I am a feminist; I proudly declare myself a feminist at every opportunity. But I am more than a little annoyed at the implication that we are REQUIRED to support Hillary because she's a woman.

Hillary is famous, first and foremost, for being Bill's wife. I'd rather that the first female president get to the White House on her own steam.

(I'd also rather than she, or any candidate for that matter, not yield to special-interest money, or change her views for the sake of political expediency.)

And pardon me for not caring about the reaction to her near-tears. We have more important concerns right now.

Hillary deserves to be bashed for her ridiculous comments in which she seemed to pooh-pooh the vision and sacrifice of Dr. King, and credit Lyndon Johnson with getting the real civil rights work done.

Alas, her show of emotion overshadowed everything ... including those craven, ill-conceived comments.

And Anon, those wonderful remarks you credit Hillary for making about Dr. King were made after she realized her gaffe.

Well, too late ... she already had revealed herself.

This is from the New York Times:

"Mrs. Clinton ... having to walk back comments she made about Martin Luther King Jr.’s impact on civil rights legislation that literally diminished his historic role ...."

Do you know what "walk back" means?

It means she said something ridiculous, and then had to try to fix it ...

As I said before, her dismissal of Dr. King revealed a lot about her.

Joan,

The language you use about the Clinton campaign is laughable in its pro-Hillary bias.

You write of Clinton's "careful outreach" to Latinos.

By careful outreach, are you referring to Hillary's anecdote during the last debate about the African-American man who felt his job was imperiled by Latino immigrants?

(You can look it up. If, indeed, you look things up -- and don't just act as a stenographer for the Clinton campaign.)

Now, couldn't Hillary have told that little story without specifying that it was a black man? I'll answer that for you: Absolutely.

But that would have missed the point of that anecdote -- which was to subtly remind Latinos and blacks that they are each other's enemies.

As for Barnicle's quote about Obama putting a smile on America's face, I winced at its corniness. But I think he merely was saying that a significant portion of the electorate is feeling uplifted by Obama's appeal for hope and engagement.

I know I am.

Once upon a time, I voted for a man from Hope.

Now, I'm choosing hope.

So the media is supposedly liberal, right? (Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and co. aside, of course.)

So this supposed Obama adoration clearly is being fomented by the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

Note: The VLWC should not be confused with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which made up all that mean stuff about Bill Clinton.

Clinton and her supporters don't help themselves by painting HRC as a victim.

But then again, it may have worked in New Hampshire ...

Oh for heaven's sakes!

-- David Shuster is NOT a Republican. He was one of the most dogged reporters on the trail of Scooter Libby. In this case, he made a mistake by using a slang phrase. It was stupid, but not evil. He is not the agent of a conspiracy of either the left-wing or right-wing variety.

-- Obama's daughters are young children. They are not making phone calls to the women on "The View," on behalf of their parent. To invoke them makes this already-ridiculously overheated discussion even sillier.

-- Like it or not, Democrats are getting the distinct impression that Hillary prefers Fox to MSNBC. That's not going to endear her to progressives.

-- Also, like it or not, the Clintons-as-victims act is getting a little old. We're supposed to be outraged over a moronic comment from an otherwise diligent and excellent reporter?

REally? Is this really what we're supposed to be worried about?

I think those who are APPALLED! and SHOCKED! and DISGUSTED! by Shuster's stupid remark must lead very, very sheltered lives.

I pray that none of you ever faces a real problem. Really, I do.

Because your over-reaction here makes you look silly, and ill-equipped to face the slings and arrows of life.

Shuster's remark wasn't an attack on ALL women. (And by the way, is NY Now writing the press releases for EMILY's List now?)

As a feminist, I'm dismayed by the battles some of my sisters are choosing to fight -- and their readiness to see themselves as victims of those big, bad men in the media.

If Chelsea Clinton was 16, I would have a problem with any comment about her.

But she's a grown woman, who's thrust herself into the political arena by making political calls for her mother.

The Clinton campaign may not have been "pimping her out" by allowing her to make those calls -- but they're certainly using her now, to manufacture outrage and sympathy.

Racism is evil. Sexism that has a real effect on women's lives is evil. The Holocaust was evil. Willfully ignoring those in need is evil.

A reporter's ill-conceived remark on a cable news network? Not evil.

Just stupid.

Choose your battles, people -- and preferably, fight some on behalf of the power who REALLY need defending once in a while.

Peace.

That should read: on behalf of the PEOPLE, not power.

I'm exhausted by this silliness.

... but she's right about old-guard feminists getting all bent out of shape about younger women supporting Obama.

Gloria Steinem has been so vociferous in her support for Hillary that she's become nearly unhinged -- which is a shame, because I've long been a fan of Steinem's feminist essays.

Feminists were supposed to be for a woman's right to choose. Silly me.

As a feminist, I assumed that right extended to electoral politics.