Chris Matthews addresses firestorm

So he apologized--he really just explained himself within PC bounds.  In fact, what he said was not all that offensive, unless you're one of Hillary's legion. She does shamelessly make use of her history and her gender to advance her campaign.  Can you imagine the reaction if Barack Obama, or George Bush, or John McCain, or Bill Clinton shed tears of self-pity over a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses?  Gender is an issue because, as a woman, Hillary Clinton is held to a different standard.  She is touted as a historic candidate, possibly the first woman president:  but why, if we are to treat gender as irrelevant, is gender relevant in this context?  It seems it is relevant only if you celebrate it.  If you criticize Hillary and make any slight reference to her gender, it is "sexism." 

Wrong.  Accusations of "sexism" are no more than bullying tactics meant to destroy debate.  In this particular instance, the issue is not even her gender, but her husband.  The fact is, if Hillary's surname was Jones or Smith, and not Clinton, she would not be running for president, and would not likely be a senator.  It is Mr Matthews' assertion that her husband's infidelity gained her political points that her legion finds offensive: because it is true, and because her husband is her campaign's sore point. 

Of course Chris Matthews has to play PC for all the laxative users who have been bombarding his bosses with complaints.  Sexism?  Yes.  Anyone who wants special treatment for Hillary Clinton is a sexist.