Then there was the NPR comparison of Hillary to Glenn Close's bunny boiling psycho in Fatal Attraction and the Times mocking of Clinton's cackle. Of course, as the Times points out, Clinton's campaign had flaws that had nothing to do with her gender, and there have been many, perhaps just as many, attacks on Obama's race as there have been on Hillary's gender (see yesterday's baby mama drama).

Keith Olbermann denied that the coverage of Clinton was sexist overall. There were "individual, sexist, mistakes,” Olbermann admitted, but there was also “constant reflection and analysis at MSNBC, and I must say there was constant good faith in trying to make certain Senator Clinton was not treated unfairly.”

It's impossible to say whether or not Olbermann is right, whether the coverage of Clinton did not affect the eventual outcome of the primary. But the mere fact that Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, told the Times that the media treatment of Hillary shows that the U.S. is in need of a “national discussion” on sexism shows that if nothing else, sexism has wended its way back into the American limelight.

Media and Critics Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage [NYT]

Earlier: No Matter What Happens, HIllary Has Helped Start A Conversation
Unfair & Unbalanced

Some of us, of course, are little sick of talking about sexism vis a vis Hillary, because we already try to read everything we can find on the subject. When Anna asked me to synthesize today's Los Angeles Times and Washington Post post-mortems on the topic, I sort of rolled my eyes, until she pointed out that while we try to be constantly on the lookout for it, misogyny isn't something that comes up in every day conversation for most Americans.

Jonathan Chait writing in the L.A. Times mentions the oft-discussed feminist generational divide, in which second wave stalwarts like Gloria Steinem claim that "some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system." While I hate it that the feminist narrative in this campaign has been shaped in part by Steinem's infamous New York Times op-ed (i.e., the idea that women of my generation aren't voting for Hillary because we don't believe sexism exists), I think her statements and the impassioned articles written by other second wavers have brought gender discrimination back to the forefront.

It's too soon to tell if Hillary's candidacy will have long lasting implications on American women, or more specifically women in women in politics. As Ruth Marcus says in today's Washington Post, "If you care about seeing a woman elected president, one of the biggest disappointments of this campaign is the paucity of credible women waiting in the wings, in either party." Marcus also says that Hillary has been "ironically, refreshingly post-feminist" in her rhetoric. "Post-feminist" implies that there is one feminism and that by occasionally referring to herself as a "girl," Hillary has somehow transcended or subverted it. Hopefully what Hillary's campaign has done is remind everyone that feminism is in the here and now, and that its definition is always up for debate.

Hillary Clinton Hits 'Sexism' In Media Coverage — Says Gender Bigger Drawback Than Race [Editor & Publisher]
The Ground Clinton Broke [Washington Post]
It's Not Personal [Los Angeles Times]
My Lady Parts Do Not Ache for Hillary Clinton [Village Voice]

Earlier: How Much Did Misogyny Cripple Hillary's Historic Campaign?