I agree that there has been a lot more overt sexism in this campaign than overt racism and that the former is considered more socially acceptable than the latter. However, I think it is an error to conclude from this that sexism is a greater problem than racism, at least in the United States.

People were not made slaves on the basis of their sex, nor were they lynched on that basis. Yes, I know that individual women have been horribly treated and abused by their husbands etc., but women as a group have not been mistreated to the same extreme degree that blacks have in the United States. Women as a group have never been hated and feared by men as a group in the way that blacks as a group have been hated and feared by whites as a group.

Racist commentary is less socially acceptable than sexist commentary precisely because racist commentary evokes in the listener's mind a more extreme form of discrimination. It calls to mind images of segregation, the KKK and all the rest of it. Sexist commentary often calls to mind nothing more dramatic than relationship squabbles.

I have no doubt that a lot of people, particularly in the South, refuse to vote for Obama on racial grounds. They may be ashamed to admit it, but they do it just the same. I suspect Obama loses more votes on account of his race than Clinton does on account of her sex and I don't think opinion polls about whether the country is ready for a black or woman President prove otherwise.

Joan Walsh is fairly obviously a Clinton supporter. I find this mildly annoying but I can accept it. Regrettably, her critics have gone over the top in their criticism, impugning Joan's integrity in a way that I find quite unreasonable.

That said, unfair criticism doesn't tend to bring out the best in people, and I think Joan has developed a bit of a bunker mentality in which she is determined to prove that sexism is the reason Clinton is behind in the race (and, in my view at least, headed for almost certain defeat). However, one doesn't have to look very far to find plenty of other reasons for people disliking Clinton. I think sexism probably comes in fourth or fifth on the list of reasons.

This little episode illustrates perfectly why Obama should be the next President. He speaks honestly and intelligently about the attitudes of voters. Clinton, in response, talks dishonest drivel in pursuit of political advantage. People who have lost their jobs and their future are bitter? Perish the thought.

Obama's honesty and intelligence and Clinton's dishonesty and pursuit of cheap debating points have been the themes of this campaign.

Rather than struggle to prove the sexism underlying the apparently non-sexist criticisms of Hillary coming from liberal men, perhaps it would be better to accept that sexism has very little to do with it. There are plenty of women who despise Hillary. Randi Rhodes and Camille Paglia are two recent examples and I have seen many less prominent women express contempt for Hillary.

Hillary once held a two to one advantage over Obama in the polls. She hasn't lost that advantage because men suddenly decided they hate women. She lost it because, on closer inspection, people decided that that think that this particular woman is less attractive than the Obama alternative.

Instead of focussing on the alleged mania of the Obama supporters, I suggest that it would be more instructive to look at how the desire for a female President and sisterly solidarity is blinding so many progressive females to Hillary's flaws. Hillary has serious problems with honesty and seems to have only two approaches to each issue. She either panders or she antagonises with her divisiveness. What she lacks, and what Obama has in abundance, is an ability to persuade people to shift their position. That is why Obama will make a much more effective President.

Remember when Obama lost the New Hampshire primary and all we heard about for the next week was the Bradley Effect (i.e., people tell pollsters that they will support a black candidate when in fact they support the white candidate). To their credit, the Obama campaign didn't join the chorus.

If Obama was losing, I am sure we would hear a lot more about racism and racists (the rumours about Obama being Muslim, Bill Clinton's forays into racial issues etc.). But Obama is winning. Winners can smile, losers can please themselves.

Hillary Clinton is losing. Having blown a two to one advantage in the polls after being thorougly out-campaigned, Clinton is, as always, trying the milk every advantage she has. Thus she whines ceaselessly about sexism and makes overt appeals to women to vote for her because she is a woman. As the establishment candidate who was once considered a near certainty for the nomination, she portrays herself as the put-upon underdog.

In truth, while this contest has been affected by sexism, just as it has been by racism, she is losing to a better candidate. Rather than gracefully accepting the fact, she prefers to whine and play the victim.

"Hillary's memory and words were misinterpreted and taken more literally than she meant them about her trip to Bosnia."

You need to lay off the Kool Aid. Hillary says she was under sniper fire and a welcoming ceremony had to be cancelled. Neither is true. She tells this false story four times. The excuse is that we weren't meant to take her literally!!!!

What are we meant to do when she says she was under sniper fire? Conclude that she wasn't under sniper fire? Sure, I'm sure that is what she meant us to conclude.

Your argument is pathetic beyond words.