Kay Steiger at Tapped writes:

This goes back to when Clinton was accused of “pandering” for targeting women in her campaign rhetoric and policy proposals. That accusation suggests women aren’t a worthwhile portion of the electorate to spend time and money on. I would love to read stories about how Clinton is just a candidate and not a “woman candidate,” but unfortunately, we don’t live in that world. I sort of agree with Ezra here, that by simply pointing out that gender politics are at play here doesn’t give Clinton a cop-out. It’s totally legitimate to continue to criticize her views on foreign policy, but it’s also legitimate to recognize that when a bunch of men gang up on a woman in an argument, that plays into why so few women run for office. Gender politics exist, and it’s maybe okay to recognize when they’re at play.

Me: Is this really an argument progressives wants to be making? Women are afraid to get into politics because men might gang up on them in an argument? Do we think that male politicians don’t gang up on other male politicians?

Lots of men are afraid to get ganged-up on in an argument and that’s why they don’t get into politics. Is the feminist argument that women are especially afraid? If so, what praytell should be done about that?

And is the example of Hillary Clinton really so powerful and example of gender politics at all? I mean she’s the runaway front-runner with a juggernaut campaign apparatus that steamrolls its opposition and has millions in the bank.

I hereby assert that if Hillary were a man with similar advantages the “ganging-up” on her would be worse than it has been. The difference is that a male candidate probably wouldn’t whine about being ganged-up on the way Hillary has. Anybody have reason to disagree with that?