"OK, Cocco...however, one of the constants in American history is the fact that male or female, black or white, if you're out there running for or holding elective office, especially on the national stage, you will be subjected to a lot of nasty stuff."

That's understood. But you still seem to be using this fact to justify the outrageous sexism I referenced here at Salon. It doesn't justify it. Nothing does.

...justifies sexism.

However, as much as I loathe sexism, racism, or any other ism that disparages or prejudicially damages someone's sensibilities, I believe a sense of proportionality is in order.

If you're a private person never asking for the spotlight, it is to be abhorred and condemned.

If you're the Quitter, Sarah Palin, it is to be expected.

In her case, it appears that this particular brand of what I would consider innocuous victimhood, re: "sexism", is just a convenient camouflage meant to conceal her rather obvious lack of depth...rather that a true moral stand or outrage on her part.

I believe that only because I kind of wonder where she and her party were, as John McCain was telling anyone who would listen, that Chelsea Clinton was the freakish byproduct of a lesbian union.

Crickets.

I disdain selective outrage.

"However, as much as I loathe sexism, racism, or any other ism that disparages or prejudicially damages someone's sensibilities, I believe a sense of proportionality is in order. If you're a private person never asking for the spotlight, it is to be abhorred and condemned. If you're the Quitter, Sarah Palin, it is to be expected."

I'm having trouble following your logic. I don't see how proportionality can justify sexism. You said NOTHING justifies sexism in your very first sentence. Below are some of things that have been openly said by writers at Salon. I really don't think it matters whether they were said about Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton or Margret Thatcher. Do find them outrageous and wrong or not?

Salon called Palin a "dominatrix" and a "pinup queen," referred to her "babaliciousness" -- and described her convention address as having been charged with enough sexual energy to give the partisan crowd a "collective woody." Another Salon columnist described Palin as a "Christian Stepford wife in a 'sexy librarian' costume" who was, for the most ideological Republicans, a "hard-core pornographic centerfold spread."

But I suspect he is merely using the misogynist argument to further his misoJOANist agenda.

Allow me to clarify. I am not actually concerned about anyone's (any individual's) overall agenda. For instance, I like Joan very much and think she generally does an excellent job as editor of Salon.

My agreement (with virtue) is not that Joan has some sort of misogynist "hard on" for Palin. In fact, to me, Palin is too boring and stereotypical to excite any in any woman an agenda -- unless it has to do with her postion on abortion.

Rather, I do concede that virtue is correct in the specific articles to which he gave specific links. Palin in a bustier with a whip illustrating the Kamiya article virtue linked to is a perfect example. Not only was the illustration sexist but the tone of the article and some of its statements were as well. I commented more than once on that particular article and you may read my comments if you wish.

That said, just because there were a few Salon articles whose tone I thought was sexist -- I prefer the word sexist to misogynist -- does not mean that Salon has an agenda against Palin that is sexist. If Salon has any agenda at all, it is liberal. Since I am a liberal and proud of being liberal, I like Salon's overall agenda.

What I do find curious is how much passion Palin seems to ignite in men.

If Salon were simply a magazine of political satire it surely would have run a bustier-like illustration when the Rielle Hunter story broke.

May I suggest John Edwards in a leather jockstrap confronted by Rielle with a bouquet of stinkweed declaiming: "John baby, you are sooooooo hot!"

What would be hillariously funny would be if Palin should turn out to be not-a-faithful-wife. Would all the folks who have been saying that a politician's sex life is not the voters' business be able to bite their tongues or would some of their tongues be hanging out of their mouths in anticipation of the sexual fantasies that this would avail them?

Just a litte speculation on my part. It would really be interesting to see if geese and ganders are equally sauced or rather if the goose is viciously dined upon.

You're mistaking justification for an explanation. There is no justification for sexism, merely an understanding of how and where it occurs (that is, an explanation).

There is no justification for being mugged in a dark alley either. However, you need to understand that it occurs before you walk down one. Sarah Palin would have been well advised with that. Now, we've got the muggers all crying "oh the humanity" that one of their own has been mugged. I feel a lot of contempt for that kind of selective outrage.

"Salon called Palin a "dominatrix" and a "pinup queen," referred to her "babaliciousness" -- and described her convention address as having been charged with enough sexual energy to give the partisan crowd a "collective woody." Another Salon columnist described Palin as a "Christian Stepford wife in a 'sexy librarian' costume" who was, for the most ideological Republicans, a "hard-core pornographic centerfold spread."

Was that Mr. or Ms. Salon who did that? Just kidding. Look, Cocco. To me, it's the degree and intent. I think "collective woody" is kind of funny, and the other sexist adjectives truly innocuous proportionately to what has been said and written about the Clinton women.

To me, it's the intent.

Nothing you've aliterated in my view, comes tangentially close to being as spitefully sexist as the collective Republican strategy of calling Hillary Clinton a murderer, or the condoning thereof, or, John McCain's devastatingly corrosive accusation that a transgendered Attorney General with procreative ability sired Chelsea Clinton.

How each individual has roiled through the turbulent waters of sexism is illuminating.

Palin breathlessly declares her victimhood, as the Clinton women thrive.

Just sayin'.