The comments are extremely interesting and, amazingly, better written than most articles. I copied the following because it was so elegant an incisive and I think it would be shame not to share it. I want to thank and apologize to "Idaho" who posted it for me doing so.

"– “I hate even more that they’ve got to see a strong, smart and savvy woman cut down to size before they can embrace her as one of their own.”

Yep, I think that’s it. When I read Camille Paglia, or hear Chris Matthews, going after her with maximum venom and contempt, it reminds me of the massed harassment so often directed at women who are “stepping out of line,” violating America’s sacred sexist code.

The jeers and attacks on women who lead come from both men and women. With women, I think, it’s because only by sneering at the first woman to tough it out in a harshly unfriendly habitat and become the first woman candidate for President of a country (that has NEVER fairly represented its 50%-plus women citizens), can they avoid asking why it has taken so long to happen.

Why are all the men we love, marry, and raise so secretly hostile to women? (If they aren’t, there would be more women in Congress - and running for president.) The only way to paper over the deep hurts of a society that remains punishingly dismissive of women, that only grudgingly gave them rights — long after black men — is to sneer at the woman who’s the visible reminder of how long it has taken, and how much women’s potential is still suppressed.

Thus, I think women are the first to dismiss Hillary because, as you say, “It’s not about you, Honey” — it’s about how much frustration and futility most women still talk themselves into accepting. Darn you, Hillary, for making me ask: where are the other women candidates? Why aren’t women putting more women in Congress, in the courts, in university presidents’ seats, in boardrooms? Are we waiting for men (as always?) to show us how to do this?

I suspect much of the backing for Barack Obama is simply a way to avoid the much harder work of dealing with a woman candidate whose very existence is a reminder that fully 50% of us, who live all around us, were rendered invisible and powerless for the longest time, and many still are.

Only now, after Hillary Rodham Clinton showed her emotions (compared to three times for Romney, I gather) are the media finally, finally, discussing the “woman factor.”

They very casually discuss Barack getting “the black vote” in SC, or Richardson (as was expected) getting “the Hispanic vote” in Nevada. But they demand that Hillary not “pander” to women - or even feel free to act like whoever, as a human being, she is. I’m pretty disappointed in a lot of Democrat men, too.

I’m in Idaho. I’ve always lived in those George Bush-loving “Red States.” It’s sad that the media don’t want to recognize — sadder still if they don’t even see — that the biggest difference between women voters in Iowa, and in New Hampshire, is their different histories of feminism. Hillary *is* a women’s issue candidate, simply by having lived the struggle that so many others have. I do wish she’d talk about it a bit, but I recognize from my own life experience that such a thing would simply draw even more criticism to her.

It’s sad when the men are admired for their empty sentimentality and the woman is dismissed no matter what. Thanks for calling attention to this double standard.

— Posted by Idaho"

Once again, thanks, Idaho. I wish I could have said so much or said it so well

Thanks, Berke!

Especially like Opus as Adam! Fabulous! I'm still chuckling.

I've thought of the right wing conspiracy idea, too. Considering this all started with an interview with Major Barrett at Faux News, who as we all know takes his facts "under advisement" in correcting his little lies. His post is very interesting in that he blatantly "misinterprets" what Hillary "says", literally putting words in her mouth that she NEVER says, even though there is the video of him interviewing her. And it would be a perfect divide and conquer.

First, send out right-wing trolls who pretend to be Hillary Haters who say that any criticism from Hillary about Obama is racist, disable Hillary and then when Obama wins the nomination, then a conservative candidate can pull the centrist independent vote from the Democrats by claiming that Obama is playing a race card by setting a standard that any criticism of him will be spun and reinterpreted by his camp as racist.

Something that Obama's camp seems to have played into doing at this point. The very thing that somewhat right-leaning centrist white voters will be very afraid of. And something that can't be ignored by the majority of "centrist" voters. So, the problem with Obama's camp reinterpreting any criticism that Hillary or Bill is that it could backfire in this area and also plays right into old white stereotypes and fears of blacks saying any criticism of them is really about them being black.

Not so out there, when you think about it. But, of course, Hillary Haters won't believe it because they hear what they want to hear. Which could be something else the Right is counting on.

If anyone thinks the Right is ignoring this and isn't slavering like the mad dogs they are over it, then they're are bigger fools out there than I thought.

Both Obama and Hillary called for the higher road. Obama in Nevada and Hillary at the Security Union ceremonies in New York.

Mother I would Like to F**K.