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.

I feel the need to differentiate myself from the walter-maps of this world here, so let me see if I can't perfect a nod toward what defenders of Cocco's thesis are saying here: while there exists antipathy amongst women and men regarding the opposite sex, men are disproportionately in a position to affect outcomes by interjecting their antipathy/misogyny due to their disproportionate representation in the media and in other positions of power. While this is not always evident, that the candidacy of a woman for President of the United States should bring that reality into stark relief is to be expected. Not all men are misogynists, but some percentage are, (and here I'm obscuring somewhat the definite underlying existance of some spectrum by which a large number are slightly afflicted and smaller number are defined by it for simplicity sake), and it stands to reason that this cohort and its degrees will be reflected in the news media. Given that this is the case, that is sufficient to conclude without anecdotal evidence, that Hillary has been the target of much sexism throughout this primary campaign, which has offended and infuriating millions of women who have taken note (perhaps even influencing results).

Bearing in mind this only requires a few very uncontroversial assertions: that men are disproportionately represented in the news media, that misogyny exists among men, that journalists are misogynists roughly in line with the total population (somewhat tenuous, but not glaringly so) and that the ire of misogynists is aroused by the prospect of a female POTUS. Those rather straightforward assertions are all that's required to demonstrate what many women are attesting to on this thread. The money question of course involves the extent to which these snapshot conditions conspire in a feedback loop, and if you buy that as driving dynamic of society, why do we ever get change in that status? As you'll guess, I don't buy that entirely.

Speaking of which, all that's fair enough, and perhaps underemphasized including by myself to the detriment of the debate and the chagrin of women, BUT I still contend there are major issues that the likes of Cocco and Steinem et al are overlooking in their simplifying narrative and monomaniacal focus. And I furthermore think that, as such, their narratives are obscuring understanding and serving narrow partisan interests (and probably counterproductively at that).

In an alternate universe where Salon was the polar opposite of what it actually is:

LET'S SAY Hillary Clinton's remaining primary rival were not Barack Obama but a white male. Suppose she were ahead in pledged delegates, led in the popular vote in DNC-approved contests, had raised the most money, and had attracted the most contributors.

more stories like thisLet's further suppose that her rival had responded to her success by suggesting he might pick her as his vice-presidential nominee. And that, as she gained more momentum, he asserted that superdelegates should nevertheless make him the nominee because he could attract the working-class voters the party needed to win in the fall.

Clinton supporters would likely find those suggestions sexist.

And yet Clinton and her camp have made the same suggestions in this campaign. Clinton's political arguments have found a broad acceptance among her backers - an acceptance that's hard to imagine if a similar case were made by a lagging rival in a race Clinton led.

And even as those arguments are offered, some of Clinton's backers, as well as some commentators, seem convinced that sexism and double standards are among the principal reasons she has fallen dauntingly behind Obama.

Paging Maria Cocco...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/16/clintons_sexism_dodge/