I write in pique. I have been subjecting myself to the recent spate of columns that decry an irrational "anti-Hillary" campaign by Obama supporters. On HNN, there was Rick Shenkman 's POTUS blog, which told us that Obama supporters are nearing fanaticism in their hatred of Hillary, and are threatening to boycott her should she be the nominee. There is also Deborah Lipstadt's piece comparing Hillary detractors to anti-semites. The NYT, for its part, has in the past week run anti-Obama columns by Paul Krugman ("Hate Springs Eternal") and Stanley Fish ("A Calumny A Day Keeps Hillary Away"). Ugh.

First to Shenkman's argument that Obama is able to run only because he is black. It does not hurt Obama that he is black (isn't that in itself interesting?), but that's not to say that no white candidate with a similar resume has never run for president. Abraham Lincoln had served one term in Congress and a few years in the Illinois legislature when he ran. But I'll use more recent examples: John Edwards when he was first considered for VP had two years in the Senate with NO previous political experience, and had only a single term in the Senate when he ran for president (I reiterate: he had NO political experience before the Senate, unlike Obama, who had a lot before he came to Washington). Al Gore, if memory serves, had only a partial term in the Senate when he first ran for president. The difference is that Obama is a better candidate than were either Edwards or Gore when they first entered the fray.

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that Obama's race has helped him. The implication is that Hillary Clinton was able to run--successfully thus far--only because she is qualified, mature, and experienced. That's a curious idea, given that there were at least three people in the race, namely, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd, who were far more experienced than Hillary but who had no chance against her. Why did they have no chance? There's only one answer: because a large bloc of voters had decided, long before any debates and long before the Iowa caucus, that it was a woman's turn to be president.

It is exciting that Obama is black ... yes it is ... but he is not succeeding, as Shenkman claims, simply because he "does not remind us of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton." He is succeeding because he is brilliant, charismatic, and positive. No, he doesn't remind us of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton; he reminds us of JFK and Franklin Roosevelt. Clinton doesn't have that sort of appeal.

Too: Mr. Shenkman, to make up for your slap at Frank Rich, I send him a big thanks. He is the only pro-Obama voice in the NYT. In the same week that he ran the "anti-Hillary" column, the NYT ran the anti-Obama columns by Fish and Krugman that I mentioned above. Their logic went like this: Fish argued that the criticism of Hillary is irrational (focusing on her dress, looks, voice, ambition, etc.) and hence sexist. Deborah Lipstadt on HNN ardently agrees. Krugman, like Shenkman, claims that most of the venom in the race comes from the Obama side, and urged both candidates (but really just Obama) to make a statement to the effect that they would support their opponent if he/she is nominated. Does anyone anywhere really seriously think that Obama (or Hillary for that matter) would be so small as to refuse support to his opponent if she got the nod?

Such nonsense irks me in the extreme. The argument that those who criticize Hillary are sexist mirrors the argument that those who criticize Obama are racist. Both arguments are inane and counterproductive. Let me say here, however, that despite the hoopla about Obama's supporters supposedly charging their enemies with racial bias, not a single Obama supporter that I know, and I know plenty, has made such a statement. The racism critique is out there, but it's far from ubiquitous. I would argue that it's downright rare. Can the same be said of the sexism critique among Hillary supporters?

Message to those who think Obama supporters are engaging in sexism: every candidate gets bashed by their opponents in a personal way, not just Hillary Clinton. Reagan was roasted for his orange hair, his '50s father-knows-best persona, his sagging chin and neck, his superficiality. Bill Clinton was roasted for holding up flights out of LAX while he got an expensive haircut. Edwards suffered a similar fate for his coif. Mondale was pilloried for his monotonous voice and lack of spunk. I personally loved to call attention to Fred Thompson's resemblance to a Klingon. Etc. etc. etc.

Beyond that, Fish and other Hillary supporters cherry pick the particular anti-Hillary comments that seem to make the sexism case. The fact is, the dislike of Hillary is not sexist; it stems from her sense of entitlement. She and her supporters assumed that she had the presumptive right to the nomination because she was the first highly competent and nationally renowned woman to run. Thus the teary speech in New Hampshire: disappointment born of presumption got magically transformed into a touching concern for the country. Voters were taking the country in the "wrong direction," as though an Obama presidency would somehow be a great evil.

That sense of entitlement has led to very personal criticisms. Voters, especially Democrats, love to stick pins in balloons filled with presumption. Too, the very similarity of the candidates' positions tends to make the criticism personal. That's politics, not sexism.

What I find interesting is that the cherry-picked nasty comments about Hillary are attributed to ALL Obama supporters, as though we were a bunch of raving fanatics. The implication could be that Obama's supporters are throwbacks to 60s radicalism, Panther supporters, people who are angry and vicious. Lipstadt and Fish go so far as to compare the critics of Clinton to anti-semites. What the attacks on the Obama supporters show to me, however, is that the Hillary supporters are themselves sore losers. They, like their candidate, had a sense of entitlement and have been disappointed. At least so far.

So let me say this to all the Obama-haters out there: every Obama supporter I know would support Clinton if she were the nominee. Indeed most of us would ardently support her, just as we did when she was first lady. We just think our guy is a better candidate. She has the persona of the class valedictorian. Our guy has the persona of a JFK. She has the better policies by a nose, but must we therefore choose the wonk over the guy who might actually overcome gridlock?

I suspect that Clinton supporters will eagerly support Obama if he gets the nomination, especially when push comes to shove--as it will--in a matchup with McCain. But meanwhile, Clinton people, please keep in mind that all this animus that you see aimed at your candidate is in part the specter of your own disappointment. True, there is animus against Hillary; it's not all fantasy; but, among us Democrats (I can't speak for Republicans), it is only the product of the moment. What we see are sparks from the frictions of a first-rate primary season. It is not deep-seated and dark and ominous.

Come summer, we will have all had our say, and we will have a nominee. But before then, let's put aside the jejune and irrational (to borrow the word used by Fish to describe Hillary's critics) recriminations about sexism, racism, and hate. A civil war in our party would be completely stupid and is completely unthinkable, but we may, as Shenkman rightly suggests, get one another mad enough to sit out the general election. In that case we may all lose and, to indulge in one last cliche, we'll have only ourselves to blame.