I didn't get from RT's column that she was trying to make a case for Clinton over Warner, but rather, that the US is still not ready to elect a woman, regardless of other qualifications. In fact, some Democrats may even be willing to vote for a candidate who resembles a Republican even more than Hillary does, just because he's a "man." Around the world, women of various political stripes are being elected to their country's highest office. But not here. Not yet.

REPLY: This is what I was objecting to. You and Ms Traister provide no evidence for these assertions. "...some Democrats may even be willing to vote for a candidate who resembles a Republican even more than Hillary does, just because he's a 'man'"? On what do you base that? "May even be willing..." That's your proof? Well, I suppose it is about as definitive as Ms. Traister's evidence.

The two most powerful women in the United States federal government, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Senator Hillary Clinton, have done nothing for 3.5 years but offer support for the morally and politically bankrupt Iraq policies of the Bush administration. Neither one of those two people is, last I checked, a white male. One of them isn't even white.

When a woman worthy of the presidency seeks the job, I'll consider voting for her. Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton don't qualify. If Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano want to give it a shot, I'd love to see it happen. Perhaps American women could do more for female politicians by promoting people like Sebelius and Napolitano, instead of smearing the intentions and beliefs of those who, for very good reason, are repulsed at the thought of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for President.

It's annoying when "journalists" write something when they know nothing about it. Feel free to like or dislike "Big Love" as you please. None of my business. But I've caught the first two episodes with my wife on HBO because we like "The Sopranos," which precedes it. It's clear Ms Richards has not seen "Big Love" or she simply has no powers of comprehension. The series is NOT pro-polygamy. It's true that the series does not take a hard editorial stand against polygamy, but what would be the point of that? They're trying to put on a TV show, not produce an essay for a women's studies program. A show with some nuance and depth is what they're after. [Whether they've achieved it or not is another matter entirely.]

What has been displayed so far by "Big Love" does not make polygamy seem attractive for men or women. The women bicker constantly like angry sister -- but with one pretty important difference. The husband is sinking into a feeling of despair as he tries to cope with the sexual and financial demands of three wives -- as well as an extended family of weirdos, reprobates, and blackmailers. All this while trying to hide his polygamous lifestyle from his employees, his neighbors, and the general public.

Here's a tip: Watch the show before telling people what it is all about.

I have a feeling this is about to be blown out of all proportion. What percentage of qualified females are being turned away from colleges for lesser males? Apparently, it does happen. But how often?

White racists have had considerable success attacking affirmative action by taking a few examples and recklessly extrapolating them into a nationwide crisis. It appears some feminists plan to do the same. Ironic, of course, since white women have -- by far -- derived more benefit from affirmative action than anyone else.

I'd like to see some actual statistics. Specifically, as I asked above, how often do qualified females lose out on their college of choice to a lesser or unqualified male? Do we have any real evidence on this matter or are we about to allege the existence a gigantic misogynistic conspiracy based on nothing but anecdotes?

Many thanks, Joe. If the Post wants to hire right-wing hate-mongers and plagiarists, that's their business. The rest of us have the right, of course, to draw the appropriate conclusions about The Post.

reverse their previous support for President Bush. [See the 2004 election.]

Such a fuss over such a diminished job is sort of amusing, sort of sad. Just look at the ratings -- it's not such a big deal anymore. If Katie Couric is chosen to take over the anchor chair on CBS, it'll involve a very brief spike in ratings [which will by hyped by Broadsheet as evidence that women should have taken over these jobs many years ago], followed by a steep decline in ratings as the vast majority of Americans return to ignoring the evening news shows -- which, by the way, deserve to be ignored. [The steep decline will either be ignored by Broadsheet or, more probably, ascribed to murderous sexism.]

Just look at the numbers for these evening broadcasts. The average nightly news viewer is almost dead. The audience is old and shrinking and no Katie Couric or no gravitas-infused male is going to change that. It's over.

Sorry, just over.