The misogyny hurled publicly at Clinton by a few was effective only because of its silent acceptance by a majority. For this, the No-Dealers hold the Democratic Party responsible. Early rumblings from a handful of gender activists about the disturbing tone being used against Clinton were met with deafening silence from party leaders. In response to those same leaders now arguing that a threat to boycott Obama would be counter-productive, as the differences between Clinton and Obama are small (especially on abortion rights), No-Dealers point out that, if so, then the merciless pillorying of Clinton by supporters of Obama until only a few weeks ago merits further explanation. Second, the US women’s movement cannot be defined through the narrow lens of abortion rights alone. If the Democratic establishment offers its implicit support to the ugliest forms of sexism against the first viable female presidential candidate, its claim of being committed to the rights of women loses much of its credibility. The hope for many No-Dealers is that if their protests and boycott have an impact on an election like this one which should have been a cake-walk for the Democratic party, then the party will be forced to do some soul-searching and, in future, respond appropriately if one of its own becomes the target of race or gender-based prejudice. And finally, for those outraged that a more experienced candidate was casually disposed of in favour of the thinnest resume to seek the presidency - and believe that such experience is what is necessary to convert campaign promises into good policies - boycotting Obama is not that irrational at all

... contd.