I have found myself unable to read many of the letters at Salon anymore because it has hardened my heart. Hopefully it's temporary, but this is a wound that isn't going to be solved by holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." Not this time. Perhaps not even in time for the election.

The problem persists, though, because most of the men (and a large group of women) in Obama's camp don't or won't accept the damage they have done.

I spend my time all over the Internet these days and most of it at hate-free zones because I want to do something constructive about the sexism without being told it doesn't exist or it's really not that bad - messages that we (who support Hillary) get all the time. The hate-free zones (most of them Hillary blog sites) are places where we can actually have dialogue/conversation about sexism and racism without turning it into a battle about which is worse.

Too bad that Obama's supporters can't listen. If they did, we would tell them that we aren't "blaming" Hillary Clinton's loss on sexism alone, and that we know her campaign had major problems, and that we know she took her campaign for granted early on. But when there are thick walls set up, it's hard to listen. I know because I've recognized it in myself these past few weeks. It shocked me so much that I've been doing a lot of self-reflection, which I hope others are doing as well.

Anyway, beautiful job. Your anger was palpable, but you were such a professional in your analysis. One of the best articles you've written!

And yes, I realize there's a double standard against Clinton and that we shouldn't play into it, but at the very least her advisors should have realized that the media would slam Clinton for not conceding in a way it might not have treated another candidate, and should have been prepared for that. They weren't, and now Clinton is leaving the race limping, as even her staunchest supporters in Congress -- like New York Rep. Charlie Rangel -- are keeping their distance.

I have to give Koppelman credit - he deftly accuses the media for "slamming" Clinton because she didn't concede immedately and at the same time sidesteps his own role in "slamming Clinton" and driving wedges between Obama's and Clinton's supporters.

I will never again give men slack when it comes to analyzing politics and candidates - particularly when they insist on using old rules, models and templates to live and operate in the 21st century.

Koppelman lays out why: he (like so many male journalists) lumbers around in the past, using outdated models and templates to analyze a new, vibrant, historical presidential campaign that has changed the rules - not just for women or African Americans, but for the myriad journalists, pundits, talking-heads, bloggers and wanna-bes - about their own outdated, outmoded and, yes, predominatly male-centric ideas about what does and does not constitute "da rulz."

The media - and that includes Alex Koppelman - might actually learn something by standing in another person's shoes, in this case the shoes of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She, like Ginger Rogers, has been put in the position of keeping pace with (Astaire), all the while wearing high heels and dancing backward.

So, let me know how that feels, Koppelman, if you can bring yourself to do it...

Haven't seen you around *regularly* for awhile, though I haven't been around either. The boards/comments were just too much to take, so I decided not to spend as much time getting angrier.

I liked what you said about the sexism faced by Clinton. I think you laid it out pretty succinctly.

You're also right that women are very angry - not the kind of anger that will just disappear. It's very different this time around. I think that we might actually be witnessing a new phase of feminism!

I haven't quite decided how to direct my anger. I don't want four more years of Republican control, so I can't support John McCain (I never could support him). On the other hand, if we (women) don't stand up and take action this time, when will we?

One place to start is the DNC. I understand that women are already doing this. Howard Dean has made a statement re: not realizing how bad the sexism is/was (which I find astounding). So, women are on his case - as they should be. We can't change the entire world right away, but if we target our efforts we make progress. Right now I'm giving money to EMILY's List (not a lot because I can't afford a lot...), which helps get women elected to public office. There's also the Women's Media Center in NY (Steinem et al), the Whitehouse Project. And I think every woman should send a simple message to our elected officials: "Women Won't Tolerate Sexism." Nothing more...they'll figure it out. That puts them on notice that we notice and will be watching.

The media (MSNBC, in particular) needs serious pressure. I think we ought to organize a sustained boycott.

There's also a "Thank You" card campaign underway for Clinton: we would like to flood her Capital Hill office with "Thank You" for all you have done and will do" cards. On the outside of the envelope, we are putting: "I am one of 18 million."

I know these small things don't make the anger disappear, but they are focused efforts, with some possibility of success!

Nice to *see* you again. :)