After lamenting Jon Stewart's "sexist riffs against Hillary Clinton" and a "compilation of venomous idiocies, most but not all from Fox News" the Inquirer's Chris Satullo opines that sexism alone was not what defeated Hillary Clinton:

...though Clinton was targeted by sexists, she didn't lose because of that. She lost because Obama was a candidate of equal appeal who ran a better race, with fewer errors and less arrogance. The engines of his victory were well-educated liberals and the idealistic young. Is either group a bastion of sexism?

I'm having a bit of trouble with what comes next. Satullo believes Hillary should not be Obama's running mate because Hillary is "anathema" to the independents, and besides, Hillary fans are like "Eagles fans" who always get over their silly quintessential male behavior:

Second, she should not be Obama's running mate. Some think picking her is the only way he can win. I think it's the only way he can lose. She is anathema to many of the independents whom Obama can pull into his column, particularly if John McCain continues the painful ineptitude of his last TV speech.

That group of swing voters will prove far larger than the number of Clintonistas who will follow through on current vows to snub Obama.

That prediction, to some, smacks of sexism: Oh, those emotional women, they'll come to their senses.

Actually, we're talking quintessential male behavior here: overreaction to painful defeat, producing fierce vows of renunciation that evaporate over time. Think: Eagles fan.

I'm not as much of an Eagles fan as I perhaps should be, and I've tried to explain the complex personal dynamics involved in deciding which athletic teams I should support, as well as what degree of enthusiasm is permissible. So I'm probably not qualified to make pronouncements about their behavior. Still, I think it's worth examining whether "overreaction to painful defeat, producing fierce vows of renunciation that evaporate over time" is "quintessentially male."

Is it?

According to a recent study, "Men Have A Harder Time Forgiving Than Women Do":

ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2008) -- Forgiveness can be a powerful means to healing, but it does not come naturally for both sexes. Men have a harder time forgiving than women do, according to Case Western Reserve University psychologist Julie Juola Exline. But that can change if men develop empathy toward an offender by seeing they may also be capable of similar actions. Then the gender gap closes, and men become less vengeful.

In seven forgiveness-related studies Exline conducted between 1998 through 2005 with more than 1,400 college students, gender differences between men and women consistently emerged. When asked to recall offenses they had committed personally, men became less vengeful toward people who had offended them. Women reflecting on personal offenses, and beginning at a lower baseline for vengeance, exhibited no differences in levels of unforgiving. When women had to recall a similar offense in relation to the other's offense, women felt guilty and tended to magnify the other's offense.

"The gender difference is not anything that we predicted. We actually got aggravated, because we kept getting it over and over again in our studies," said Exline. "We kept trying to explain it away, but it kept repeating in the experiments."

Or does Satullo have in mind these guys?

(Not the first time I've asked....)

But they're supposed to be Obama's quintessentially male supporters, right? If their anger dissipates like that of an Eagles fan, then why couldn't they be expected to easily get over having Hillary on the number two spot?

Obviously, I'm not getting something. If men are more likely to blow up, but more likely to forgive, that would seem to be an argument for putting Hillary on the ticket, and not keeping her off.

Or is the argument that today's feminist Democrats are like Eagles fans, but independent voters (presumably men) hold a grudge?

I really want to understand this, but I'm more confused than ever.