Among many people, Hillary Clinton brings out a high level of vitriol and nasty language.

Why is another matter. But I consider the statement above to be indisputable fact. While many of the questions below are matter of interpretation:

Is it because she's a Clinton? Is it because of nearly two decades of the right-wing attack machine? Her Iraq War vote, which she has not "taken back?" Because of her own sometimes dirty campaigning? Because of her triangulations? Because she can come off cold and robotic (or a sobbing emotional wreck, if see her that way)? Because she rose to power on her husband's coat-tails? Because the media anointed her the frontrunner before a single vote was cast? Because she won't drop out? Because she's run a bad campaign? Because she's a woman?

I've gotta say, I've seen a level of hatred towards Hillary Clinton expressed in these Salon postings like nothing I've ever seen. Even George W. Bush doesn't seem to inspire this level of vitriol in some of the Hillary-haters--and Bush lied the nation into war, eroded our civil liberties, curtailed reproductive rights, politicized the judiciary, wreaked havoc on the economy, spied on the citizenry and dismissed anyone who didn't fall in line as unpatriotic.

I think Hillary Clinton's campaign has revealed something about all of us. And for some of us, it's revealed a dark anger and hatred and it's worth asking of ourselves why?

A lot of people have written already and will continue to write about why Clinton was a bad candidate. That's not the question. The real question is: why the vitriol? And is the level of anger and hate among some people really merited?

We seem to have been writing similar postings at the same time. I applaud your brilliant reasoning...

Women will be able to get abortions in any state - regardless of who becomes president.

Legally, you can still get an abortion in any state.

But what if you live in a county where there is no abortion provider (90% of counties have no provider)? What if you have to drive 6 hours to the nearest clinic where you are legally required to "think it over" for another 24 hours before you can come back and have the procedure?

Yes, legally, you can still get an abortion in any state. But state and federal laws have placed ridiculous administrative restrictions that ultimately force clinics to close. Doctors are threatened with bogus lawsuits to drive them out of business.

What difference does the president make? The president largely determines the judiciary (federal judges and on the Supreme Court). Anti-choice judges refuse to strike down these laws. And they create a climate that encourages this legislation. In Gonzales v Carhart (the so-called partial birth ban), the justices even said that women need to be protected from decisions they might regret.

Presidents matter when it comes to reproductive rights. Big time. Now, for some people, this isn't a crucial issue. Reproductive freedom doesn't rank in their top five concerns. Fair enough. But saying that reproductive rights will always be there no matter who's in the Oval Office is just plain wrong. The Bush Adminstration has already chopped away at them...

"Secy. of State is some kind of schlock appointment"... when she's empowered to do nothing.

What has Condoleezza Rice accomplished as Secretary of State? In her defense, it's not like Bush has been particularly open to diplomacy, which puts Rice in a no-win position.

Leadership that reflects the racial and gender make-up of the country is a good thing in its own right. But just because a leader is female doesn't mean she'll be strong on issues that typically matter most to women--which often "go left." And sometimes the best candidate on "women's issues" will be a man.

In short, the desire she expresses to see these problems dealt with might feel a whole lot more genuine if she would have examined the fault on both sides, not just on the one she opposes.

Well said, Alex Koppelman.

Damn, skippy, cabick, who wrote: "the fact that geraldine ferraro has said some stupid things herself doesn't mean she's not right about the role of sexism in this campaign."

Also, it's time to get real about some things--there are Clinton supporters who are currently disinclined to support Obama. Some of these "Clintonistas" are, gasp, men. Some small subset (like subsets of any group) holds secret racial animosity. You can't change the extremes.

But the Obama Campaign had better be damned concerned about Clinton supporters disinclined to support Obama because he's viewed as an out-of-touch hopeful elitist with no concrete plans to solve everyday concerns. For what it's worth, I don't believe Obama is nearly as liberal and fanciful as he's been portrayed. I believe he's much more pragmatic and centrist. But he's got to show that's he's not just a man of hope but also a man of action.