Any man who operated a similar campaign to what Clinton has ran would, as people have pointed out been:

a) out of the race

b) equally maligned

As for the sexist interactions in the debates, I'm beyond fed up with this. When Obama lets her talk first, he's made fun of roundly on Saturday Night Life, decried for aping her answers and dismissed as a lightweight. When he pipes up he's being sexist and shouting her down like a typical man. So basically he can do nothing to win this argument. That's absurd.

What is missed her is how many women are going on long explanations of the sexism they've faced in their life and then ending it with, "so I'm voting for Hillary Clinton."

That's a feeling. That's not a rational reason. It's not sexist to say so it's just a fact. Voting for Barack because he is black is also a feeling, not a rational reason.

Life and death are at stake here. People are dying in Iraq right now and your vote could be the difference. To throw it away on some sympathy tangent is a tremendous mistake. I'm sorry but voting for someone because they are a woman and you are is a shallow reason. Ditto for voting for someone because they're black and you are.

Now if you support her because you think she's the best candidate fine. But the letters here prove ample evidence that there are those who support her simply because of her gender. In the grander scheme of things this might seem fair, but it's not. Particularly for those who have died because of her vote on the Iraq War and could possibly die because of her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment paving the way for war with Iran.

Decisions do matter. She has made bad ones. To then put her in charge, simply because she is a woman, and chance that more men AND women are going to die is irresponsible.

Are you kidding me? Right after the Rebecca Traister piece? Could your hatred for Obama be any more blatant?

I'm calling out Joan and Salon on this one. When are we going to get either a reasoned article about Barack based on fact or anything even remotely critical of Hillary? Is that too much to ask for here at Salon?

You're gonna take it hard on this one. Don't ever question anyone over the age of 60 when it comes to politics. Haven't you heard? They know everything and don't need your input, thank you very much.

A number of posters gave you very cognizant, succinct reasons for why they didn't find what he said offensive and why they say it's largely true.

My problem is with the imbalance in coverage. As many have stated ad nauseum there was virtually nothing on Hillary and the sniper story on here. On every other publication, online, print and television, it was a frontpage story. Here zilch.

Unless Salon wants to endorse Hillary Clinton they should at least attempt to provide balanced coverage. The fact that they don't is a direct result of Joan Walsh's pro-Hillary bias.

Until they tell us, the readers, that they are endorsing Clinton we have a right to continue to ask for balanced coverage. Doesn't mean we'll get it, but we can sure ask.

That's essentially, what his statements were. Poorly worded, muddled, not well thought out, but largely true and indicative of a larger class divide in this country that the Right Wing preys on based on "cultural issues" thus getting many of the working class to vote against their own economic interests.

And just keep them in mind the next time you think Obama's supporters have gone overboard.

She went around taking shots, drinking boilermakers, claiming she hunts ducks, and repeatedly declaring that Obama's elitist after she and Bill managed to earn 109 million dollars.

What we're saying is NOT that there won't be jobs in the rust belt (hope that terms okay, should I call it the NE, although it includes Ohio which is more Midwestern) what we're saying is ALL of those jobs will not come back.

Some people will have to retrain. Many jobs will switch (God-willing if we can get Obama or someone not beholden to the corporate interests) to environmentally friendly jobs.

For example someone who worked in a steel plant might now make solar panels. Someone who was a machinist, might be building parts for wind-power generators. People in Michigan who have worked for Ford all their lives, might now have to work for Toyota.

The notion that all of these jobs are just going to magically reappear the way they were 30 years before is misleading. But we can get new jobs. It's going to take work, some re-training, creative pension packages and a number of other things, but it can happen. However it can never happen by simply pandering and lying to the working class, as we have for the past 25 years, and assuring them that everything's going to be fine and like it was before. It won't be.

Bill pandered to the working class on NAFTA too. Turned out it didn't work out too well for them. That's ALL of our faults (the educated, economists were the first to go for it and belittle the criticisms.) But let's not repeat that mistake this time around.

Heck Hillary promised to bring 200,000 new jobs to upstate New York too. She lost them jobs instead. You can promise anything. People have to look at results. Unfortunately the Clintons have a track record of promising everything and delivering nothing. To think it'll be the same this time around is naive.

And we don't want anymore of it.

DP is right however, this does pretty much solidify the need for Obama, should he win, to have Jim Webb as his VP nominee.