Sexism and Racism have been ubiquitous in this campaign. I have not been surprised by any of it. What has surprised me is that it hasn't been much worse. I agree that it is disappointing when white men who are generally likeable spout racist or sexist nonsense, but then, I kind of expect it.

I am not hearing a lot of pushback on the ageist spin being put on McCain's candidacy. I don't know about you, but I don't plan on being put out to pasture at his age. It is true that McCain does not seem as vigorous as Reagan did at the same age, but that's not what's being said.

on many levels, not just sexism.

It implied violence against a Presidential candidate.

That's wrong no matter if the candidate is a woman, an African-American, or a plain old white man.

And/or:

- any state she doesn't win, suddenly doesn't matter

- any demographic she doesn't win, suddenly doesn't matter

- now that she's realized she's lost the popular vote to Obama, suddenly the popular vote doesn't matter

- it's been mathematically impossible for her to win without superdelegate intervention for weeks now, but she remains in the campaign, apparently uncaring if this costs the Democrats the White House in 2008.

I'm all for opposing sexism. I just want to make the distinction between disliking Hillary for purely sexist reasons, and disliking here because she really is a bad candidate who has shown poor judgement and mediocre character.

Joan, no one has been more critical of you in this process than I, and that is saying something. However, beyond the naked partisanship and the (IMO) flawed arguments, I haven't put my finger on what it was that bothered me so much about your blog posts until now (though some of the columns you commissioned didn't take quite so long). As I see it, the underlying issue is that you've taken to exceedingly self-conscious inhibition in your writing for the questionable goal to, as you put it, ""be fair to both sides of this split". Tellingly, you even use the word 'balance' whose perjoration is Fox News' sole contribution to this society.

Joan, you are a journalist and an editor, or at least by profession If your natural instinct is to write exceedingly partisan or shrill posts- if that is how you feel- you are doing NO ONE any favors by your considerate and largely unsuccessful self-censorship. Either be honest, or recuse yourself from the case, or you will continue to be subject to shrill criticism from the likes of me and others with our pro-Obama kool-aid consuming white race hating blinders on that do not take kindly to being patronized or poorly surmised. Just a tip.

Read your own columns.

I understand the tendency among older feminists to be heavily pro-Clinton, but I'm afraid you can't even begin to claim neutrality in this race.

I feel that I staked a claim to be feminist by voting the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 84 despite the evidence, apparent even at that time, that Ferraro was, shall we say, ethically challenged. Your columns lambasting those of us who have chosen to support the campaign of a charismatic, articulate, educated candidate of color and rejecting the campaign of a candidate who seems determined to prove that women too can lie cheat and belly up to the bar just like their morally bankrupt husbands have been anything but neutral. Want me to vote for a woman? GREAT. Show me a woman who rejects an unjust war begun with the sole aim of enriching the big oil companies, and that has proven successful beyond the dreams of avarice of the most spoiled Exxon exec. Show me a woman who refuses to manipulate the public opinion by remarks about bombing Iran made the day of a highly competitive primary. Show me a woman who distances herself from the racist remarks of her ex-president husband.

I highly resent the insinuation that because I feel that this particular woman is unfit to be elected dog-catcher, that I'm somehow sexist. As for your much vaunted working class background, I'm from a white-trash redneck family in the reddest part of one of the reddest states, from a congressional district known for electing John Bircher's to the congress.

It's all too possible to be anti-Clinton and feminist.

Having an agenda, that's one thing. Presenting yourself as neutral while pursuing that agenda is another, so just admit your bias and let's get on with TRYING to rebuild the party.

Please explain.

If apology is good for the soul, perhaps you should offer one up to Keith on behalf of those commenters here "who made it an issue" by defaming Olbermann. He was variously described as a left-wing O'Reilly, the Obama FOX network, a hack, and a man of no journalistic standing.

Those comments are among the mildest, and were pulled from just the first four pages of over 400 pages of comments on your last post. I'm sure that many similar vituperative emails made their way to MSNBC and to Keith's desk.

His apology shows that he is a class act. Would that the hornet's nest (metaphor alert!) of Clinton supporters you regularly stir up here could be so described.

about people getting the vapors about coded sexism, coded racism, coded ageism. People, pundits and candidates are talking 24/7 and make mistakes when speaking off the cuff. They say things that, if they were writing, would look at the verbiage and say, "well, that's not going where I want it to go" and edit it out. However, once launched in the world of videotape and digital capture, it's out there. (Never had an email you wanted to recapture? Never make a statement and, as your lips were still saying the words, your brain screamed "Nooooooo")

Most people are tired of Clinton because of they are tired of all things Clinton, not because of sexism. Many are distrustful of Obama because they feel he is too naieve to take on the republicans, not because he is black. And some are scared that McCain will win the presidency because he has become a pandering hack, not because he is old.

Get over it or, to coin a phrase, "Move on."