Listen: I'm not a fan of politicians. Politicians spin truth, to put it nicely. They do what is politically expedient to do. And I don't like the feeling I've had (and I'm not alone) that Hillary assumes (and that the DNC assumes) that she'll be the Presidential candidate next fall because she's the institutional candidate, the one who represents the status quo for Democrats.
But tonight I wandered over here, where, in the comments, I got to hear a "feminist" try to defend Hillary with comments about how, "if Obama were white," he wouldn't be drawing anyone's interest, and where I got to hear another commenter attribute Hillary's viability as a candidate to her husband. I mean, is there anything more racist than suggesting that a man only got where he is because he's Black? Or more sexist than saying that a woman wouldn't be a strong candidate without her husband? (YES, I know that we're talking about Bill Clinton. NO, I'm not saying he has nothing to do with her popularity. But let's remember, Hillary Clinton is also probably the Most Hated Woman in America, and a huge part of that is due to her husband. So, a little perspective, please.)
Let's remember that, whatever we think of them as candidates, these are Senators who have actually accumulated some degree of experience, power, money, and prestige on their own. If we're going to discredit them, can we do so because they're too conservative or because they have rotten voting records or because they're saying stupid things and acting like asses? And can we leave the racism and the sexism out of it? In liberal circles? Please?