My first experience with sexism was in high school. I had earned the right to go compete at a national debate conference in a far away city through my past performances. A few weeks into the preparations, the coach pulled me aside and told me he didn't think it was in my best interests to go. When I demanded to know why, he said it was apparent to him that the male student leading the delegation had a crush on me and that I would be a distraction to him. I would be a distraction to him...not the other way around, he agreed, I would not be distracted by the male student...and yet I was the one who was not allowed to go...

Thank goodness I had female role models around who encouraged me to raise he*l, which resulted in a note getting put in his file. When he pulled the same crap again a few years later with another female student, he lost his position as coach.

Pelosi said she wanted to know more facts before she made a final pronouncement about sexism and the Clinton candidacy. "I myself find that I get a tremendous upside from being a woman and I don't spend a lot of time worrying about sexist remarks that people make."

Oh. My. God.

What is it with Pelosi and Dean, who also claimed to be in the dark about sexism in the media--until the DAY AFTER Hillary suspended her campaign.

These people make me so glad I changed my party registration, but they're making it so hard to support their (hand-picked) nominee.

The victimization as sited by Pelosi  and the inability to scientifically speak to the impact of sexism in Clinton's run is nothing more than political doublespeak or just outright stupidity, neither bodes well as an example of women in politics. First, she claims to be a victim, and its an accepted given, yet she needs to know the  facts before she can speak to the impact of sexism in Clinton's run. Where has this woman been for the last year and a half?

The obvious question of the Democratic leadership after Clinton's treatment was: why didn't you speak out against the sexism and misogyny?

Answer: because sexism and misogyny are no big deal.

People keep saying that McCain is so terrible on policy that no one should vote for him. But why should anyone vote for Democrats like these, who only undermine the relatively smallish progress we have made over the decades on sexism?

Genuine progressives have no party anymore. That's the simple truth.

Why would it be so terrible to punish the Democratic Party into being a decent party -- a party a progressive might support -- by denying them our votes?

I'll tell you one thing that will certainly get the Democratic Party to listen to our complaints: play an important role -- if merely the passive one of not going out to vote for Obama -- in bringing the sneering, sexism-tolerating, Obama wing of the Party down in November 2008. That's a lesson they will certainly understand.

Obama had the same problem - sort of - with respect to the Bill Clinton presidency.  To say nice things about it might have attached to his opponent, so he wither never said anything and pretended we had no president those 8 years, or, when he could, he lumped Bill in with the errors of past, Republican presidents.

What Nanacy doesn't seem to get is that the issue is not whether someone is personally offended; this isn't something that can, or should, be handled with one of those weaselly apologies where one person is sorry about something only if someone else was offended or hurt by it - it places all the burden on others, and none on the "perpetrator."  I really really hate that.

If no one had stood up for racial equality, and had taken the Pelosi position that it was all just much ado about nothing, how much progress on that front does anyone think there would have been in the last 50 years?

As a woman, I am willing to stand up for myself, to speak out on my own behalf and on behalf of others, to call people on their sexism.  I am not willing to elect people to legislative positions, who have the ability to move us forward in areas that affect women, but who choose to pretend that nothing needs to be done.  There is something very insidious about the attitude that if we have to complain about something, that must mean we don't see ourselves as equal - so we should just shut up and get over ourselves.

Hillary alone seems to bring out these vicious, blatant sexist assaults while other women in politics - not a shrinking violet among them - are subject to whatever persistent sexism is free-floating in society but not to the utter vitriol and unreasoning assaults she is.

I suggest this is a result more of the RW's propaganda campaign against her for the past 15 years that has created such high negatives for her. This negativity that has been created around her then gives free rein to the latent sexism that wouldn't be thrown at anyone else, even if it continues to operate in the background and influence voting behavior in quiet ways. Sexism is used as a weapon against her because the negativity is so profound that it gives license that is not freely expressed against other women.

All the excitement I was feeling at seeing the first female SOTH evaporated when she said that impeachment was off the table.

If nobody ever complained, women and blacks would still not be voting.

One female four-star general and a female Speaker don't even begin to demonstrate equality.  

to characterize her behavior on this issue as "deciding not to complain" is hare-brained. she is not just "deciding not to complain," she is invalidating complaint.

 I'm interested in reading, in a year or so, a complete, relatively objective account of the role of gender (and race) in the primaries, but until then my own observations:

 1. It would be difficult to divorce sexism from much Clinton bashing.  Nevertheless, there are criticisms of Senator Clinton that are entirely unrelated to her gender.  

 2.  It seems that many prominent politicians get where they are through name recognition and connections.  Senator Clinton, it seems fair to say, would not have had the chance to run for the senate (in a state where she had not lived, no less) without it.  This also applies to Pelosi.  Doesn't really apply to Senator Boxer, who has been a very consistent liberal voice and did it largely on her own. So on this point, color me a bit skeptical.

 I'm not denying Senator Clinton's accomplishments or the presence of sexism in the media and the US in general.  But I doubt anyone here is really prepared to have an honest discussion about it, or to objectively evaluate what Pelosi said.  If you want to demonize her for her many shortcomings as a politician, I say feel free.  But I don't think she deserves it here.

My respect for her totally diminished as soon as as she was hinting at Hillary to pack it up, and then she really got to me when she flatly said that the Dream Ticket will not, and should not happen.

Nevermind that she refused to take W. and his cronies on after taking the House seat; I was willing to close an eye, hoping she would wield her powers and lead more substantive efforts with her fellow Congressmen.

Now, throwing Hillary under the bus in the Spring wasn't enough for her. She yanks Sen. Clinton, slaps her around and then tosses her right back under with these absurd remarks.