Googling "Backpacking Dad" and "Hillary Clinton" gets you an interesting post on Wil Wheaton's blog. I'm guessing Wil Wheaton himself wrote the accolade. They don't call him Ensign "Crusher" for nothing...

It's 2:31 AM. The Democratic Party is sleeping peacefully when it hears its phone buzz on the night stand. It rolls over and sees "Hillary" on the caller ID. It pauses briefly, considering pushing "END" and not dealing with this shit tonight. The thought is appealing but the Democratic Party knows that if it doesn't take this call, another one is only minutes away.

DEMS: ...Hello?

Hillary: Hey baby.

DEMS: C'mon Hillary. Enough with this.

Hillary: Don't you get it? You NEED me.

DEMS: No, I don't. It was fun while it lasted but I'm with Barack now. I made my choice, it's done.

Hillary: You can't really mean that. How can you say that after all the good times we had?

DEMS: To be honest, I started hanging out with you because Bill's pretty awesome.

Hillary: But I'm just like Bill!

DEMS: No, you're not. Bill is charismatic, inspiring, and gets me really good weed.

Hillary: Fuck you. You're elitist!

DEMS: I'm going back to sleep.

Is it not sexist because it's mysogynistic instead?

Is it not sexist because it's funny?

Is it not sexist because it's a metaphor that speaks to you?

So. Those were all questions. Here is a statement:

"Dude. You don't get to decide what's sexist."

Here's a reason to think that it MIGHT be sexist. You can g'an and point and laugh, but I'll take this seriously for a second just to see where it goes:

The metaphor evokes a trope in sexual politics, that of the irrational girl who cannot accept that a relationship is over. Labeling, categorizing, pigeon-holing someone in this way "he's a geek, she's a slut, he's a pig, she's cow" is at once appealing to a fragment of truth, and also making the target controllable.

If they are controllable, they are marginalizable. And they can be dismissed. The problem with controlling and dismissing Hillary using a trope from sexual politics is that it moves her from the realm of discourse and debate into the realm of sex (as in "getting it on"). And labeling her as batshit crazy in an ex-girlfriend sense means that she is not only sexualized, but her sexuality can be controlled.

And that's the heart and soul of sexism.

But I can understand if you didn't really want to engage anyone on this. It is a funny piece, and sometimes maybe we want to hang on to the things we like even though someone else might think they're inappropriate.

Like insisting that Michael Jackson is innocent because "Thriller" was an awesome album.

There. I talked about Hillary, sex, and Michael Jackson in the same comment. I might just frame this one.

Hillary is crazy, in a "politician who can't accept that the country doesn't want her leading it" kind of way. Not in a "girl who can't believe no one wants to screw her". Funny as the comparison is, if someone thinks it's sexist I'm not sure they'd be wrong.
..........................................
http://www.altparenting.com

And it's worth noting, for contextual purposes, that the joke, and Wil's blog post title, was "Hillary Clinton...the psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic Party." It's harder to make sense of why it's even worth writing about without the title there.

http://backpackingdad.blogspot.com