that is. And that's the crux of it, isn't it? In reality, whenever people say they hate her, they're projecting that hate of women in our culture onto her. Goddamn that woman's so uppity!!! Even some feminists. What they hate are all the weakness's of women's gender that remind them that she is a woman that have been misaligned in history.

Because Hillary is human with human foible's, that reminds those particular feminists, she reminds men, she reminds conservatives, she reminds us that she's not perfect. And that's a sin. That will ALWAYS be the sin. That she's human with all that goes with that. That she is a woman. And that her imperfections are just like theirs that they can't stand. But there will never be the PERFECT woman candidate, ever. Because women are human. And, in addition, Clinton doesn't have the shield of being black like Obama to keep the lions of scrutiny at bay. If Clinton were a black woman and that was the only change, we'd be bending over backwards to elect her. But because she doesn't have that and because she is running against a black man, gender is turned against her. It becomes her weakness.

Furthermore, if Obama were white and that was the only change in him, he wouldn't stand out to the degree that he does and people would be looking a little closer behind the rhetoric. But because he's black, his blackness becomes that shield against any criticism or realistic deconstruction of his platform. Not only that, it bears him up higher because we no longer want the taint of the evil of slavery on our hands. Hoping against hope that somehow electing him will wipe that taint away.

Someone else posted here not too long ago, said that race is the third column in this country. It's taboo to talk about on so many levels. So we can't even speak about any of this without seeming to step over into into that taboo. And because he also has taken on the mantle now of a black Kennedy who sounds like and speaks like MLK and uses all of that idolized dream that, God forbid, can't be criticized (at least not yet and not by a Democrat or progressive) to mesmerize, no one looks too deep or calls that bluff because that would be a sin of magnitude.

Female gender on the other, especially older white women, is free fodder for so much dismissal, derision, and projection. It's not held back by any third column. It's also complicated by the fact of conservative women who encourage that derision just like conservative men and women who don't hesitate to sell themselves to men as sexual beings first and a human individual second (not just hookers) if at all. Our culture sells that to us and to women. All women are really judged on their sexuality first (is she pretty enough? Not ugly? Feminine as opposed to too masculine. Does she have children? Is she married? Is she just sexual enough but not too much (still pure)?, etc.)

But we can't say any of this can we? We can't stand to hear this!

And that's why people will just laugh off what Kristol said.

Can you expand on your last point. I guess I'm confused as it seems like your first point and basically what I have said that misogyny IS far more acceptable than racism.

In my mind, misogyny has a long, long way to go, a lot longer than racism, to being eradicated. Primarily because it's so global and so intertwined into so many cultures. Having a slave is unacceptable anywhere (in reality where the serious racism comes from and the shame of it). We would be totally aghast and think that culture evil. Having a wife or a daughter or any woman who is basically treated like property, like a slave, is given free pass being that's just "a cultural difference" and looked at blindly. Being "just cultural" toward a culture/country that had actual slavery would not be tolerated. And yet women are sold into sex slavery across the world everyday and we complain but we don't really do what we would do if it were obvious slavery (black or white, men AND women) - we'd be up in arms.

God Forbid that she shows any kind of human emotion, especially in rapport to someone welling up in front of her.

God forbid that she should respond like any woman might.

God forbid that Clinton should in anyway respond with emotional authenticity - of course tears are always suspect! God damn her, she's too masculine. God damn her, she's a woman who feels deeply. God damn her, she a fucking human being. God damn her!

Some of you are a bunch of misogynistic rabid dogs chomping at anything in your hate. This is your hope? This is your idealistic new dream? This is the new tomorrow? What trash!!

Here's a tip: why don't you try persuading us instead of telling us how much you hate Clinton and that every emotion she expresses is suspect?

Why don't you try persuading us instead of just offering worshipful praises of the ground that Obama walks on.

Why don't you try persuading us instead of telling us the idolized dream that's he's the next MLK/Kennedy?

Why don't you offer up some real substance that DOESN'T include just anti-Clinton statements?

Hmmmm....because you don't know anything about Obama beyond these? Do you?

Obama lulls with the promised idyll of past dreams unrealized. Clinton offers the promise of a new brighter reality...today.