Privilege - here's how it worked.

Obama's campaign didn't need to do a single thing that was overtly sexist towards Hillary Clinton in order to reap the benefits of sexism. All he and his followers had to do was not expose, reject and condemn the overt sexism of the right wing nuts, the so-called progressive left, and the media.

And then -- because of his male privilege -- he got the benefits.

Clinton was stupider or more overt in her racism But her campaign got the benefit of racism -- because of her white privilege.

Those people who say "I didn't vote for Clinton because I didn't like her" should really examine how they were swayed by sexist analysis of her.

Those people who say "I didn't vote for Clinton because I didn't like her policies." Fine.

But don't say that sexism/misogyny doesn't exist, or that it didn't hurt her.

She lost for a combination of reasons -- one of which is that the male left combined with the male right to slam dunk a female. The republicans love it...now they'll combine with the racist whites and go after Obama.

It's called divide and conquer.

Feminists' anger is about the fact that ANY woman (ANY woman that you so-called progressive leftists have named) will be subject to sexist and misogynist attacks. And that so called progressives are silent about it because they don't like the woman involved, or they don't like her politics.

Sexism is wrong. Racism is wrong. Get it?

What Hillary Clinton says:

"Asked about attempts by Republican John McCain to attract her supporters, Clinton said, "Anyone who voted for me has very little in common with the Republican Party."

"If you care about the issues I care about and the future that I outlined in my campaign, then you really have to stay with us in the Democratic Party and vote Senator Obama to be our next president,"

I think it's fascinating that Ralph Nader, a white man, should lecture about how African Americans AND women should be more sensitive to issues of racism and sexism.

Here's what he said about Obama being African American:

“What difference it should make is that he would be more sensitive and determined to bring elevated visibility and concrete programs to deal with these issues,” Mr. Nader said. “Wouldn’t a woman president be expected to be more responsive to women’s rights? It’s just more natural.”

He said that Mr. Obama “obviously made a tactical decision that he’s not going to campaign politically as Jesse Jackson did.”

Mr. Nader is totally wrong.

It's white people who have perpetrated and benefited from racism, and THEY should be the ones who are working on solutions to the problems that they have caused.

It is MEN who have perpetrated, and benefitted from sexism, and THEY should be the ones working to unravel sexism.

So finally, former President Clinton, is not in the spotlight, not the big cheese, the enchilada at every feast, etc. So what...

And maybe, if he's still furious at Senator Obama, it's one of those situations where the partner/spouse never forgives someone who has been against their partner/spouse...even when their partner/spouse has forgiven them.....Anyway, he's not the nominee, and he's not the person who almost won.....

Sen. Clinton is an individual who is herself, independent of her spouse, a talented, smart, gutsy person.

I believe that the rudest and most horrible of Sen. Clinton's supporters (the woman who was smirking and stuffing tissue in her ears as reported by the NY Times) are really Republicans..they voted in the Democratic primary to cause trouble, and have been planning on voting for McCain all along.

You're correct...most organizers have read Alinsky's

Rules for Radicals...

What's disappointing is how the Left (and Obama) ignore feminist influences on organizing -- and models of organizing that are not patriarchal, not oppositional, not based in war metaphors.

One of Alinsky's tactics (mirrored by 1990s tactics of organizing) was to humiliate and target individuals.

It's an "in your face", the enemy is bad model.

It ignores feminist models (and models based on Gandhi) that see adversaries as human beings who should be respected and persuaded, who may be implacably imposed, but still must be regarded as individuals with immanent value.

Susan McGee

Ms. Traister, I could not agree with you MORE about the unbelievable sexism of the male left (and their female supporters).

But there really isn't any problem about Palin among the folks (women and men) that I would call feminists.

Feminists do not believe that just electing women or just elevating women to the positions of power that men had will help things.

(Real) feminists believe that racism, homophobia, classism, environmental destruction, etc. are wrong, and that if someone is a feminist she or he will work for reforms and changes that benefit ALL WOMEN AS A CLASS.

Those of us who supported Hillary Clinton said time and again that we would not have supported a Maggie Thatcher or Phyliss Schlafly, nor will we be supporting Palin.

I was dismayed that your own Salon editor and Geraldine Ferraro complimented the Republicans because they nominated a woman for Vice-President. No. They did so in a cynical attempt to play on feminism's gains. They nominated an anti-feminist who would destroy everything we feminists believe in.

Susan McGee

As a lifelong feminist who voted for Sen. Clinton because of her qualifications, I applaud this article.

I would no more vote for Sarah Palin than I would vote for Mitt Romney. Or Margaret Thatcher. Or Nancy Reagan. Or Ronald Reagan. OR GEORGE BUSH