Psychologists call it a reaction formation, like kicking the dog to make you feel powerful after you've been dumped on, some might call it dirty pool, and others mean and petty. But whatever name we might call it, it's another move of desperation, the grabbing of a straw as a creeping anxiety starts to inform you intuitively that you're losing the race to a more powerful animal, to another kind of human being that has morphed out of such unusual circumstances that you can't even begin to understand. This is a definitive moment in our patriarchal history and every feminist is on the edge of her seat in anticipation; will she or won't she? Will she be, can she be, that person of insight, wisdom and selflessness that we as country need to recoup from the grandiose Bush-Cheney delusions, or will she bring more of the same with big boy Bill at her side telling her to do it this way or that. Can she be that noble leader that vitiates the humiliation that the rest of the world has heaped on us?. Our beautiful world is an invalid surrounded by charlatans and quacks interested only in keeping the patient constrained for its own good and we, America, have been a big part of the quackery. That's what Obama's call for change is all about. We as a people and nation have not developed the spiritual equipment to initiate policies based on truth and justice; our policies are only based on gold and the force of arms. So the choice is ours. The alternatives are policies of righteousness, and a fair and just reorganization of the world's abundance, or a world in continuous armed struggle. This is the greatest urgency now upon us, and it can only be done with dialog and the ballot box. Are we too old and crystalized to change? Or are Bob Dylan's words finally coming through? The times they are a changing...

Both racism and sexism are horrible, and neither should be tolerated in a public forum. However, it's still "acceptable" to be a sexist (not really sure what I think about this Obama comment, but I'll probably give him the benefit of the doubt).

I do happen to be a white female, and this is just how things turned out...there's not a whole lot I can do about it. I don't believe white feminists (Clinton or Obama supporters alike) are marginalizing race, but rather we're just fighting what we know from personal experience. I can't pretend I know what people of different races experience, but I can give support. I do know firsthand the struggles that women of all races still endure, so that's where my urge to take action originates.

Given that the media still accepts blatant sexism and this is what I know personally, it upsets me. Please don't confuse this with ambivalence towards racism.

Have you no shame?!!!

You said: It's a little confusing to see Hillary talk about how tough she is, and then get all flustered at a little zinger from Obama. The "my feelings are hurt and he's being a sexist!" thing, is actually a campaign tactic in itself, a way to get sympathy from women.

Your splicing of something Hillary did say with something she never said in quotation marks is dishonest. Senator Clinton has, to my knowledge, never accused Senator Obama of being sexist. To conflate what some Clinton supporters said here as being Hillary Clinton's own words or thoughts is what I would call dirty politickin'.

There is no real positive spin on womanizing, and yes, having constant affairs with your subordinates is sexist. Men who sleep with every woman they can get their hands on do not like women very much; quite the opposite.

Similarly if you scratch beneath the surface, you will find that most very promiscuous women hate men. I mean HATE them.

An inability to form a stable relationship points to a diseased psychology, and so does an inability to remain faithful to a spouse who expects it.

Now imagine if we had discovered a Republican who was having sex with his much younger intern, who thought she was in love with him and he was taking advantage of that, would we say that was appropriate? We'd be hitting the ceiling here at Broadsheet, folks!

But Bill Clinton--well, what a sly dog *guffaw*...

I did vote for him twice, but I sense a big double standard here, and if I have to vote for Hillary it will be holding my nose, because of her husband. The only reason I would ever vote for either of them at all is because I believe in voting on policies and not personal likeability. But Bill IS a womanizing sleazebag, and his compulsion to be so even in the Oval Office casts some serious doubt on his judgement in other areas. As far as I know, his behavior has not crossed over into the sphere of criminal, that is, harrassing or coercing women, but I think he's probably walked a fine line at times.

I sincerely hope that Obama wins in spite of his "blank slate" reputation and proceeds to surround himself with good, experienced people who will get things done. It's time to move past the Clintons.

Yeah, Clinton's broke....She just cleared 11 million in donations since Feb 5. Sorry to tell you, she's not going away soon.

And funny that even Rove just commented that both Obama and Clinton have pretty much the same odds (of course McCain beating them both). As a matter of fact, he commented about how Obama has no experience compared to Clinton or McCain and that will come out. Imagine that!? But Obama beating McCain compared to Clinton, that's the convenient myth Obama supporters WANT everyone to believe, isn't it?

First, we don't know whether it was $11 million. We don't know how much of that was for the general election. We don't know how much of that came from Bill's speaking engagements. We don't know how much of that came from bundlers, or Kazakhstan uranium mines. And by the way, we haven't seen their tax returns.

Second, I knew that Hillary supporters admired Karl Rove, but it's still interesting to see one of them cite him as a credible source. If he said the sky was blue, I would have to look up and check for myself. But given Hillary's campaign tactics, I am not surprised you look to him as a model.