Michelle Goldberg over at The New Republic wrote exactly what I have been thinking about 2008 and Sexism in the Media.  A quick paragraph:

Of course, Clinton has encountered straight-up misogyny--lots of it.  At the same time, anger at obvious instances of sexism has expanded to encompass every setback she's faced, every jab thrown her way--the cut and thrust of any normal campaign.  Several of her feminist defenders, for example, interpreted calls for Clinton to drop out, lest she cause aparty rift, as expressions of condescending gender bias.  "The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right," Ellen Malcolm, founder and president of Emily's List, wrote in The Washington Post on May 10.  But that wasn't anti-woman or even anti-Clinton; it was just Democratic politics.  Similar worries were aired about Edward Kennedy in 1980--a Christian Science Monitor story claimed his "to-the-bitter-end candidacy already may be irreparably splitting the Democratic Party"--and about Jerry Brown in 1992, once Bill Clinton came near a mathematical lock on the nomination.

I highly recommend reading the whole thing.  Michelle has it exactly right.  

That said, "Sexism in the media" is a pretty generic term--with an implication that there is some kind of coordinated effort, a subtext of all coverage that is intentionally sexist or misogynistic.  I'm not sure I agree with that--what I've seen, instead, are some offenders repeatedly making outrageous, gratuitous gender-based slams, individuals who are paid as much for their "entertainment value" as they are their "expertise."  Is it a surprise anymore when Chris Matthews opens his mouth and shoves in his foot?  Pat Buchanan?  That walking pile of feces on CNN who defended the use of "bitch" as a pejorative?  This kind of blatant, overt sexism is something we can all see, quantify, measure; the more ominous prospect is the latent sexism, words, phrases, and metaphors that are much harder to discern, much more difficult to combat--and the most resistant to change.

I have commented a few times--and since this is my diary, there's no way for me to take it out of context--that part of the "Sexism in the Media" narrative is, as Michelle demostrates, an attempt to rationalize Hillary Clinton not securing the nomination.  I'm not trying to rub it in--honest--but I think it's fair to point out that all the examples of sexism as it pertains to Hillary imply, at least in part, that the media had it out for Hillary and that's why she lost.  If that's not the thrust of the argument, then it must be that the media bias affected Democratic primary voters--if not both.  I'll grant the former, on the scale of individuals (who, as we all know, stay on the air so long as they get ratings), and acknowledge that it is part of the latter.  Still, racists aren't going to vote for Obama, whether the media is racially biased or not; equally, sexists/misogynists aren't going to vote for Hillary whether Chris Matthews says something reprehensible or not.

In all of this, I want to make clear that I reject sexism and racism in the media--but even the briefest glance at network (worse, cable) television reveals rampant sexist (and racist) stereotypes in highly popular programming.  People consume the product.  Is it really that big a leap to jump from Desperate Housewives or The Sopranos (finished, I know) to Hardball and Chris Matthews commenting on how attractive his female guests are?  Really?  (For the record, Chris Matthews says some astute things from time to time, proof that coherent thought sometimes resides in the strangest of places.)

Finally, we have an obligation to root out sexism (and racism), expose it, reject it, and try to change it.  It's going to be hard--harder because sometimes candidates use sexism (and racism) to their own advantage, further clouding the issue.  The fact that we had the first serious female and African-american candidates don't give us much to contrast, because both were blazing an unknown trail.  On balance, I don't think either sexism or racism substantially affected the outcome of this particular nomination process.