Through his now infamous “bitterness” remark, Barack Obama expressed overt condescension toward and subtle contempt for the working and middle class residents of “middle America” by suggesting that their religion is born of “frustration” and “bitterness.” Consequently, Hillary Clinton excoriated him. But what does she really think of these people?

Clinton is a feminist. Feminism admits of many variations, it is true, but feminists tend to share in common the belief that women, solely by virtue of being women, have been and continue to be denied the equal treatment in America that has always been accorded men. Some feminists think that the framework of institutions that comprises American life, being incorrigibly “sexist,” the legacy of the oppressive “patriarchy” that saturates our history, needs to be abolished and began anew, for “sexism” isn’t merely a defect of our institutions, but a grave moral disorder that infects them. Others, while sharing the view that “sexism” is “systemic” or “institutionalized,” propose corrective measures that, while dramatic, are less radical. Regardless of the type of feminism to which she subscribes, that Clinton is a feminist is well known. As such, she shares the belief of her fellow feminists that the United States is a sexist society, even if she may not believe that it is irredeemably so. Because of this, she believes, as they do, that in order to defeat “sexism,” we must defeat the mentality that perpetuates it, precisely the kind of mentality that is nowhere more on display than throughout the sort of “small towns” to which Obama referred.

Clinton identifies herself as a woman of faith, a Christian, and admonishes Obama for his suggestion that the religiosity of “middle America” is born of frustration. Obama has had some (though not nearly enough) questions posed to him about his faith. Maybe now Clinton needs to be asked some questions as well. For example, the Bible is replete with language and stories that contemporary feminists can’t but deem as blatantly “sexist.” It is for this reason that so many feminists have harshly rejected it.

How, we might ask Senator Clinton, can she reconcile her professed commitment to Christianity with the unadulterated “sexism” of this religion’s Holy Scriptures? From where I stand, there are three possible answers that Clinton could give to this question.

First, she could deny that the Bible is “sexist,” but in so doing, she risks losing the support of her feminist fellow travelers by undermining her self-identification as a feminist. Feminists will reason that if Clinton fails to recognize the overt “sexism” of the Bible for the “sexism” that it is, then she can’t possibly be aware, as she claims to be aware, of its numerous yet subtle manifestations in everyday American life today. In other words, if the Bible isn’t “sexist,” then nothing is!

Second, she could acknowledge that the Bible is “sexist,” but deny that it is any less deserving of reverence or devoid of authority for that reason. It is unfair, she might say, for us to judge the Bible from our standards today. If Clinton opts for this line, however, then she risks alienating both feminists and evangelical Christians, for neither group is likely to take kindly to its relativistic character. Feminists are likely to charge her with underplaying the invidiousness of “sexism” by rooting it in the context of time, and evangelical Christians are likely to accuse her of divesting the Bible of its authority by doing the same.

Finally, Clinton could acknowledge that the Bible is imbued with “sexism.” If, though, she takes this path, then she must account for why or, more to the point, how she can treat it with any kind of respect at all. Remember, as a feminist, Clinton must view “sexism” as profoundly immoral. Since feminists distinguish themselves as such by their unqualified commitment to combat “sexism,” this is the only conclusion that I can conceivably draw (if it isn’t profoundly immoral, then why expend so much time and energy into resisting and eliminating it?). But if she does indeed think that the Bible is shot through with “sexism,” then she can’t credibly accept it. How can one embrace a book -- much less regard it as divinely inspired -- if one believes that it not only permits the gravest of all evils, but that actively, tirelessly, promotes it? The feminists will agree with Clinton’s judgment on the “sexism” of the Bible, but insofar as she refuses to denounce it because of this, they will view her as a panderer. If they continue to support her at all, it will be with far less enthusiasm than they would otherwise have. The evangelicals, on the other hand, as well as many other American Christians, for that matter, will resent the insinuation from a person who aspires to govern them that their Sacred Scriptures are saturated by something she claims is an evil.

It is high time that Senator Clinton tells us exactly how she differs from Senator Obama with respect to their views of the role of religion in American life.