However, to debase/deny/dismiss/discredit/downplay Sen. Clinton's accomplishments as "her husband's", and to completely deny her long record of accomplishments is absolutely debasing and completely without merit.

I'm only debasing/denying/discrediting/downplaying Sen. Clinton's experience during Bill's presidency, not her other experience. The First Lady is not an elected official...I don't believe she had security clearance, she wasn't at the meetings etc.

You subtly misrepresent people's arguments...sophisticated, feminist garbage is still garbage.

Further, I think Hillary herself "debases" the women's movement when she seeks to claim her husband's experience as her own. In the debate she said that she had "15 years" of foreign policy experience (so, dating back to 1992, when Bill was elected) and spoke of her time traveling the world as First Lady. Um, sorry, Hill, drinking tea with the wife of the prime minister of France doesn't count as "foreign policy experience." Here I thought feminism was about carving out your own identity; guess I was wrong.

Fortunately Barack Obama today called her out on this and said that if she wants to claim "35 years of experience" she has to take ownership of NAFTA, which Bill signed and which she has spoken out in favor of a number of times since she left the White House.

How is it that you still can't see or call a "sexist" comment a sexist comment; or, more appropriately: why is it that you can't and won't call these comments what they are?

Of course, if you really want to debate sexism and why several of the comments I used as examples are such, we could talk about how sexism is ingrained in the attitudes, from which the words and/or phrases follow. Would you understand it, then?

And about the so-called "ad hominem" attacks against you: how can they be ad hominem when based on previous experience with you -- (dismissal/denial/denigration/downplaying) comments made about HRC and her record -- they seem to have merit? Is it ad hominem to say that you act like a 16-year old when you in fact do (name-calling, baiting, generalizing, using red herrings and straw men)? Or ad hominem to make a comment about what "seems to be the doughnut hole that is your brain..." when I haven't seen any indication that you understand or acknowledge one word of any of the points I have called you on before? Nor that you seem to have changed your behavior, at least based on several posts between us over a good hour-plus about a week ago? Is it ad hominem when I tell you that your knowledge and understanding of feminism is "about enough to fit into a sperm cell", when it is my personal experience with you (and with many, many other Obama followers) over how you vilify Sen. Clinton through the language you use and your constant dismissal/denial/downplay of her long and distinguished public service record?

Since it appears that you want to continue to twist words and take no responsibility for past "comments" or conversations that have been POINTED OUT as sexist and/or as race-baiting, filled with fallacies -- and on several occasions filled with outright lies -- there are no arguments, honest or otherwise, that I can make.

Frankly, I should never have taken your bait to begin with, so that's my error.

It does give more credence to my point, however, that there seem to be an awful lot of so-called "progressive" men in the Democratic Party who are just as sexist as their 60s and 70s progenitors.

is it sexist to call Hillary a harridan if she really is a harridan?

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

I'm only debasing/denying/discrediting/downplaying Sen. Clinton's experience during Bill's presidency, not her other experience. The First Lady is not an elected official...I don't believe she had security clearance, she wasn't at the meetings etc.

If you aren't debasing/denying/discrediting/downplaying Sen. Clinton's "other" experience, why do I never see you or any other Obama follower bring it up in posts about "experience"? It seems to me that nearly every single time her experience is brought up Obama's followers conveniently "forget" to mention the other 27 years of experience, which is quite expansive.

You subtly misrepresent people's arguments...

I don't think so. I respond to what I see in the posts.

sophisticated, feminist garbage is still garbage.

Sadly, you have just proved my point about so-called "progressive" men.

and this will be an "anon letter" because I finally have to confess - I am the writers "ajwalker", "xranadau", "akasmith" and "villemar" all at once. I know it sounds ridiculous but I'm unable to keep on living with my bad conscious .It was a lot of fun for the last days and as you might have found out - I despise English teachers - and love to make them look foolish by constantly repeating myself for Hillary. And I can not stand the Obamistas - that's why I tortured you with all these endless letters written under my pen name xranadu. I hope you will forgive me but I get paid by Salon to fill these threads with something - anything - and I hope you understand -somebody got to make a living.

and this will be an "anon letter" because I finally have to confess - I am the writers ajwalker, xranadau, akasmith and villemar all at once. I know it sounds ridiculous but I'm unable to keep on living with my bad conscious .It was a lot of fun until it lasted and as you might have found out - I despise English teachers and love to make them look foolish by constantly repeating the same old talking points as aka and lj. And I can not stand the Obamistas - that's why I tortured you with all these endless letters written under my pen name xranadu. I hope you will forgive - but I get paid by Salon to fill these treads with something - anything and somebody got to make a living.

Sunday's NYT Frank Rich column does a great number on Clinton. The whole column is great, well worth your time; I only mention it here because War Room appears to be at peace on weekends...

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.