Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch’s shop (the New York Post) is, as always, very anti-Hillary Clinton. It’s been suggesting that she is not really “human.”Is it worse to be called a fem-N…, which Rush Limbaugh et al. coined during Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s?

Or is worse to say that Hillary is an old-fashioned feminist, and not an intersectionalist (which, to be fair, contradicts the underlying “ist” behind her two-minute official declaration of candidacy on YouTube)?

Or is it worst of all to articulate that certain Democrats and Republicans practice neotribalism (patriarchy, etc.), and can’t help being SLAMs or SCAMs?

Aren’t we getting too picky about presidential candidates if we say that Hillary’s not intersectionalist enough when she’s clearly a feminist and . . . (yes, this means you — the Millennials who made fun of Oberlin graduate Lena Dunham’s latest mouthpiece, I mean platform)?