That is just plain unhinged.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but women are actually unique people who actually have opinions on issues, “plumbing” (as you so artfully put it) aside. While there will be certain people in any election who vote for any particular candidate without more than very superficial knowledge of their policies or voting records, women are actually capable of some (limited, of course) independent thought. Some of us even went to college n stuff! Some of us remember her in the 90s, visiting countries throughout the world, advocating for women's and children's rights. Some of us related to fact that she got a law degree instead of “baking cookies”. Some of us have carefully examined her votes on important issues. We can recall her crucifixion by the media for straying from the standard tight-lipped trophy wife pick-out-the-presidential-dish-set First Lady role. We know from our own personal and professional lives that we are not allowed to be too pretty or not pretty enough, that we will be dissected and judged for exemplifying the very qualities considered valuable in a man, stong = bitchy, determined = ruthless, feminine =weak, attractive = easy. Some of us think that's all pretty crappy. We like the fact that HRC just kept on keeping on despite all that.

Just like there will be some people in November who will vote for McCain because he is white and not black, some women surely voted for Clinton because she is a women. The many millions who voted for her because they like her politics — which do, of course, include strong advocacy for issues of particular interest to female Americans — will now reassess and decide between the two remaining candidates. I, personally, am a progressive, so I will of course vote for the progressive candidate.

Quite frankly, many your points seem to come straight off of some crummy talk radio show. Do you actually know of anyone, or have you actually even heard or read of any woman in particular, who was an informed Clinton supporter but now is going to vote for McCain out of spite and hurt feelings? (As opposed to just actually agreeing with McCain on certain issues). Or do you just think it's some sort of clever talking point? It's not clever, and from what evidence I've seen, I believe it to be generally untrue.

Anyway, yes, I agree with you completely that some of the coverage of Clinton was sexist and that many of the examples you provided are solid ones. I think the confusion is that I at least am not sure what the implications are. Are we simply to criticize the individual people who acted this way or are we to take this as a symptom of something larger, such as believing the media is skewed against all women or that Clinton did not win the election because of this? After all, every single candidate can point to temporary bias for and against them.

At times you suggest that the media operated with a narrative such that no woman could possibly win, but as others have already mentioned, at other times the media acted as if Clinton could not possibly lose. Also, you suggest the media had annointed Obama from the very beginning, but surely this fluctuated to. At first, the media annointed Clinton as inevitable. And then later Obama was getting a better ride. Then the SNL skit came and we ended up with an ABC-sponsored hour attack debate on flag pins and similar items in an attempt to show that they weren't favoring Obama, etc. The media narrative went back and forth for and against both candidates every few weeks – indeed, with every primary election at times.

In short, yes, sexism in the media is real, but I do not know (honest not knowing) what were the results or impact of this sexism.

On the other hand, you seem unable to put any context whatsoever to sexism regarding Hillary, As just as it is to call out every instance of sexism, racism or any other ism, just treatment of the subject also demands acknowledgement when gender or race works to someone's unfair advantage.

In Hillary's case, i think her gender worked to her advantage in media coverage at the beginning ot the race. Later on, it worked against her.

You are not wrong in particular instances, but you tell only half the story.

None of these issues – workplace equality, the right to vote or own property, domestic violence, bodily autonomy, child care, LGBT issues, the health care crisis, civil rights, poverty, welfare, genital mutilation, gender roles in relationships, rape, date culture, abstinence, HIV/AIDS, the military, and the environment – make Clinton the better candidate. In fact Obama had a better record on many of them. These are not the things that separated the candidates for Clinton's most avid supporters.

A large part of Clinton's base didn't vote for any candidate on any issues of concern to them. Her campaign was not primarily about issues important to female Americans. It was about which candidate had the “right” plumbing.

A great deal of her rhetoric, especially towards the end, boiled down to, “They have to let me win because I'm female.”

I recognize the importance of the the first serious female presidential candidate. I personally am glad we had one. But even in such an historic campaign you come off as a sore loser if it comes down to the end, you lose, and all you can says is, “NOT FAIR, NOR FAIR, NOT FAIR.” No matter what sex you are.

I give props to Hillary for pulling out of this swan dive into the pavement she started to perform the night it became clear that she had lost. I don't know how much of the credit for this I should give to her and how much to the dozens of peers who called her up and told her she must stop it. But her followers are still trumpeting their nonsense that because Obama happened to be the one that beat “the chosen one” they will vote to overturn Roe v Wade before they would ever vote for him.

What kind of mindset could even contemplate that except a very petty and spiteful one.

I'm puzzled that some of you are responding to arguments I didn't make

What arguments did you make? That some of the coverage of Hillary's campaign was sexist? We agree. Is there a broader point I'm missing?

What offend me most is the pervasive, unacknowledged assumptions about how a female candidate for the presidency ought to comport herself —- and the absolutely clear inference that there is, quite literally, no way she can win.

And what was the inference we were supposed to make when everyone said her campaign was unstoppable?

