I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees this: We're telling each other that the sexism or racism that we see in this primary is a figment of each others' imaginations, while claiming that the sexism or the racism we each identify is incontrovertible. In essence, we're arguing over whether women or African-Americans have it worse in this nation. However, we've exchanged so much rhetoric over this that I think that we're no longer dealing rawly with sexism or racism; I think we're dealing with power politics. In Democratic politics specifically, an -ism carries a certain kind of weight. Of power. When one accuses another person of sexism or racism, with that comes the Scarlet Letter, whether that be an "S" or an "R." That places the person accused in a politically damaged situation over which he or she must now reason why the charge is false. If he or she cannot debunk the accusation, the accuser gains the moral high ground, and in liberal circles, that's gold.

So are we arguing about "Who has it worse?" or are we arguing over "Who has the power?" Sexism and racism abound in this primary. They were inevitable given its historical nature. So the goal for some is to make sure that one -ism takes precedence over the other -ism in our political discourse, because from that we acquire political capital. The capital to say, "We deserve it more" and "they deserve it less" on moral grounds. I think much of this is natural, so I don't think I can make a value judgment about this behavior, but I do see it daily in our discussions and arguments. I do wish, however, that we'd identify it for what it is: power politics.