I agree that this is a serious breach of government on the part of Gates, but where exactly, except in the mind of the author, does this come across as sexist? It is clear that he is demeaning senators in general but there is nowhere even the slightest tinge of sexism. This is why people loathe Hilary Clinton democrats. They are constantly straining to portray Clinton as a woman attempting to overcome sexism on the behalf of all women everywhere when she is in fact the beneficiary of a corporate, big-money machine that her husband built.

A-MEN!

Are you both really that clueless?

The whole patronizing tone of the letter harkens to the way that sexism most often manifests in the modern workplace - through men being patronizing - be it stupid shit like getting the coffee, or not taking ideas seriously or even the basis for wage disparity (women aren't going to be the primary breadwinner for the family).

So when you get a letter that is addressed to a powerful female senator that is this patronizing - its pretty hard not to see dismissive gender bias in it.

Was it necessarily the intent? Doesn't matter. the mere fact of a tin ear is sufficient.

Just cuz something "harkens" to something else doesn't mean it actually is, that. I think if Obama had asked, he would have received exactly the same response. You yourself say inent doesn't matter? Ok... well, to begin with, something that is unintentionally offensive, racist, sexist, etc, may still offend, but is most certainly less morally egregious than an intentional rebuke to one's gender. Secondly, if it unintentionally promotes a "tin ear" towards sexism, then it is only in the eye of the beholder as to whether or not a certain comment is sexist or not. At the end of the day, there are much more obvious sexist practices being committed, and this is much more about politics and policy than gender.

Does it not 'harken' identically with the way whites patronized blacks? Are you suggesting that he was being racist to Hilary Clinton as well?

I have a very sensitive ear, which is amazing when one considers the number of spoiled little rich girls who have screamed 'sexism' into it whenever they don't get their way.

I hope the democrats win the next presidential election. But I refuse, even under the threat of another republican administration, to vote for another member of the corrupt kleptocratic political machines that are destroying our country. Hilary Clinton, with her imperial victim-hood, is destroying the democratic party as effectively as Karl Rove could have ever dreamed.

This is the Democratic Party's huge chance to change this country. Why would we want more of the mistakes of our past.?

Since HRC is 'white' the context of racism doesn't apply. Had it been Maxine Waters - yeah then racism would apply as well.

HRC never claimed "victimhood" from Laszio - but that didn't change how his behaviour came across. Ibid here.

How HRC is destroying the Dems is kinda curious to me - unless you consider her too conservative.

It depends on the source of the "unintention". After all, many segregationists had no intent to offend when they spouted their nonsense. They had no intent to be "racist" in the "prejudiced" sense of the word - they truly believed that blacks were inferior.

That doesn't change that their actions and beliefs were racist.

And in this case, it is pretty clear that the Under Secretary is not being dismissive by accident. The dismissiveness is intentional. That he has a tin -ear to how it might be perceived seems very similar to William Jennings Bryant

"This is the Democratic Party's huge chance to change this country. Why would we want more of the mistakes of our past.?"

You mean mistakes like prosperity for everyone, a balanced budget, and a surplus? A president who was actually elected, and who, during the fraudulent impeachment, had a popularity over 60 per cent in the polls?

Yeah, I wan't to avoid making those mistakes again: I prefer constant anxiety and dread as to whether my country will survive as a system of laws.

No. By mistakes of the past I mean the same moronic idiocy that elements of the democratic party has been making for years. Why have many poor white men voted republican against their economic and social interests? You want to talk about a tin ear.

Every time poor white men turn round they are being blamed for sexism, racism and every injustice this world has ever known. Elements of the Democratic party tell poor white people that they are horrible people and then wonder why they don't vote for them.

The next time some upper middle class white girl who went to Wellesley and Yale Law School, married into political prominence, is a prime cog in the national political machine and has collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the wealthy elite of this country complains about sexism keeping her down, think about how that sounds to a white dude living in a broken-down trailer and working for some jerk at a factory he can't stand because he's trying to provide for his family.

By mistakes of the past I'm referring to the political aristocracy that is running this country for the benefit of the political aristocracy. Whether that aristocrat is a Bush or a Clinton or any one of these other dynasties I don't care. Give me someone who comes from a new paradigm and will break these machines before they strangle our country into economic and philosophical irrelevance.

I'll vote for just about any democrat on the ballot. But I will never vote for Hilary.

So, if you are a jerk to a white guy, you are just a jerk, but if you are a jerk to a woman you are being sexist, and if you are a jerk to a black woman you are a racist sexist. Come on, want to talk about patronizing. Equal rights means equal all the time, not just equal when its beneficial.

""They had no intent to be "racist" in the "prejudiced" sense of the word - they truly believed that blacks were inferior."".......Uh... Ok. so if I truly believe women are inferior, I'm not being sexist in the prejudiced sense of the word? Prejudiced, meaning pre - judging? No. Sorry. Thats just ridiculous. There was nothing sexist in this letter. If it SOUNDS sexist to you, if it REMINDS you of sexist rationalizations, all apologies. But it wasn't even unintentionally sexist. It was ALL boilerplate language.

I was simply applying the logical consequence of YOUR RULES, not mine. You asserted that if there was no intent to be prejudiced (ie sexist) then no prejudice attaches - even if the underlying message and belief is based in a prejudgement founded in irrational belief.

If this had been "boilerplate language" they would have acceeded to the request. No this wasn't boilerplate.

if they are sexist they deserve the blame. And the reason many poor white males vote against their self interest is because they are bigots.

Sorry I don't think the Dems should try and reach out to these folks - because to do so requires that they accept the bigotry as OK.

Again, HRC nor the Dems are invoking sexism in this series of letters - at least not publically. Nor did they invoke it with Laszio. But that doesn't change the underlying motivation or how it comes across. And to ANALYZE the power politics of the situation and conclude that sexism IS in play, isn't the same as what you are suggesting HRC is doing.

A baltant act of disrespect? Certainly. But it's pretty clearly a knock against Hillary Clinton - one of the most powerful people in America - rather than a knock against all of womankind.

Kaplan's wonderfully phrased his assertion in contradiction-proof cautions... the incident "may, in its own way, decisively rankle." The incident may provide fodder for turning Hillary Clinton into an avatar of womankind, who can only be criticized at the risk of offending the entire female electorate.

One should hope not.

Degsme - you seem to be arguing that an "underlying belief" to one's actions can exist without them intending to express it. Fine. I just don't think there's anything underlying this. I don't think its logical to assume that because the DOD's response was rude there had to be some underlying sexist sentiment. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the only evidence in favor of that arguement is that Hillary = woman, therefore rude response to woman = sexism. And your assertion that if it had been boilerplate language they would have "Acceeded to the request." That makes no sense. On the contrary, boilerplate language is certainly more common in "rejection" letters than in letters that acceed to one's request. Thats the basis of my arguement - the very banality and blandness of this letter is indicative that no thought was put into it; no thought about including her or congress, no thought about the consequences of turning her down, no thought about who she was, no thought about women being inferior.