Did she persist in trying to get elected even after the media were sure that — with Florida and Michigan discounted — she could never, never win? She was ‘ruthless’, a female juggernaut who would ride down everything in her path and stop at nothing. This framing of Hillary has been repeated so often people accept it as if it were a fact rather than a frame.

She refused to concede even after the last elections results were in. She said she wasn't going to “decide” anything that night as if the voters weren't the ones making the decisions.

All of it simply confirmed what Katie Couric and many other middle-aged ladies less blessed than Katie Couric know: women in our culture aren’t valued, and therefore don’t receive any respect, if their gifts are merely life experience, intellect, political savvy, shrewdness, and all the many other qualities that Hillary Clinton brings to the table.

Do you need help climbing down from that mountain of hyperbole? Hillary Clinton lost in a close race. Millions of people respected her as a candidate for president.

OF COURSE not liking Hillary doesn't = sexism. But there was plenty of sexist rhetoric in the media. I don't think I've argued ANYWHERE that it is the only reason she lost — I don't understand the insistence on this in your responses. I am not talking about Obama or the nomination; I am talking about the media. Other people may feel that media bias helped bring her down — that's not my argument.

I'm puzzled that some of you are responding to arguments I didn't make and are attributing opinions to me I don't hold. I am also bemused by the assertions that you didn't see any sexism. Really? None at all? Not even when you read the examples that I set out in the piece or that the New York Times includes?

What I'm saying is that, if you were to be limited to talking about only one issue, gender wouldn't cover all the bases, but it would come close.

Very few people are saying that sexism is the only reason Clinton didn't win. But we cannot look at her campaign missteps as an excuse to throw gendered stereotypes at her. Thighs, cackle, cleavage, tears, lesbian, Citizens United Not Timid, How we gonna beat the bitch?, and on and on and on. These have nothing to do with her missteps. They are just blantant sexism.

My mother was an executive in the 70s. I am fully in accord with women having every opportunity that men have. But that does not mean that a woman should have whatever she wants handed to her. The whole, “It's not FAIR!” attitude that has been trumpeted by her supporters since she lost is a travesty to the women's movement. Look, she played and lost, just like Howard Dean, just like Dick Gephart, just like Gary Hart. Nothing was “stolen”, no one “cheated”, no one “took away” anything that was hers.

So many of her followers deluded themselves that she was SUPPOSED to win that they were completely devastated when the same thing happened to her as happened to all the white male candidates this time around. She got beat, fair and square.

I think in some cases (not all, but definitely some) people are being a little too quick to jump on the sexist meme. If a reporter or pundit or blogger or Joe Schmo down the street doesn't like Hillary Clinton, that does not make them sexist. If they pick on her because she's a woman or treat her noticeably different in comparison to male colleagues, that's sexist. Aside from some of the blatantly obvious moments that were sexist (like those “iron my shirts” jerks), I thought the media basically gave Hillary Clinton the same level of criticism and the same share of hard knocks that they gave everyone else.

I hope in both cases, you will protest specific examples, without linking too broadly to causes and effects. This can backfire because of the 'unprovable' element.

Chris: You're so right. Olbermann's 'apology' in the face of his many other offenses, cuts no ice with me. And — as this article shows — I am not the only one.

Mhlradio: I am not talking about who won or why. I am not even arguing that she won because of sexism in the campaign. The ramifications are far broader reaching than this single campaign. If you didn't perceive it, I don't know what to say except what I said at the start: 'There are none so blind as they who will not see.'

I suspect you'll be singing a different tune when the GOP starts using these tactics against Obama (as indeed, they are already doing).

GeorgeSorwell, Indeed yes, I wrote an angry protest against the 'baby mama' thing at my other blog. I will protest just as fervently sexism and racism as deployed against the Obamas.

The media are fickle, now favoring one candidate, now another, but the reasons for it are much more complex than just sexism or racism.
How conveniently some women forget the easy ride Hillary got in the beginning, when she was the 'inevitable' nominee. Her praises constantly evoked her achievements AS A WOMAN. I didn't hear feminists complain about that, when references to gender worked in their favor.

Particularly damaging is the linking to FL and MI delegates to sexism.
Hillary supported the rules by which the primaries were to be conducted.
When the rules failed to work in her favor, suddenly the rules were wrong. That's just poor sportsmanship ,whether by a man or a woman. In so far as it is manipulative, it feeds into the worst stereotypes of women in competition.

This is the conundrum: any physical attribute, trait or characteristic will be used to both laud and criticize a candidate. However, it is not always used simply because of inate bias. Often, there is an objection on other grounds, and the bias is incorpotated into the criticism or unfair treatment. Sometimes bias is a cause, but sometimes it's a tool.

I've been a feminist since birth, but while I can identify with some aspects of feminist complaints in today's elections, I think other arguments do feminism more harm than good., My advice would be to be more careful in linking legitimate examples of sexism to election results. Instances of overreach can bring discredit to the premise.