The images are ment to diminish Senator Clinton as a Candidate, just as statements about Bush's intelegence, or Richard Cheney's black heart are ment to do the same.

The question is are those words being used because she's a woman or because she is someone the commentator in question doens't particularly like.

As to the Mainstream Media calling Richard Cheney a Dick, granted that particular item is relegated mostly to comedic commontators, but due to the more graphic nature of masculine derogatory expressions they are unlikely to wind up on MSNBC.

The most egregous comments about Senator Clinton are from comedic commontators as well, so I figure that line is fair game.

Unflattering discussions of political figures occur all the time, classifying Hillary Clinton as a nagging mother is an image that is readily available, and perhaps too easy, but possibly in context (that of conveying and image and opinion)is accurate.

I don't think that it is fair to say that the use of the image is ment to deride women in power. Unless you can show a consistant use of this language against other prominant female politicians (and have you noticed we have a number of them now) I think the Misogyny argument falls flat.

I don't deny that there are Misogynists out there, but I am unconvinced that all those people that dislike Clinton and use descriptive language to convey their opinion are misogynists.

If you call a rose a rose does that reveal your character or just your opinion of roses?

There are a few prominant female names being run up the flag pole for Obama's Veep. If comments like She Devil and Nag continue once Clinton is out of the picture then the claim of Misogyny has more weight. But since the article in question focuses solely on the opinons of people toward a single candidate who has a number of negatives, it is hard to gage if there is a general misogynistic feeling, or just misclintonistic feeling going around.

I do agree with you on the point that Misogyny exists and is far to pervasive in our society.

We do as a culture bandy about words and images that are hurtful to women far too easily. This insensitivity is unfortunate and inexcusable, but is something we all struggle with.

It is unfortunate that when we seek to deride some one we go to the cheap shot so easily, what we called going in the pants when I did improv.

Because the suffering due to race in the country is a shame that was far more visceral for all invovled it does get a much more watchful eye and self censor than do words related to gender or sexual identity.

I think part of the problem with Senator Clinton is that she is in every conceivable way a very privledged woman. We have a tradition in this country of mocking and degrading the privledged, and often in our rush to burlesque we go to the pants to soon.

I think that privledge is a large part of the outrage that many feel when the misogynist charge is leveled. It seems too much like a sledge hammer when a fly swatter would do just as well.

It is fair when someone speaks poorly to call them on it and ask them to appologize, however if such accusations seem to come from a place of political opportunism it weakens the legitimate cases of others in the future.

How to be a man is easy, sublimate all that you are for those around you, know always that your happiness is to be sacraficed for the greater good.

I'm sure that a similar list for women would like have the same moral.

We all dream of ourselves as the heroic put upon martyr who carries their family, community, etc. through their greatest trials, some times to be rewarded often to have your sacrafice ignored.

Deep down we're all the same, we all want prince or princess charming to sweep us off our feet and love us for who we are, and we all want to support those we love through our sweat and tears.

Perhaps if we started to read eachothers books instead of mocking thier lack of diversity we might come to understand each other a little better.

I am so looking forward to recount on HBO, partially on the strength of Heather's analysis and partially on the strength of the actors invovled.

However, the real strength of the entertainment as a Historical Document will come when the white letters on black screen come up at the end of the piece.

The one that says that after the court case a hand recount was performed by various media outlets, and at not time did Al Gore's vote total rise about George W. Bush's.

I think it's an interesting point to remember, that George Bush did steal the election, but that he didn't have to.

Irony.