I hear Traister's pain about Palin's and the GOP's faux feminism. And she makes a good point about the democratic leadership not supporting feminism until Hillary's campaign was over.

But Sarah Palin's faux feminism is not a new phenomenon. Phyllis Schlafly was the conservatives' answer to Gloria Steinem and the push for the ERA. In the 1970s, Schlafly campaigned all over the country against the ERA, touting "family values" and Goldwater conservatism. I don't even know if Schlafly is still alive.The ERA never got the required ratification of 3/4 of the states by the Congress-imposed deadline.

Turns out Schlafly was right about one thing: We didn't need the ERA to get equal rights for women. American society has been changing, and women are in a position to tip the balance of power away from the good-ol'-boys. We have changed so much that we can judge a candidate on his or her merits and issues, rather than gender or race or class.

Palin is Schlafly's philosophical and tactical grand-daughter.

Conservatives used Schlafly to fight feminists in the 1970s. They are using Palin to fight feminists in 2008.

How does a journalist reporting on the feminist beat (such a phrase is music to my ears!) react to Palin's ascendency? Tell it like it is. She's no more a feminist than Schlafly was. She's a woman, a person. McCain and Obama and Biden are men, persons. So look at the issues, the parties and the candidates as persons, not their gender (or their race).

We have so much to hold the media accountable for. I am far more annoyed by their focus on minor distractions at the expense of records, experience and issues, than I am their relief at having some familiar stereotypes to play with.

I know it's by now standard procedure to report on a campaign by going out and asking "voter-on-the-street (or in this case, country-lane)" questions about who a particular demographic supports and why.

But wouldn't journalists, including Salon, do the country a bigger favor if you told us where the candidates stood on issues important to those voters-on-the-street?

Ask the voters what's important to them, then tell us what policies and opinions each candidate has expressed that would address their concerns. You could do that by demographic niche, if you're stuck on that "getting out to the people" approach.

My point is, the only poll that matters is on Nov. 4. News organizations like polls and voter surveys, because they like to be ahead of the news; they'd like to be able to report it before it happens. A little of that would be fine, but do we really need all the stories about what this person in rural America thinks and what that person in the stands of a PeeWee football game feels, and on and on?

Polling this year has been particularly unreliable because there are so many new voters. (How about a voter-on-the-street survey of folks who register to vote as a result of one of these rallies or street canvasses? I'd be interested to know why those eligible to vote and didn't in earlier elections would register this year.)

Lets get back to the issues. Just list each side's votes/records/statements on issues. You could package it according to what you have found is important to interesting niches, like veterans or union members or voters under 21 or new parents or the World War II generation (the few left). Then let all us niche voters surprise you in the big poll in November.

If every news organization did something like that, or at least shifted focus just a tad, we might have the best informed electorate within memory (except, maybe, for the WWII vets, who might remember an electorate that read newspapers, back when newspapers reported as much news as they did sports box scores.)

The Republicans' posturing over the stimulus bill is an indication that they just don't get it. The times are a-changing. We have an adult in the White House who won't play their name-calling games and will not let the media frame the issues.

The fact that the Republicans didn't vote for the stimulus bill is not a defeat for Obama or his strategy. It's a defeat for the Republicans, who were given the opportunity to approach being as gracious and sensible as our new president. Obama the adult will continue to treat these tantrums typical of two-year-olds with the patience of a firm but loving parent.

And that's what he learned from Reagan. I remember Reagan remaking our economy into something that I was certain would lead to more people in poverty, more homeless on the street (homeless families were not present in every city before Reaganomics was imposed.) The media at the time kept talking about "what a nice guy" Reagan was. This nice guy probably thought he was doing the right thing for all Americans, but some of us knew even then that he was mistaken.

Obama is a nice guy who has a deep understanding of the direction our nation and our economy should go, and the reasons why. It's called The Common Good. We haven't heard that in a while.

He's not mealy-mouthed. He's calm and will not be provoked into name-calling (something he shares with Reagan).

The Republicans need a timeout. The media can help by leading them to a quiet corner and letting them contemplate their errors. Quit listening to their tantrums and tch-tch-ing over the patient parent's response. Ignore the two-year-olds and let them regain their composure. They have 2 years to learn how to play nicely before we vote the rest of them out of office.