I guess what I'm saying is that Cocco is a hyper-Hillary partisan and it is in that service that this article was written. I've seen other things she's written- I've seen the parts about Obama playing the race card, etc. And it robs her of any credibility, in that she has no foot left on the ground that would allow her to place the existence of and effect on this primary of sexism/misogyny in some more thoughtful and enlightening context. Hers is more, 'well I'm glad the sexists won for one reason because at least I won't have to hear from them any more'. No good, not helpful.

She shrouds this underlying message in the truthful but non sequitur, 'there has been much sexism directed against Hillary'. Yes, but you can't get there from here.

As regards the right wing nut job slime machine and the MSM, I don't think these are the same things. The MSM is often, neigh, very often, complicit in the successes of the right wing nut job slime machine, but they are not one in the same. Point being that the 'nagging mother' comment made about Hillary was not different in character to the 'deadbeat dad' comment about Lazio. The real difference is that the former features far more in the political discourse, because of the fact that misogynist motivations feature far more there.

Is your argument that there is no man in this society is misogynist, that no man in the news media is misogynist or that hatred for the opposite sex is more common in women than men? And what's with all the semantical nit pickerry?

Glenn,

Would you consider submitting a column to the Post on this subject, referencing today's very sad display, and chalked full of other such instances? Sometimes editorial boards can be duped into letting someone make a fool out of them on their own pages if it can be seen as convincing them of their own high-minded fairness (the New York Times comes to mind, and not in a good way, from when they allowed a piece by a right winger deriding their 'liberal bias').