On Thursday, the web site of The Atlantic magazine published a column one would have in saner times expected to see at a misandrist outfit like Jezebel.

Chimamanda Adichie's rapturous praise of Hillary Clinton claimed that those who loathe Mrs. Clinton do so because she "offended the old patriarchal order," that her "congenital liar" label has stuck only because "she was a first lady who refused to be still and silent," and that "Because Hillary Clinton is a woman, she is judged too harshly for doing what most politicians do."

The latest example demonstrating why Jezebel has earned its misandrist label is its recent response to a reporter at Heat Street that it would not respond to his inquiries because "We do not acknowledge press requests from men." How long would any outfit survive if it stated that it wouldn't respond to any inquiries from women?

Adichie's column at The Atlantic started out with barely tolerable but forgivable fawning, but went downhill quickly. Here are excerpts, for those who believe they can stand it:

What Hillary Clinton's Fans Love About Her

Her supporters are drawn to her intelligence, her industriousness, and her grit. We do not see, often enough, the people who love Hillary Clinton, who support her because of her qualifications rather than because of her unqualified opponent, who empathize with her. Yet millions of Americans, women and men, love her intelligence, her industriousness, her grit; they feel loyal to her, they will vote with enthusiasm for her. ... There are millions who admire the tapestry of Hillary Clinton’s past: the first-ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley speaking boldly about making the impossible possible, the Yale law student interested in the rights of migrant farmworkers, the lawyer working with the Children’s Defense Fund, the first lady trying to make health care accessible for all Americans. ... Hillary Clinton was guilty immediately when she stepped into the view of the American public as the first lady of Arkansas. She was a lawyer full of dreams. She had made sacrifices for the man she loved, waived her plans, and moved to his state. But she also dared to think herself her husband’s equal, to assume herself competent enough to take on expanding access to healthcare and reforming the Arkansas public education system. She was guilty of not being a traditional first lady. She offended the old patriarchal order. The conservative media loathed her. A conservative writer labeled her a congenital liar when she was first lady, and the label stuck because it was repeated over and over—and it was a convenient label to harness misogyny. If she was a liar, then the hostility she engendered could not possibly be because she was a first lady who refused to be still and silent. “Liar’ has re-emerged during this election even though Politifact, a respected source of information about politicians, has certified that she is more honest than most politicians—and certainly more honest than her opponent.

William Safire labeled Hillary Clinton a "congenital liar" in the New York Times in January 1996. He cited three specific examples, each of which remain lies: 1) How she achieved a "10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading"; 2) Her claim that she wasn't involved in "the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton's cronies"; and 3) After the death of Vince Foster, her denial that "she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man's office."

Safire wrote more generally that Mrs. Clinton "is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends."

Nothing has changed so far on both fronts. The record of the past 20-plus years (36 lies compiled here, 27 here [with some overlap], a dozen from just the first presidential debate here) has only reinforced Safire's assertions.

Adichie's reference to Politifact as "a respected source of information about politicians" is a sick joke.

Continuing:

The people who love Hillary Clinton know that the IT system at the State Department is old and stodgy, nothing like a Blackberry’s smooth whirl. Hillary Clinton was used to her Blackberry, and wanted to keep using it when she became secretary of state. Hackers could have broken into her system, which was not as secure as the State Department’s. But an exhaustive investigation has found no hacking and no nefarious intent—and intent is what matters above all else. Hillary Clinton has apologized. She made an understandable mistake. She did not commit a crime, and did not intend to commit a crime.

Unfortunately for Adichie and Hillary's millions of fans, the FBI believes that "there is a high chance Hillary Clinton’s private server was breached." And "intent" is not what matters, at least if your name isn't Clinton. Just ask the soldiers who have been punished for far less serious offenses involving the mishandling of classified information.

Finally, Adichie hysterically blames the establishment press for Mrs. Clinton's perception problems, even though by the time her column was published it was obvious that it has been working hand-in-glove with Mrs. Clinton's campaign for well over a year:

... The people who love Hillary Clinton see the failings of the general American media, where news entertains rather than informs. They bristle when benign stories about her are covered with an ominous tone, and book-ended with layers of innuendo. They see that for actions deserving of outrage, the outrage in her case is always outsized. ... Because Hillary Clinton is a woman, she is judged too harshly for doing what most politicians do—hedging sometimes, waffling sometimes, evading sometimes. Politicians are ambitious; they have to be. Yet for Hillary Clinton, ambition is often an accusation. She is held responsible for her husband’s personal failings, in the gendered assumption that a wife is somehow an adult and a husband a child. There are millions of Americans who do not have the self-indulgent expectation that a politician be perfect. They are frustrated that Hillary Clinton is allowed no complexity. And they love her.

The appearance of Adichie's column should deeply embarrass all who are associated with The Atlantic, but in this "we don't need any stinking journalistic standards because of Donald Trump" election year, it seems more likely that they're cheering her on. A month ago, the magazine endorsed Mrs. Clinton for President, marking just the third time it has rendered a presidential endorsement in its 160-year existence.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.