By the by, I haven’t seen the commentaries in question, but I’d be willing to wager that a sanctimonious shill like Olbermann would hedge his bets sooner than toss Hillary under the bus in regards to MSNBC/CNN’s marching orders as to who’s been anointed successor of the Democratic Machine. And it looks like Hillary’s the one.

Also, I was referring to manhood more in a Jungian sense rather than the “brandishing his johnson in his hand” sense. “Manhood” as such, that is to say masculinity just as femininity, in all its complexity, cannot be simply “put away”. Gender, as I’m sure you know, is a very deep part of our personalities, perhaps one of the earliest that develops. Strike at that, and you’ve not just hit a nerve, you’ve hit THE nerve.

Hillary’s emotions are no different than John Edwards’ endless semi-tearful tales of his youth. And talk about objectifying, yelling, “My wife has breast cancer,” in front of a campaign sign DOES reduce her to an object or a symbol.

Hillary (and I am no fan of her in any way) has been criticized for her attire, emotions, singing voice (all women are supposed to sound like song birds) tough talk (women are not supposed to be tough) and more. All of which are based on the singularly misogynistic view of the primarily male media establishment. Note that that leading light of liberalism, Tim Russert, was among the first to go after the “emotional moment,” followed by Olbermann and Colmes.

The hard truth that these men have to swallow is that she is running as an equal, not as the “little lady from New York,” and get past their own fear of women and dislike of empowered women.

If they fear so much for their “manhood,” then they ought to learn to keep it put away.