.(You know some of these people Joan, and you are far better positioned to assess that than I am... :^)

If that IS the case, than this speaks very poorly for the people who watch political opinion TV.

you write:

"In my experience, the black and white overclass have far more in common with one another than they'll ever publicly acknowledge."

Oh no! Joan, if you ever run for public office, you must realize this comment will be dredged up, and you'll have to apologize, although to whom, I'm not sure, since members of the overclass tend to deny the affiliation.

speaking of which, I note this--

"Obama needs to apologize":

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/04/obama_needs_to.htm

because she's hurting the democrats by trying to wound Obama, having done the math, so she can take on McCain in 2012.

Salon keeps trying to sell its readers on Hillary with all these articles telling us how this late competition is good for the democrats or that Obama supporters are sexist, etc.

Has Hillary Clinton been subjected to sexism in the press?

Sure-- but so what, and what about the Clinton camp's coded racist attacks on Obama?

Is she "more electable" than Obama?

Maybe-- but the polls are all over the place on this, so maybe not.

If you actually read the letters your various HRC promoting articles generate, you must notice that the majority of the respondents are tired of being told how awesome you think she is.

And if you're collectively so crazy about her, have you stopped to ask yourselves at what point does her persisting in running now begin to hurt her chances for 2012 if Obama loses to McCain this fall, especially in a really close race? (Myself, I'd say we've already tripped that wire...)

Can't Salon just endorse her, whether signed by Joan Walsh or by the editors, and move on?

Yes, it took a while, and QUITE A FEW HRC-boosting Salon articles, but now I get it.

I'm going to drive down to DFW airport, hop on a red-eye to Philly, establish residency at the public library when it opens, sweet-talk a poll worker into giving me a special emergency voter dispensation, and vote for Hillary. If they ask if I voted for her in the Texas primary last month, I will truthfully answer I didn't.

She Is So Effing Awesome!

I didn't know what that was, so I looked it up-- a W126 is an S-class Mercedes-Benz, the largest regular sedan they make, and in '86 you could get it in the states with a 5-cylinder diesel or a big gasoline V8.

If it's the diesel it's a pretty efficient engine, probably more so than many 2008 automobiles, and could potentially be made to run on biodiesel.

ourobouros(?) writes:

If both candidates (and their respective supporters) sincerely believe their rhetoric about change and bringing people together, then it should not be a problem for them subsume their egos and join forces to effect change for the greater good.

For my part this looks very unlikely. In no small part because most voters seem to be choosing one or the other based on personality attributes(real or imagined) and we've had very little discussion of policy. So many voters have invested Obama and HRC with all sort of psychological freight, preoccupied with how voting for X vs. Y makes them "feel about themselves", one of the lamest, most questionable reasons to choose a politician known to man, and yes, woman.

But no wonder so many Obama and Hillary supporters say they can't stomach voting for the other guy in the general! If you insist on making politics personal and obsessing about how "historic" Hillary and Obama's candidacies are, what do you expect?

There's also the issues of race and class, and some democrats are undoubtedly learning things about themselves they don't want to acknowledge. While I don't believe either that racism drives all democrats who refuse to support Obama, nor that sexism drives all democrats who support Mrs. Clinton, these elements undoubtedly play a role for a significant portion of each demographic.

Finally, there's the Republicans crossing over to keep the race going(mainly, or so I gather, voting for Hillary.). I don't know if Republicans are less sentimental than democrats as a whole(unlikely), but they generally aren't obsessed with identity politics, or candidates making them feel good about themselves, and this is part of the reason, irrespective of how they feel about him, they will vote for McCain with great discipline and without the democrats' navel-gazing qualms.

the typo regarding sexism and people supporting Hillary is probably self-evident. Silly me.