This story connected with me. For the past 2 years I have participated in a political thread that include hard-core conservative Bush-supporters. They have spent the entire time personally attacking me, calling me every stinking name, including typical conservative rhetorical names (anti-American, commi, etc...). It would get as bad that by just pasting a link (with no commentary), it would kick off 3-4 responses that didn't address the article, but just attacked me. Now the other posters, and yes, they are men, flew above the radar; and no matter how mean-spirited and snarky they would get with these conservatives, they would never get attacked.

The misogyny that exists in our society is real. Hilary is currently the biggest illustration of that. She is smarter, more capable, more intellectual and confident than most men out there. And she's hated because of it (please, I'm not talking about her stance on the Iraq war, so don't focus on that issue). On the other hand, conservatives adore Laura Bush. Glassy-eyed, stand-by-her-man, vacuous Laura Bush. She is their shining star.

For a long time I couldn't understand how woman like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter managed to get so much support from a predominantly male-base. I mean, they get nastier than any liberal, male or female, I've read or heard. But, I realize that fundamentally, these women do not use their power to expose and exercise their independent minds, but to fulfill their marching orders from the men who make them.

I have since left that political thread. I did try to discover any value that came of engaging with this misogyny (did it make me stronger? am I a better writer? can I argue my points better?). Ultimately, the disturbing pit in my stomach outweighed any sort of stimulation it caused on my adrenaline.

I'm preparing myself for a long hard year of misogyny being played out on the national political landscape over Hilary. I know I will be angry about it, but its a fact of life that you have to accept. I am not one of those feminists that back Hilary blindly because she is a woman, but I am open to her making her case as the best candidate out there. I try to tell people who don't like Hilary because she is too polarizing, "look, if you believe that, then you lay credibility of what's been said about her, at the feet of the very people who have lied about everything for the past 6 years. Keep an open mind."

However, what happened then is unimaginable. Amanda and Melissa became deluged - not with bible verses or other scripture - but with death threats, rape threats, and other forms of torture or bodily harm. Minutes before a telephone conversation I had with Melissa, someone had driven up to her own home and pounded threateningly on her door, leaving after many, many fear-filled minutes.

And Melissa McEwen wasn't even the one who wrote the alleged "anti-Catholic screeds." She just happened to be another female progressive blogger. But all of them look alike in print, so it's OK to terrorize all of them and their families too, while so-called liberals stand around going, "Neener neener, you got what you deserved you dumb c***s." Right?

I couldn't fathom where this attitude could possibly be coming from. This site is supposed to be progressive and feminist, right? (OK, allow me my illusion of that for th sake of argument, just for a sec.) So why all the hateful hateyness?

Then it hit me.

Y'all are jealous of Amanda.

Yes, all you laughably overpaid cushy anonymous coward yuppiejobbers who think you're undiscovered "geniuses," I see all those ugly green contact lenses. Why Amanda Marcotte? She's nobody. Why didn't John Edwards discover my genius and elevate me, brilliant me, me who is superior in every conceivable way to that awful awful Amanda? I wouldn't mind if Bill Donahue's minions poisoned my dog. Heck, I woudn't even mind if they killed my mom, I never liked the old bitch anyway. Just give me the glory glory!

Sorry to break the news to you yups, but you're dead wrong, at least about your gross overestimations of your ability to turn a phrase. John Edwards picked her and not you because not a one of you has a flyspeck of Amanda Marcotte's talent. Heck, I don't have a flyspeck of Amanda's talent either, but at least I admit it. I'm not sitting around diddling myself that I'm some kind of undiscovered Voice of My Generation who was somehow unjustly denied the high-profile campaign assignment I "deserved."

The fact that she gave a damn whether her family members lived or died because of some insane quasi-Catholic jihad against her and everyone who looked like her is just icing on the cupcake. It's nice that someone in the world gives a damn about someone else besides themselves. Maybe some of you could try it sometime, if only for five minutes. Maybe then you'd even get "discovered."

Are pandagon bloggers obsessed with the H.P.Lovecraft figure "Dagon?" Does this mean they plan to explore a panoramic view of the Lovecraft Oeuvre?

The music industry isn't selling music, it's selling sex. E.g. britney, spice girls.

The democracy industry isn't selling democracy. It's peddling manipulation. The system has been carefully crafted to ensure that the leader of the free world is nearly guaranteed to be a babbling fool, although the system has occasionally been foiled.

"This, I assert, is the flaw of the non-religious person attempting to criticize religion. They simply don't get it... they think that if they can prove a historical inaccuracy in the Bible, they will have brought Christianity crashing down around the ears of its followers. For those of us who read the Bible in an enlightened, allegorical, historical-critical fashion, we would only raise our eyebrows at such a degree of shameless literalism."

Thing is, it's hardly ever enlightened, allegorical, historical-critical Christians who spout literalist nonsense. It's a fond fantasy of the non-religious: if only you could prove that fundie jackasses are factually wrong, then maybe you can lance the boil of irrationality swelling in their heads. That's not going to happen, precisely because those people are as indifferent as you are to the relationship between hard historical facts and mystical faith.

Sure, you can claim to be different from Donohue and Dobson, and yes, be a little irritated to be tarred with the same brush. But can't you people cast a bigger media shadow somehow? All of your polite enlightenment is drowned out by Donohue and their kin. What good is it if it isn't heard?

One wonders how she can dare to advance what is a preposterous claim on its face. Rhetorical device or no, she clearly holds a religious belief of most Christians up to trashily articulated ridicule. This form of polemic is always found to be harmless good humor among fellow true believers. Like all seasoned political extremists, she cavalierly dismisses those who are offended and goes on the offensive. Suddenly she is the victim. One further wonders how she might have reacted to a similarly demeaning observation about one of her “progressive” beliefs. Maybe some Neandrathal says something like – “have you ever seen a crowd of those angry fat prochoice women demonstrating for battered women – looks like what some of them need is a good battering themselves.” Well that would be different. Really. And the difference? What this whole episode nicely illustrates is the contempt a rather small crowd of "enlightened" progressives have for the sincerely held beliefs of a much much larger group of Americans. I make no judgment on the merits of the respective camps beliefs. The Edwards campaign however can not have it both ways – pitching to the middle with staffing from the left. It would be more honest if she just dropped the temporary political pretense and let her and her fellow campaign staffers real feelings hang out. Of course one finally wonders, actually shudders to think, what foul observation she thinks might actually qualify as mocking to a Christian’s belief.