Here is a list of your infantilizing phrases:

pretty little ceremony for the poor little put upon girl

Pout all you want

You all just want a pat on the head

You also make the common sexist mistake of calling them some form of stupid, illogical, or insane (mad woman in the attic issue) assuming a paternalistic superiority.

Here is where you do that:

it's just plain dumb

just a tiny, eensie, widdle bit historic

irrationally hate

muddle-headed thinking

Thank you for allowing me to use your post to illustrate common sexist labels that men use to "win" arguments with women. Of course they aren't really winning but only attacking.

My entire point was that Clinton supporters, male and female (perhaps I should have been more careful to point that out), are infantilizing Clinton. The point of using the word girl was to emphasize the way her actual supporters are treating her, as if she's a girl who can't make her own decisions, and to underscore the irony inherent in that. Clinton said that she was dropping out of the race, and asked her supporters to support Obama. Instead, some very, yes, insane, individuals continue to try to bring some fight to the convention that she not only didn't ask for, but specifically pleaded against.

Furthermore, I have no reason to assume, nor did I assume, that the people I was talking to were women. I assumed they were children, because they were acting like children. Thus, the child-speak, which was not gender-specific at all, much as you'd like it to be, so that you can excoriate me with your feminist studies textbook.

You simply see everything through your little spiteful lens.

Men can absolutely be irrational, muddle headed, dumb, etc, etc. I assume Jeb, Notorious Wes, and several other posters here are men, and I'd use exactly the same words to describe them. You're the one assuming that those terms only apply to women. What does that say about you?

It might be of interest to you to improve your insight into yourself to understand that men who do this often think they are very nice to women and treat them as true equals and even sometimes feel protective towards women whom they like. Any woman can be happy with a man such as that as long as she never disagrees with him. An ideal mate for such a man might be a woman who is mute or who does not actually speak his language well. May I suggest a Asian or Russian bride. Don't allow her to learn English.

Classy. FYI, you missed the mark just a little. My last long term love affair was with an PH.D. candidate epistemologist. Nah, she wasn't opinionated or anything. She was just a little Stepford wife, and we never argued.

that I will only suggest that you improve your writing skills.

My very abject apologies for you utterly misunderstanding your thread-long convolutions.

Moreover, just a hint: Calling everyone who supports/supported Clinton or doesn't support Obama "haters" has become a cliche.

...of the actual motivations behind the "die-hards" or "supporters" in regard to a roll-call, but with the same lies constantly being given as excuses in defense of Clinton's candidacy like "she won the popular vote" or "because of Obama's position on abortion" or the pathetic "MI and FL disenfranchisement" nonsense, there's simply no reason to trust them on their word that the motivations are driven out of anything other than another attempt to jump-start what was clearly a lost cause as far back as February. Neither Clinton nor Obama were near my 1st choice for who I'd like to see as the nominee, but I and many others accepted as far back as early 2007 that no matter how much time or money I put in for my first choice that it would probably be one of those two rather than all the others. And that's the real difference separating the Clinton "die-hards" from those that supported Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, etc. I attended meet and greets and heard each candidate speak at least once, and each of them with the exception of one told supporters point-blank that there were zero guarantees and that the odds were extremely long that all the hard work supporters were willing to sacrifice to the cause would result in taking the nomination. The exception of course was Clinton. Whether she really believed that she had the deal locked up before the process started or not, she went on TV and predicted that she'd have it wrapped up no later than Super Tuesday and in doing so set herself and a considerable amount of her most fervent backers up for a letdown that she initially couldn't accept and plenty of her supporters still can't. What Clinton backers proclaimed was her expressing confidence was viewed by the skeptical and objective voters as taking way too much for granted much too early on.

Out of all the mistakes Clinton made, and there were too many to list here, that was the most damaging of all. She gave the impression too many times to way too many of her believers that her victory was "inevitable" and seeing the dream fade away as February came and went was just too bitter of a pill to swallow for them. I watched Obama's volunteers trudge through the worst winter that Wisconsin has seen in 100 years in the weeks leading up to the state primary here while getting laughed and told to go home by Clinton backers claiming that the state's traditional Dems and track record of more women voting than men, combined with Mark Penn's polling, would render their efforts on behalf of Obama as worthless. Weeks later on voting day, it wasn't even close and all the Clinton "supporters" who laughed at the idea of sacrificing a night out at the trendy wine bar in exchange for walking outside in sub-zero temperatures to help get out the vote could only complain about how "unfair" it all was. Instead of taking a look in the mirror, they largely took the easy way out and blamed others for how they felt and some still do and will continue to do so. They were so convinced that Clinton was just such a great "fighter", that they wouldn't have to do any of the fighting themselves. Obama and his supporters didn't take anything from them. They were just so sure he never had any legitimate chance at it from the start that they couldn't face the reality when it set in.

Demands for a roll-call? How about fully paying off Clinton's campaign debt instead of recycling the same old lies and distortions about Obama, the guy who's actively trying to bail her out from the mess she created? That's probably to much of a realistic thing for objective Democrats to request from the Clinton dead-enders who still insist on being subsidized while living in Fantasyland.