That’s not what my link says, Emma. What do you mean?

Yeah! Those damn socialists get to take the fall for this!

As opposed to the woman who was staff attorney for the CDF, worked on children’s health initiatives throughout her legal career, provided legal services to indigent persons as an attorney, helped pass SCHIP, gave a speech at the Beijing 4th World Conference on Women recognizing women’s rights as human rights, went to a women’s college, served as chair of the Legal Services Corp. (which provides free legal services to low-income folks nationwide), created, with Janet Reno, the Department of Justice’s Violence Against Women office, worked with women in Northern Ireland during the succesful peace accords, spoke out against the Taliban’s oppressin of women in Afghanistan, and created Vital Voices to increase women’s participation in politics worldwide.

Tell me, what was it *exactly* about Obama’s “background and rhetoric” that made him “seem more open to listening to…women” than Hillary Clinton?

I could go on, but I’d just as soon stop now. Like Emma, I remain horrified that male and female liberals condoned this blend of sexism and opportunism. It was every bit as bad as racism.

I promise this is my last comment. For most of the people I associate with–and I’ll admit that in itself makes it somewhat of a skewered view–we come out of a background of community activism in areas including feminist activism, lesbian and gay activism, immigrant rights, etc.. These days many of us are professionals in areas related to our politics, though there are still some of us who do primarily grassroots organizing, either working for non-profits or as volunteers. I should be clear we were not all in support of O’bama.

To borrow from the language of those who began the 1960′s and 70′s focus on social history, for many of us our politics were based on focusing from the bottom up. In Obama’s background as a community organizer, I think many of us saw someone whose background and rhetoric seemed more opened to listening to voices of those disempowered–including women.

As for the sexism directed at Clinton I don’t think people ignored this, but unlike what think what you are saying, we were less sure this was coming direcetly from Obama and forces he controlled. For many of us the choice between a the first (of those who had a chance of winning) African American candidate and woman candidate this was a tough issue. I think we all struggled with this choice and most of the people I know came down on the side of Obama, but for reasons I sincerely don’t believe were for ignoring sexism.

I think that’s true. What puzzles me, and puzzles me still, is how anybody could support somebody who woman-bashed?

I don’t mean to call you out, I really don’t, so this is not about what you’ve written here, but is a general statement of primary dynamics.

I do the comparator thing: HRC was widely supposed to have race-baited during the primaries and, as a result, it was widely believed that she should have lost all of her support and that the only people who continued to support her were racists.

Obama was less widely supposed* to have gender-baited during the primaries. But there was never any “as a result” for him and it was never supposed, much less baldly stated, that the people who continued to support him were misogynists.

It bothers me. It will continue to bother me. And I’m not the least bit defensive or worried about it bothering me. And so I’ll continue to talk about it. And what would make me really, really happy is if me continuing to talk about it got one person to admit: “Hey, I know Obama gender-baited during the campaign. But I supported him anyway because other things are more important to me than gender equality.” At least then it would all be out on the table.

*I believe he did. I believe he still does.

Speaking as a lawyer, Rezko was a client of Obama’s firm, Obama did work for Rezko and billed him. Rezko was a client of Obama’s.