But they chose a poor way to do it. I mean really - what, exactly, is 'wrong' about not being married to the father of your child? Aren't we just a little bit past the whole "this child is a bastard" thing?

Let's say for a moment that older folks - the type mostly likely to vote for McCain, for example - find the idea of unwed parrents really really reprehensible, and that's why Fox News made the comment. Is there really any danger that any American in the country might conclude that the Obamas aren't in fact married?

It was a stupid thing to say and I have no doubt that Fox had nefarious purposes, but I refuse to take the bait and thus vilify women who are not married to the father of their children. The only way to defeat Fox is to refuse to let them define the terms. Michelle Obama's dignity and grace will be answer enough in the face of such gleeful disrespect.

I was so very, very tired of reading columns that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama.

This feels like we're getting back to what Salon.com is all about.

Fox News doesn't even count. It's just a propoganda arm of the RNC. So, who cares what they do over there? It's so off the wall it's almost like a self parody.

You just have to laugh. Really. Like when they had a body language expert interpret the fist bump... What did it mean? Was it a "terrorist jab?" the anchorwoman asked? Whatever happened to the simple pat on the back?

I mean really. How can you even take this stuff seriously?

....but not quite.

I also can't help hoping that Obama supporters who denied Clinton faced sexism, but who are now outraged by the treatment of Michelle Obama, will have new insight into the dynamics of American media and politics, and new compassion for Clinton.

I haven't seen anyone claim that Clinton did not face sexism. If you have, please point it out or just admit it's a strawman. The point that was made about Clinton and sexism is that it wasn't sexism that killed her campaign, but her campaign itself.

I've never heard it in my life, and I'm under 40 and used to live in urban D.C. Had to read the comments at War Room to know what it meant. What do you suppose Fox viewers thought it meant? I'm not denying is was nasty, just wondering how effective it might be as a dog whistle. Are they just trying to pump more out of the failed attempt to milk the "terrorist fist jab"? I am having trouble imagining why they even did it.

... Joan discard the notion of the more vitriolic Hillary supporters that it's only sexism when it concerns Hillary Clinton, and everything else is just politics as usual.

If you want to go on a one-woman rampage against sexism in the media, Ms. Walsh, then by all means go for it. For what it's worth, though, 'Baby Mama' is probably moderately more racist than sexist, and since there's nothing even a little subtle about it, I doubt Fox can be shamed into better behavior any time soon.

Perhaps this would be a good time for Hillary to disavow her affection for the right-wing news network.

The FOX headline was pure racism. This blog was right on the mark until it veered into Clinton fantasy land. There was nothing sexist about "baby mama", it was racism, which Obama supporters have been decrying for months.

And the rumor that Dowd managed to float about Michelle Obama? According to Salon it was started by a Clinton backer.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/michelle_obama_fair/index.html

There are numerous examples of this kind of thing all over Salon today. Salon is now ruthlessly attacking Republicans for making the exact same attacks that the Clinton team did. "Oh no they didn't", indeed.

I think it would be wise to ignore the Clinton reference, guys. The conversation you are trying to have is utterly unproductive.

I also can't help hoping that Obama supporters who denied Clinton faced sexism, but who are now outraged by the treatment of Michelle Obama, will have new insight into the dynamics of American media and politics, and new compassion for Clinton.

Ok, Joan, let's get into this.

First of all, ftr, I, personally, never denied Clinton faced sexism nor do I think any true Scotsman did either.

No, seriously, I think this sexism-denying Obama supporter is a straw man. Not that there do not exist such human beings in the world, but come on.

Now, as to the topic at hand, sexism is only one dynamic at work here, and I'd argue, not the most decisive one.

The most decisive dynamic at work here is yellow journalism.

The particular form it happens to take in this case might include sexism, but really, that's not the issue here.

Obviously racism is also at work.

But really, that's not the root issue here.

The issue here is character assassination.

If Fox News has demonstrated one thing, it's that they are fair and balanced in their choice of targets. They'll smear anyone with impunity, according to the circumstances.

This isn't to say that they are not racist or sexist, far from it.

Just that even if we somehow eradicated these two maladies from Fox News' content, it would still provide more than enough odious and unethical content to alarm us.

I just don't see why this sort of smearing needs to be considered sexist or racist.

Do you see my point?

I think it would be wise to ignore the Clinton reference, guys. The conversation you are trying to have is utterly unproductive.

Let's not take the bait on this one, but address the larger question of why this particular manifestation of character assassination needs to be categorized as sexist.

What is the productive value of this particular diagnosis?

Please Joan. Stop trying to "teach" Obama's supporters about your experience during the primary. We're not ignorant. We understand sexism. Some of us even donated to Hilary's campaign out of respect for the work she has done. But don't preach to us about what we are supposed to have learned. Talk to your own people- you are a high profile and important leader

who can help elect a democrat as president. Did you happen to follow the coverage of Dennis Kucinich in this primary race? Do you think he got less scorn and distortion of his views than Hilary? All the media plays on prejudice and fear. We get it. We really do. Hilary was vilified, Barack was vilified. It's going to get worse. Did you notice the attacks on Michelle Obama before Hilary dropped out? If HIlary had won I would have voted for her without question. Isn't the key question for Hilary's leadership, and that truly includes you, to wonder how to speak to her voters and figure out why some have turned their rage against the media into a decision to vote against sanity? These folks may listen to you. They are not listening to Obama yet.