Actually, the polls probably reflect that the woman candidate in question is the polarizing Hillary Clinton, thus the lower number in support of a female president. More relevant, is the fact that the nation is more willing to support a woman president than a 71 year old white male.

It seems that 60's era feminists like Gloria Steinem and Joan Walsh are argry that their there generations best chance of ascending to the presidency isn't going to happen and want to blame it on old fashion sexism. The reality is that more young women are getting college educations today than young men, in 10 years this is going to result in women dominating the top political and corporate jobs.

Although a male, I welcome when this happens as it will create an enviroment with better early child develpoment, less violent and sexist entertainment. And if we can achieve this with out an amoral sociopath like Hillary Clinton as the first women President, then we'll truly live in a better world.

It is okay to have an unacknowledged Hillary bias if you are merely writing as an op-ed columnist, but to do so as an editor risks harming the credibility of your publication.

Judging from reader's increasingly negative responses to your articles perceived meritless attacks on Obama, this seems the case.

Your focus on Obama's misconstrued and ackward statement, and your attempt to elevate it to a momentum changing gaffe, ignores the reality of voters opinions. Your latest hitpiece on Obama ignores the fact, that 6 out of 10 Americans polled view Hillary Clinton as untrust worthy, and that like the Rev. Wright controversy, Obama's support seems to have no ill affects in the polls. Rather he leads Hilllary Clinton by 10% among Democrats nationwide.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has gone down, must you allow it to take Salon along with it?

Joan Walsh is obviously trolling again. It's time to start an online petition demanding that some one more esteemed and balanced take over as Salon's editor, such as bringing back David Talbot or promoting Glen Greenwald.

Joan Walsh,

I assume that the rapid backlash against your article, probably reaffirms your self deluded believe that your merely being a gadfly to us cultist and Obamabots (unthinking automatoms). However, truth lies not with the smug educated chattering class, but rather with the people whose lives have been negatively affected for the last 2 decades by media sophistry.

That is right, you are and your ilk are nothing more than sophists. I am sure that you are well aware that in 2004 on Charlie Rose's show, Obama made more nuanced remarks regarding small town red state/swing state citizens tendency to vote on issues that are relevant to their lifestyle and morals concerns because they have developed a deaf ear to eventually broken economic promises. Rather than write an article citing this interview to illuminate the nuace of the candidates position, you continue to echo the corporate mainstream media's deception that Obama was condescending toward small town voters.

Your ommission shows that a) your either honestly ignorant of the Charlie Rose interview and thus a lazy journalist because you did not do your research ,or b) you are intellectually, morally and professionally dishonest (this would explain your Hillary bias), and will not report it. Which is it?

For those interested in the interview excerpt here it is on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M