Very interesting analysis, but damn it was harsh, even by my standards. I am an ex-Clinton supporter who is disgusted by her expropriation of her husband's political career. She doesn't have 35 years of public service by any stretch of the imagination, and really ought to stop the lies.

Having said that, as a wife, I can imagine the pain of infidelity and what mental block that must require to keep a marriage together. Seeing her and Bill with Chelsea, it is clear that they would keep their marriage together for their daughter, any political advantage is secondary. Her attacks on the "other women" are understandable, and not clearly evidence of hostility to women, or willingness to run roughshod over them.

The reason she can't give a speech on sexism is that, despite having her own impressive accomplishments, she insists on selling voters her husband's experience. Not an act of women's liberation by any stretch of the imagination!

You would rather be on the side of a racist individual that make statements like the following:

"610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

My response:

We doubt this story will have legs, but wonder if Hillary Clinton referred to a "typical black person," would we ever hear the end of it?"

Nothing racist about it. Obam is talking about his own grandmothers attitudes not his. His white grandmother at that.

Given the racist bull crud that most whites spew after first checking the room to be sure no blacks are present, it is the extreme hypocricy for so many whites to accuse Obama of racism. And to accuse him of racism for describing his own grandmas remarks is simply the sign of a ditto head trying to find traction for a straw man rant.

not tough, not analytical, not expository.

Given the opportunity to talk about the something, the authors went for the snark instead.

Yeah, well, her husband had a BJ....

I am starting to believe a split in the democratic party would be a good thing. Anyone ignorant enough to think that what Obama was saying was racist is probably looking for an excuse to not vote for a black man or so eager to have a woman in the WH, however unprincipled. I don't want racists or fools like this in my party. Good-bye and good ridence.

An example of Obama the unifier?

produced a speech on women's issues that is ranked among the top 100 most important and influential speeches in history, correct?

Apparently the hate-filled writers of this TYPICAL anti-Hillary Slate article are also sadly ignorant of that fact.

You know, it's the Iraq War thing all over again wherein writer after Slate writer endorsed Bush's march for war against Iraq and did their damnedest to convince us that they were correct, but NOW are explaining, one after the other, how they got it all wrong.

The same thing is happening with Obama. Writer after Slate writer is crafting blatantly pro-Obama and blatantly anti-Hillary articles in a desperate hope that we will collectively set aside our critical faculties and drink their latest flavor of Kool-Aide.

To suggest that Obama can pass for white or black suggests a total lack of understanding what it means to be black in this country. This is typical of someone who either knows no black people on a personal level or has no clue of what it means to be black in this country.