From dictionary.com:

STRIDENT: having a shrill, irritating quality or character: a strident tone in his writings.

STRIDENT: being sharply insistent on being heard; "strident demands"; "shrill criticism"

These are along the line of what I meant when I said the pro-Hillary letters seemed more strident (Note: though most of the definitions did indeed include physiological noise, these don't, although they are based on it--probably derived from whatever irritating sound that the sound of "shrill" is.)

Interestingly, the definitions you asked for regarding "strident," (You wanted to know what I meant by it) include the word "shrill" which you also objected to in my post, a word that you have pretty definitively characterized as sexist. You are correct that I have not often used it, and I certainly agree with you and others who have called out the media as sexist for routinely labelling Clinton's speaking voice "shrill." (They have mostly stopped doing it, but truly I think it is because she has mostly modified her voice. I'm not kidding--and I don't criticize her for it--but I am quite certain that ever since the "tears" episode (Don't get on me--I'm with you on that one) when she "found her voice," she literally began speaking more softly. I think it's appalling that she felt she needed to do that, but I think it's a reality that she did.)

Back to "shrill." In retrospect, my use of it looks cynical, but I assure you, and you can only take my word on it, that that word emerged in my head as the appropriate one for the meaning I intended BEFORE it dawned on me milliseconds later that it was the very word which you--no, we--have had trouble with regarding its application to Hillary's speaking voice. Honestly. What I'm saying is that I actually MEANT shrill, and didn't use it cynically for the purposes you described (taking back from feminists or something? sorry i don't have the post in front of me). Needless to say, even as I recognized it as the right word in terms of meaning, I also recognized the fun I could have with it, and somewhat playfully presented it with quotes and all. But don't misunderstand: Shrill is what you are on the topic of sexism, and that is the way in which I used it. To repeatedly attach sexist motives to various explanations for lack of support for Hillary is indeed "shrill," and the same word applies if you had been hawking a different theme or candidate. As a matter of fact, this is what I find when I look up "shrill":

SHRILL: betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.

SHRILL: being sharply insistent on being heard; "strident demands"; "shrill criticism"

You say "shrill" is most certainly sexist. Then why is that not listed in its meaning in the dictionary? The word itself is certainly not sexist. While I agree with you that it can often be applied that way, I certainly did not use it in a way that can be construed as sexist. I used it EXACTLY as it is meant to be used: to characterize your insistent demand to be heard on the "Hillary-haters are sexist" mantra. On a personal note, I take issue with your constant "Hillary haters" label. I'm sure there are a few here, but honestly, I think most of the Obama supporters on this site are lukewarm at worst on Hillary and more than a little frustrated at having their legitimate issues-based criticisms being characterized as "hate."

Which brings me around to "divisive," a word that can legitimately be used for someone who conflates reasonable arguments by opponents as hate. I agree with you that Michele Obama's comments regarding not working to elect Hillary are divisive. I go further by proposing that her comments along the line of "It's now or never for him" are also divisive. So, here's my issue with you: Why do you assume that anyone who supports Obama would "never" agree to that? I agree to that readily, without the slightest hesitation. I think Clinton has contributed her share of divisive rhetoric into the campaign as well (her response to Chris Wallace re "the snub" comes to mind, but we've gone round on that already so let's not bother now), but my larger point is that you are reductive: People who favor Obama are Hillary haters (most likely because they are sexist). Hillary haters would never be so reasonable as seeing anything wrong with Obama. etc. It just seems so unnecessary and angry.

I don't want to argue with you, truly I don't. But your willingness to think the worst of your "opponents" seems extreme. Sure there are a few idiots out there (The ones swaggering over Obama's victories this weekend come to mind here), but most of us aren't like that. I really encourage you to look through the threads and find the consistent, thoughtful supporters of Obama--there are many--and realize that you might be seeing something that's not there.

As for all the language lessons you're handing out so freely, I can't help but admire your precision and consistency, but I worry you can't see the forest for the trees. And I should remind you that you are not the only English teacher reading salon.

I'm still trying to figure out how Michelle Kwan got the other two skaters' scores switched. Anyone?