I read this piece - thank you Joan Walsh - along with so many other newspaper articles, opinion pieces, blogs and blog comments over the 24 hours. What I really don't think that a large number of people get is that the media -- and Obama supporters -- treatment of Hillary and Hillary's assumed female supporters has been really, incredibly offensive.

I didn't start this race supporting Hillary -- really not inclined in that direction at all as I look back. With every "ball breaking" "like my ex outside of probate court" "like my chastising mother" "Hillary, you're likable enough" I rethought my position.

I became further inflamed as every pundit and every messenger from the Obama campaign characterized Hillary's supporters as poor, white, dumbasses. Hillary's "core support" is uneducated, old, white people. I'm a 40 year old female with an MBA and really don't appreciate the ignorant dismissal of Hillary's "demographic" which was vastly more nuanced than poor, white, dumbasses.

I agree that Senator Clinton lost because she ran a bad campaign. If you can't hire people who know how delegates are awarded -- this does reflect badly on your managerial prowesss.

But please do understand that the flaws of the Clinton campaign do not make more palatable the hideous sexism and misogyny that were unearthed by her candidacy. And -- worst of all -- exhibited on network TV and mainstream with no repercussion.

And for all of you who are inclined to say "there was no sexism, you racist bitch" -- please understand, none of the above comments pertain to the Obama/Clinton matchup. I am only referring to the way that Clinton was treated because she is female. And I am not saying that is why she lost. That isn't why she lost. But it is still completely disturbing to me that she was treated that way.

and it doesn't matter whether you supported Obama or Clinton. Why does any discussion of how Clinton was treated -- strictly because she was female -- devolve involve into a Clinton- sucks-and-let-me-tell-you-why discussion?

Why is it not possible to discuss that the fact that she was labelled and discussed in a way that no man would have been subjected to? And that is offensive and should be seen by any right thinking person as offensive?

And that fact has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Sexism and misogyny are sexism and misogyny -- how they come to light is somewhat irrelevant.

And my negative feelings towards sexism and misogyny in the U.S. -- strangely -- have nothing to do with the Iraq war.

central part of her stump speech. From the moment she was "introduced" I found it highly distasteful to use the birth of a down syndrome child for political purposes. She made quite a large point of her son going to Iraq on September 11. There are other prominent politicians with sons serving in Iraq who never mention it. Probably because it seems wrong to take the service of their sons -- who may lose their lives -- and use it to bolster their own political appeal.

As presented, her "personal story" is supposed to be the central part of her appeal. Her family is fair game because she put them out there to advance her political career.

I'm going to admit first thing the fact that will disqualify me from commenting in many people's eyes -- I don't have kids.

But I do remember my own childhood, and what my friends were like, and what my friends parents were like, and what my aunts and uncles were like. And I've had long conversations with all of these people quite recently about what things were like when I was a kid.

Total agreement on the fact that disrespectful behavior by toddlers was not tolerated. It was, in fact, so out of the realm of expected behavior that a toddler would treat an adult badly that, in fact, toddlers were trained not to treat adults disrespectfully -- in the same way they were trained not to poop on someone's foot.

I have always found it completely and utterly bizarre that my generation has allowed themselves to become subservient -- and subservient is absolutely the right word -- to their children because they have bought in so totally to the concept of "modern parenting".

I am not interested in competing childrearing philosophies -- I am interested (and appalled) by the fact that adults allow themselves to be treated so badly by children. And in the process abdicated all responsibility for showing children how to be successful adults.

was the most depressing bit of the interview. Three times now she has cited "construction bonds" ("the construction bonds that they're holding" "construction bonds and the insurance carrier duties of AIG" etc.)

"Construction bonds" do exist. They have absolutely nothing to do with the current financial meltdown -- and nothing to do with the AIG bailout.

I won't hazard a guess as what Palin is actually referring to when she cites "construction bonds" as a main driver of the crisis / bailout.

Since when did the bar for elected office get so low that a VP candidate is not expected to even understand a major event that will have broad and deep implications for all Americans for years to come?