Hi Joan,

I was immediately repulsed by the final voter question last night--although I also thought it perfectly summed up the kind of debate CNN was HOPING to manufacture (Sorry, CNN! Who knew some substance would squeak through?!?)

My feeling was that, obviously this was sexism at work. I didn't reflect on that until watching your video blog this afternoon. With further consideration I have to come to the conclusion that I have no way of determining whether or not the examples you've selected show "sexism" (with the exception of Campbell's question--she was cleary trying to exploit the sex issue).

As soon as I recalled the famous MTV question posed to Bill Clinton by a young woman: "Boxers or briefs?", I had to wonder about all of it. No one screamed sexism then; only accusations of triviality. Now, if someone (especially a member of the opposite sex) had asked Hillary, "Thong or granny-panties?" then I think we'd have a real issue--but only because of the prevailing Puritan norms.

The fact that anyone would ask any presidential candidate what sort of underwear they wore is simply evidence of the deteriorating quality of the campaign process (not entirely, but far more media driven than is admitted!). I don't see that these examples really pass the smell test of gender bias.

It was a woman who asked Hillary about her jewelery preference and it was a woman who called her a bitch. I don't believe either of them (especially the college student) was being sexist.

Bitch is a word we use in this culture to describe standoffish, highly motivated women. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact. Women use this term only slightly less than men (I would guess), but women curse less than men (I would guess). It would seem a bit odd to call a woman an asshole, and if anyone had referred to McCain as a bastard there would be no outcry at all.

Perhaps the sexism only exists in the minds of old-school feminists and stereotypical leftists who refuse to let go of the militant political correctness that swept the late 80's and early 90's. Most of us have moved on, behaving much more thoughtfully and sensitively than we did before the movement highlighted the lazy, derogatory, patriarchal epithets that rightly need(ed) to be banished from our public AND PRIVATE discourse.

This is far more about our electoral politics and the expectations the media puts on the candidates than it is about civil rights.

I'm sorry, Rebecca. I generally enjoy your contributions [sometimes even when I disagree], and I have never written a letter without reading the whole article before...EVER! Until now. Did Salon's editors think we wouldn't notice that Bill Clinton isn't included in your photo composite? Seriously.

IF it's an issue at all (and that's a huge IF!) then Bill should be front and center with the rest of them. Perhaps his omission is proof positive that this article is a waste of time?

I await the general consensus before devoting any more of my life units on this particular essay.

Hey, Salon--can you return to ELEVATING the level of discourse?

Thanks,