The original Post article really lacked persuasive evidence for Cocco's conclusion that sex played a role in the Primary. I am not naive enough to believe it didn't but Cocco did not make that case. She just states a bunch of quotes from talking heads as if that is self evident that these quotes prove that sexism was a part of the primary. She has no polling data to back up her claims nor does she have campaign material sent out by either Obama or even Republicans to back up her claim. Some of her evidence is flacky at best such as the nutcracker and t-shirts. The same site that sells the bros without hos shirt sell shirts that insult Bush and Obama. There is a site that sells shirts with a monkey on it with Obama's name and there are probably are hundreds if not thousands of tshirts that insult Bush and Bill Clinton using some sort of derogatory terms. About half of her quotes come from clear right wing ideologues that have a history of insulting those in the other party with what could only be described as racist, homophobic, unpatriotic and sexist terms. I highly doubt that these right wingers have much if any effect on the Democratic Primary.

Another part where Cocco's article falls down is her point about silence from those in the party. It is not true on the face of it as prominent influence makers such as the president of Emily's List have come to her aid. Her criticism of Dean would have validity if Dean was out there defending racist attacks against Obama but ignoring sexist attacks against Clinton but I have not seen him defending either.

Her last point is laughable. Just the most egregious example Obama has been tarred with he is a secret Muslim/NOI member and all that comes out of it are questions about how does he connect with white voters.

Again, all of Cocco's points might be true but she has not made the case.

[i]say she did all of this using traditional forms of media. If she wrote letters to this girl pretending to be a boy. If she phoned her up. If she dressed like a boy and picked her up at the mall. Or if she hired an actor to play a role. But the "relationship" was the same (no physical threats, but lots of ugly words, and emotional at-and-mouse). Wouldn't that be worthy of prosecution?

The crime (or potential crime) is in the act of stalking, fraud and abuse perpetrated against this teen. MySpace was just the medium.

[/i]

If she did everything she has been accused of in other forms of media the prosecution would have no case at all. What the mother did does not come close to reaching the level of legal fraud. There was no physical contact so no abuse. The stalking compliant seems to be a stretch since the DA did not go with it and MO seems to be rather liberal for what constitutes stalking.

I will admit that the title and author of the article gave me pause before I read it but I am glad I did. Rebbeca nailed this "issue" for exactly right.

Julia Keller's Chicago trib article is a joke to all but women studies majors. She starts her article by implying that it is women that are treated and portrayed as monsters when the opposite is true. Lets just take a look at the most famous monsters in film and books; Dracula-male, Frankenstein's monster-male, mummies-male, Grendel-male most vampires are again male. Yes there are witches that are females but again most monsters male. Then she quotes people with out a link to gain context. Some of her examples are on the face of it sexist and disgusting but others like putting the dog done could easily be there to describe her campaign. And even the ones that are sexist she stretches in such a way that are beyond reasonable by claiming that men want her dead. She has to bring up a 3rd stringer on a syndicated show that went off the air over a decade ago blog piece on psycho ex girlfriend. Keller of course exaggerates the article and societies view on the ex psycho from what it is "just leave me alone" to everyone wants her dead.

I don't understand why the NYT piece was used in this blog entry. This is what I learned from the Hillary Clinton supporters interviewed. It was a womens turn and it was stolen from them (is this a thinly vialed racist comment that since Obama is black he is a thief? Hum. for the humorless this was a joke) and that was sexist. The VP on a ticket that won 1 state thinks Hillary did more than she did. Then there was of course the women that compare there shitty time dealing with sexism in blue collar jobs with a women that went on to be educated at the best schools, serve on the board of the largest company, become a partner at one of the largest law firms in her state and serve as first lady. Another person is pissed because she was not asked out to lunch with her coworkers. Oh and lets not forgot Obama's blatant sexism by saying that the most polarizing politic an in recent American history was likable enough and pulling out her chair. The only thing worth while in this article of course came from my second favorite politician Janet Napolitano "I never heard anybody say she can’t be elected because she’s a woman". Funny after Hillary Clinton has ran the last month on her Obama can't win because of white hard working racists that will vote for me.

The whole promise of the Salon's article is just false. The press does this dance on the grave to everyone. How many stories where written last fall about McCain. Hell just look at how Hucklebee was treated after he won in Iowa.