As I have frequently avowed to all my friends, compatriots, and fellow travelers, in the general election I will vote for the nominee of my party, because that's the kind of person I am. I'm a party person. There will be no fetish of "independence"--those days are over, over, over for me.
As part of my newly self-appointed position as Deputy in the Misogyny Police (motto: "spotting sexism everywhere"), I continue to note that, whatever you may think of HRC, it's impossible to deny that the general reaction to her, both in the media and on the ground (certainly not among my friends, compatriots, and fellow travelers--you've been vetted by the Misogyny Police) has a hint--let us say a whiff--or perhaps let's say the fetid stench--of misogyny about it. I will pass along the following two commentaries, which I thought were right on:
Exhibit A, an interview with novelist Sara Paretsky in the most recent issue of The Progressive:
Q: What is your view of Clinton and Obama?
Paretsky: I'm very torn. Barack was my state senator in Illinois, and I was one of his earliest supporters. I've always thought very highly of him. Here's what I admire about Hillary: every time I am going to walk away from her candidacy, I think, she has absorbed more hate than anyone I can think of over the past twenty years, and she hasn't cracked under it. That's a kind of iron fortitude that maybe we need in the President of the United States. People project on to Hillary because she is a woman. They either hate her for everything they hate about women or they long for her to be everything they want in a woman. It's an impossible burden.
Exhibit B, the perspicacious Tina Fey, guesting as the Women's News Correspondent on the Weekend Update, Saturday Night Live:
I found this on Slate, where the blogger Emily Bazelon notes that "this is the kind of gender satire the phenomenon of the Clinton candidacy has been woefully short on" (see "impossible burden" above).