Despite the real problems commanding our attention these days, we are forced to endure the rants of the nation’s self-anointed feminists who complain bitterly about the sexism that sank their champion’s bid for the presidency.

Of course, there was a certain amount of sexist prejudice directed at Hillary Clinton, but the truth is that it was infinitely small in mass and intensity compared to what would have been heaped upon a female presidential candidate 100 or even 50 years ago.

Therefore, commentators from Camille Paglia to Frank Rich have rightly pointed out that sexism had nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton’s loss to Barack Obama.

What is important, then, is what the “feminists” don’t say, once again proving that what political hacks leave unspoken is infinitely more important than the reeking propaganda they dump on us day after day.

Before getting into what the nation’s self-anointed feminists conveniently leave unspoken about sexism every time the name “Hillary” is mentioned, we must remind ourselves that their silence marks them as nothing but political hacks—that is, as human beings who, born without a conscience, are perfectly suited to the work of climbing the tree of politics to devour its slimy (preferably rotten) fruit, later defecating the remains wherever they think there is the slightest chance its seeds may take root.

Let’s now begin an examination of these inexcusable exclusions with Katie Couric, who said this on the CBS website: “Like [Mrs. Clinton] or not, one of the great lessons of [her] campaign is the continued — and accepted — role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media.”

“One of the great lessons of the campaign.” Really? But where was Couric from ’92 to ’00 when the most important task of the Clinton “war room” was to demean and vilify women who once upon a time had been good enough to be Bill Clinton’s sexual partners but had mysteriously degenerated to the point they were deserving of being condemned as very, very bad nuts and sluts? Any sexism there, Katie?

In harmony with Couric, Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily’s List, roared, “We’re certainly not going to take this [sexism] lying down.” Well, how much more believable she’d be if Emily’s List would put some of its money to work educating the public that any person guilty of the charges levied by former Clinton insider Dick Morris ought to be disqualified from holding any political office, much less the presidency:

In the ‘92 presidential campaign, the Clintons openly disclosed their use of private detectives to dig up ammunition on women who had accused the presidential candidate of having affairs with them, disclosing that they paid detective Richard Palladino over $100,000 in campaign funds. But, of late, they avoid such embarrassing disclosures by hiding their detective bills in their legal expenses. [Morris, NY Post]

Yes, “early money is like yeast.” Apparently, however, Ms. Malcolm and Friends don’t consider it “yeast worthy” when a presidential candidate and his wife viciously join in the effort to perpetuate the ugly, sexist notion that the former sexual partners of a powerful married male politician are mere sexual objects who ought to keep their mouths shut or be slimed in the name of the nation’s “greater good.” 

Not to be outdone when there are serious political seeds to be defecated, Howard Dean called for a “national discussion” of sexism, charging that “The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign.” Dean went on to say that “It’s pretty appalling [because Hillary Clinton] got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives.”

Oh, Howard, the stink of it all. “Pretty appalling”? Why, then, weren’t you (and every other big shot Democrat) appalled when Bill Clinton sicced the IRS on women who had charged him with sexual harassment and assault, even rape?

Where was your appalled mouth when Hillary Clinton remained stone cold silent while her husband abused the power of the IRS to harass his female accusers, despite the fact she believes to this day Richard Nixon should have been thrown out of office for doing exactly the same thing? (See the second article of impeachment against Nixon, a document on which Hillary proudly worked.)

Where was your appalled mouth when Hillary Clinton lied through her rapacious teeth as she further insulted Honest Bill’s accusers as minions in the employ of a “vast right-wing conspiracy”?

Finally, we come upon NOW’s Kim Gandy, who represents the whole of the feminist-as- hack crowd. Angry and appalled by the rampant sexism the media allegedly leveled against Hillary, Gandy’s organization is funding the “Media Hall of Shame.”

Problem is that Gandy and the rest of her gang have no credibility on the issue because they won’t (or can’t) get anything done about sexism when it comes from their side of the political fence.

For proof, consider that Democratic big wig James Carville, who defended Bill Clinton against his female accusers with the foul, arrogant sexism of “If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find,” is to this day a respected counselor to Democratic politicians as important as Hillary Clinton and an A-list guest at every Democratic event or mainstream media political program.

Where, Ms. Gandy, is NOW when the nation’s women really need help?

Although the foregoing list is far from complete, it offers a fair representation of the feminist political hacks madly screaming “sexism” and wildly defecating talking points from high in the tree of Democratic politics.

As for me, I’m keeping as far from that tree as possible because I’m not one of the people John Heilemann in New York Magazine described as having come to regard Hillary “as a feminist hero.”

“Feminist hero”? Hardly. For me the truth about Hillary Clinton is best captured by the words of Christopher Hitchens, the man who brilliantly documented the vicious, even criminal sexism of both Clintons in No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family and the man who in Slate recently concluded of Hillary’s run as follows:

“Her whole self-pitying campaign. . . has retarded and infantilized the political process and has used the increasingly empty term sexism to mask the defeat of one of the nastiest and most bigoted candidacies in modern history.”

Copyright by A.J. DiCintio