On eve of what might be the end of the Hillary Clinton candidacy (Obama should, at least, have ensured himself a majority of the pledged delegates after the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon on Tuesday), my joy is mixed with both bitterness and regret.

While I am a happy Obama supporter, I’ve waited too long for this day to come, and I am resentful of the way Clinton has dragged out this primary process for what I can see as nothing other than self-absorbed reasons at best. Her race-baiting throughout the campaign worsened my already low opinion of her campaign tactics.

But I have been regrettably silent in this space about the disturbing misogyny that has permeated much of the media’s coverage. To do a little make-up work, let me point you to a YouTube video that is a very effective primer to the conversation:

The words of Edward R. Murrow and the fictional Howard Beale are a little much, but the pattern in the clips is devastatingly clear.

The overwhelmingly male pundits and the pontificators couldn’t get a handle on how to talk about a powerful and prominent woman on the campaign trail. They fell back again and again on numerous stereotypes — from the nagging wife to the emotional wreck — instead of taking her seriously.

Marie Cocco (The Washington Post) and Connie Schultz (The Capitol Times) have articulated the sad consequences of the media’s gendered coverage extremely well.

E.J. Graff, though, might have the most substantial critique of a media that systematically refuses to recognize women’s worth. Although her revealing research doesn’t explicitly reference the present campaign coverage, it goes a long way toward explaining it.