There may have been some sexism during this campaign, but it wasn't significant and it didn't impact the race (name a state in which sexism may have hurt Hillary's vote).

I read the first comment, as well. It amazes me how many so-called "feminists" (although this one calls "feminism" an outdated term, after claiming to be one for the 70's - because she didn't wear a bra and supported the Children's Defense Fund). are offended because some women are opposed to the sexism in this campaign and claim that they are different from those bitter old feminists who supported Clinton simply because she was a woman. I would think that a true feminist would recognize that women come in different sizes and shapes and with different ideas, and that it is perfectly acceptable to support a woman for President, not because she is a woman, but because she is truly the best qualified candidate.

The media's taste has never been mine.

Good Lord - he seems to not understand that the media-driven "inevitablity" meme had nothing to do with Hillary's gender, and everything to do with making sure she was in the race so they could make it acceptable (media-acceptable, not human-acceptabe) to give voice to their hatred of all things Clinton.

Does Aravosis (and the commenters whose Clinton hatred started to make me thing something had died in my computer so I could only read the first 4 or 5 comments) not understand that we could have dealt with garden-variety Clinton-hate - the kind that focused on her plans and policies and record - but that making it about her looks, her laugh, her pantsuits, her cleavage, making snide references to "the claws" and "periodically, when she is feeling down," proclaiming that she was only in the race because her husband ran around on her, that some women deserve the "b!tch" label, was where it landed in the sexism briar patch?

Would Aravosis have called it racism if the sign had read "Shine My Shoes" at an Obama rally?

Would Aravosis have called it racism if instead of a Hillary Nutcracker it had been an Obama Jockey?

Would Aravosis have seen racism if instead of "Bros before Hos," the T-shirt had read "N-word Lover?"

Would Aravosis have seem racism if David Shuster had talked about pimping out Michelle Obama?

I'm sorry - I have little tolerance for people who are incapable even of putting the shoe on the other foot as a test of whether someting is appropriate or not, or who refuse to do so because they prefer to be able to justify ugly and divisive behavior or language.

If there is any silver lining to be found in all of this, it might be that it is much easier for me to have seen the true - if ugly - character of a lot of people who apparently have little ability to practice the kind of liberal, progressive agenda they've been preaching.

Wait, don't tell me: "no one" has fought harder against sexism than John Aravosis.

Clinton Derangement Syndrom amongst lefty bloggers has been the most shocking thing about this primary. But, sadly, I'm used to it now, just like I'm used to it from the media. Meaning that I've stopped reading it. Is there a difference anymore between the lefty blogs and the media? Keith Olbermann perfectly embodies how the gap was bridged: the traditional media and the lefty blogs united in their irrational hatred for Clinton.

If only Hillary would give Obama one of her cajones, then they would both have two.

James Carville

Rangel said Obama and Clinton need each other -- it would help him pick up her supporters if she were on the Democratic ticket, and she "needs to maintain momentum" as a national and international leader.

Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson told FOX News on Thursday that he is still plugging away for Clinton to be Obama's running mate. He has asked the Congressional Black Caucus to state publicly who they think Obama's best option is for a vice presidential running mate.

"Hillary has part of the Democratic puzzle, Obama has part of the Democratic puzzle. I think the demographic pieces that she brings to his demographic voters gives us a certainty of winning the presidency. And that's the most important thing, and that's why I think the two should come together," he said.

We'll see.

I mean, I saw the way they went after him for Wright, Ayers, Rezco, Bittergate, the experience question, a barrage of  commentators saying he's not black enough, or too black, or that his color is irrelevant because Clinton's going to crush him anyway.

And I'm sure I'm forgetting others.  Yes, there's been good stuff too.  Just like there's been good coverage of Clinton. And good and bad for McCain.  (well, mostly good for him.  Talk about a darling!)

I recall reading that GW Bush always believed that Reagan, with his positive approval rating* should have used that "political capital" to ram through more of a conservative agenda. IMO this was what informed his rambles about his legacy, and history vindicating his admin. (bwahahhahaha as if)

I still think GWB's as dumb as a rock at a spelling bee but it was an intersting comment from someone who was the most loathed man on the planet, and that was while Saddam Hussein was still alive. (The well thugged and well handled media kept insisting the opposite but WTF do they know?)

My first question is, why is that Obama's fault?

It has been obvious for years that Hillary and Bill have been painted by the media as being scheming, devious "do-anything-to-win" politicians.  Obama doesn't have that perception.  But why is that his fault?  Why should he or his supporters apologize for having a better image?

My second question is, if Hillary has this image problem and can't catch a break from the press, why would we want her as our nominee?