And there could be secondary trauma to children who were victims of domestic violence hearing a woman called names and abusive language used to describe and belittle her.

In other words, "any woman but this Billary woman" because unlike men, women actually are defined by their spouse.

If I called, say, Idi Amin the n-word, everyone would understand instantly how wrong I was.  Because no matter how bad Amin was, I can't call him that without simultaneously calling every black person the same thing.  To use the word legitimizes the concept.

Yet women have been trashed in gendered/sexual terms, even in the Left blogosphere/media, for years.  Ann Coulter is a transexual, Hillary Clinton is an emasculating b@llbreaker, Condi Rice is a dominatrix.  Women aren't simply ignorant, we're stupid c-nts.  We aren't simply overbearing, we're b!tches.  We're not simply agressive, we're power-hungry she-devils bent on world domination.

And the protestation that you can't call Clinton a c-nt without simultaneously calling me a c-nt is greeted with jeers and howls of outrage.  What are you, the PC police?  What about freedom of speech?   If you don't like it, don't read it.  Maybe you should stick to the knitting blogs if you're too weak for real political discussions.  You're a sexless prude.  You're an ugly fat b!tch.  You're hysterical/overreacting/too sensitive/taking things personally/upset/too emotional.

She saw no significant policy differences, yet she slimes her with Bill's history.  I hold the feminists of the intelligentsia as collaborators.  

Much as I would love to pull the lever for a woman president -- a pro-choice Democratic woman president, that is --I realized at that moment how deeply unthrilled I was by the prospect of a grim vote-by-vote fight for the 50 percent+1 majority in a campaign that would rehearse all the old, (yes, mostly bogus or exaggerated) scandals and maybe turn up some new ones too. I wasn't delighted to think success would mean four more years of Bill Clinton either, or might come at the price of downticket losses, as many red-state Democrats fear. Democrats have nominated plenty of dutiful public servants over the years -- Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry . They have always lost (or in Gore's case, not won by enough to not lose). Obama may not be as progressive as we wish over here at The Nation-- and maybe someday we can have a serious conversation about why Edwards' economic populism, promoted for years by important voices at the magazine, was such a bust. But Obama is a candidate in a different mold.

If the progressive movement, and the Democratic party that claims to espouse many ideals of that movement are hate filled bigots to their core towards women, then that is not a progressive movement at all. It's a hollow shell. It's a false movement, only pretending to be for the benefit of peoples rights and liberties. It is nothing more than a petty group vying for power.

But think of one reasonably powerful woman in politics that wouldn't be treated like garbage by the media if she'd decided to run for president against "the one".

Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way--by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps. As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female--such as compassion and an aversion to violence--can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them.

And Betsy Reed...all I can say is, ugh.

The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an "oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.

I will not turn over an ounce of my resources or energy to anyone or any entity that tries to bully me. For starters: Obama does NOT get my vote. The DNC does NOT get my money. DKos, TPM, AmericaBlog, HuffPost, (and ever so many more) are long since scrubbed from my bookmarks. ABC and NBC do NOT get my eyeballs. MSNBC, CNN, et alia, are cancelled from my satellite subscription. Wapo and NYT no longer get hits from me.

I will work in support of issues I care about: single-payer universal health care, universal public education, equal pay for work of equal value, universal civil rights being chief among them.

No candidate will get a pass from me until I see concrete proof of a willingness to support policies of which I approve.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth
Just data to be manipulated.

So, I guess I am not too upset over her being portrayed as such be a show that featured Bono as an animated turd, and used child molestation as a funny plot theme.

It must be fought by anyone who calls themselves a progressive and a Democrat. Be they a politician, pundit, blogger or citizen. It is a big deal.

But of course. That's why we Hillary supporters are fighting mad and not just threatening, but planning, to not vote for BO should he be the nominee--or for the super delegates and DNC leadership supporting him. We're making lists.

I do appreciate your sentiments, BTD, but you sound as though the thing to do is to start having meetings to discuss mysogyny rather than fight the battle staring us in the face.

Start with PUMA, for example: