Posted by WLS: 

A couple weeks ago Patterico took the Dog Trainer to task for its pratically hagiographic article on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and her near-flawless performance as a candidate in this election cycle, while he noted that the author and editors buried all the critical passages about her to a portion of the story that ran after the jump to an inside page. 

This story today does not appear on the Front Page, and in the online table of contents it is listed under “Opinion.”  But it is written by Robin Abcarian, a Times Staff Writer.  How does that end up on an “opinion” page?

This article deals with the particularly newsworthy subject of Hillary’s problems in attracting the support of women much like herself — upper middle class, professional women who are “politically active Democrats, liberals, and many unabashed feminsts” according to the author. 

This article contains some shockingly harsh criticism of Hillary from well-known figures who have decided to back other candidates:

 In an essay in the November issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Caitlin Flanagan wrote that she was put off by Clinton’s “sanctimoniousness.” She wondered why “so many of the most liberal and educated women are ambivalent about Hillary?” Flanagan’s answer: By sticking with a husband who has mistreated vulnerable women — for the sake of her marriage, her child and her ambition — she has made herself complicit in his unsavory behavior, and diminished the very best parts of herself.

On the Huffington Post blog, Nora Ephron described “Hillary resisters” (and she is one) as women who disapprove of her tendency to triangulate, deplore her position on the Iraq war and “don’t trust her as far as you can spit.”

In the spring, University of Michigan communications studies professor Susan J. Douglas wrote an essay for the liberal journal In These Times called “Why Women Hate Hillary.” And in an interview with LA Weekly last May, Jane Fonda called Clinton “a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.”

My first reaction upon reading it online was to give the LAT some credit for running the article, and seeking out the harshly negative quotes. 

But when I looked at the online depiction of today’s Front Page, I didn’t see the story there, even though there is a Campaign 08 story about Romney’s speech. 

Romney’s speech was more akin to the “campaign event of the day” and not a lenghty piece that took some time to report like the HRC story.  

Can someone verify where in the LAT print edition this story appeared?  Was it on the OpEd pages of the Metro section?

 Update:  After refreshing the story a couple times and looking around the LAT site for a page number reference — which I still haven’t found — the article now appears in the “National Politics” section.