A reader writes:

I am a solid Obama supporter. During the dead-end of the primary, I was just as disgusted as you with Clinton. I also believe her campaign was racist, in a way Obama's was never sexist. In fact, while many thought her concession speech was graceful, I was fairly ungenerous with my reaction. But regardless, I am surprised to read this from you (which I realize I shouldn't be):

"Inarguable? Please. She did her usual victim act once she lost an essentially unlosable race. This hyping of a failed, principle-free, uninspired and uninspiring machine politician is really, really tired. She's over, ok? Can't we simply rejoice that she is no longer someone we even have to think about?"

I agree. Inarguable, it is not. But the rest of the post? I am genuinely surprised that you seem to give her absolutely no credit for the campaign that she ran. Uninspiring? Even I can see that calling Clinton uninspiring is just false.

No matter how much one dislikes Clinton, it really is inarguable that the next time a female presidential candidate runs, it will be "unremarkable". I genuinely believe that our nation's tolerance for many of the sexist antics of the mass media has been much reduced. There will be no "nut-cracker" novelty items, and there will be embarassment over political analysts calling presidential candidates "a bitch". Clinton had much to do with this road-paving. That's not "tired", and it certainly doesn't benefit anyone to stop remembering these lessons, to stop thinking about what Clinton's campaign meant for women politicians in America.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.