By using women writers to bash Clinton, the NY Times — which is transparently and shamelessly engaging in a walking campaign for Obama — is trying to send women the message:

“It’s okay. You can be a modern woman and not vote for Hillary Clinton. Things are equal now.”

That message is just as condescending and insulting, in this day of age of no woman president yet, as the writer’s pronouncement that the women of New Hampshire cast their ballots in an emotional fit of sympathy, rather than reasoned conviction or belief that Senator Clinton IS the best candidate for President of United States.

No, Gail, we weren’t all on the rag, dear. And women can still menstruate, or go through menopause, and use their noggins to make wise decisions.

As for Obama, his “fire it up,” “hope,” and call for politeness has gotten old for me pretty darn quick. Especially when you read this kind of mean-spirited Clinton bashing, and you’re old enough to know that his campaign DOES have something to do with it.

That’s uniting America?

I’m out of the loop already. With such a monumental development as the first possible woman for U.S. president, and a Democrat, could I really vote for this kind of throw-back?

Nope.