If one looks to the two demographics that benefitted Clinton the most in the primary, the "sexism" card that supposedly cost her the nomination seems to lose its credibility.

Hillary consistently won the votes of 1) blue-collar, lower-class rural whites, and 2) older women. What does this say? It says that both racism (of the former) and gender preference (of the latter) worked to her advantage (let us not forget how fanatical the latter group can be, some going so far as to reserve their votes for John McCain - a candidate whose policies are diametrically opposed to Clinton's. This is quite telling when evaluating their priorities in selecting a presidential candidate).

Also worth mentioning, and often overlooked, is that the majority of the Democratic Party are women. Where were they during the primaries?

Nor should we forget that Hillary did receive 18 million votes... it's not as if Obama won by a landslide, he just happened to win. She was riding strong for a long time, but there can only be one winner, right? Does Obama winning have to imply that there is sexism involved, or could it be that he simply edged her out?

Finally, perhaps if Clinton opposed the war from the beginning, or ran an honest campaign like Obama, or worked for grassroots organizations in her early political career (and wasn't on the corporate board for Walmart), then perhaps she would've fared better. But the mood of the country is not just tired with the Republican party, it's tired of establishment politics, and while Clinton tried to use her name to her advantage, it ended up tarnishing her image (and arguably rightly so).

Unfortunately the NYT did not look at themselves! Maureen Dowd is the worst misogynist I've ever read. Arianna Huffington is not far behind. Their treatment of Senator Clinton was disgusting, sexist, and I believe self-hating.