There's a lot of talk going on in the feminist blogosphere about Gloria Steinem's op-ed for Hillary. I don't have a whole lot to add because I think Ann Friedman covered it. I do think that "feminist" debate is actually masking is debate over centrist verses leftist politics. (Although I am getting rather sick of older feminist icons telling younger women they don't know how to be feminist enough...and are they not voting for Hillary because they resent their moms or something like that.)
Its funny because, aside from the issure of Iraq, what makes Hillary centrist is actually her economic policies (well and her militarily hawkish position...which can be a whole 'nother issue). It's a debate you don't hear about from voters trying to decide between Edwards and Obama. (Around early 2007, quite a few veteran progressive campaign workers were having an internal debate about whether to join Edwards' or Obama's camp, I rarely heard of a anyone trying to decide between Hillary and either of the other two.).
I'm not sure if it's good for Democrats that the debate about "centrist verses leftist" politics is masked by "feminist verses anti-feminist" terminology. It could be though, because it prevents Obama from having to run as the liberal candidate (which I'm hoping is how he would govern).
But I basically have to agree with Atrios about Hillary verses anti-Hillary. I make not like her politics as much as I prefer Obama's or Edwards' but her enemies are not my friends.
I don't know if reaction to the media treatment of Clinton had anything to do with voter choices yesterday, but I certainly know people in real life who a) don't want Clinton to win and b) are tempted to vote for her every time they're exposed to the way she's treated by the deeply broken monsters in our mainstream media.