and the levels of 'disturbing' just kept multiplying onto each other. So I will attempt to grasp what it is that so offends me about this article.

I must say, I don't envy Joe Biden. The man already has a reputation of being long-winded and prone to gaffes, and now he's going up against Sarah Palin -- that scrappy, moose-huntin' hockey mom who might not know many Supreme Court decisions but is likely to know exactly how to make Biden look like an asshole.

So there is already an admission that women have one up on men by keeping the men on short leashes and prepared to be victimized by the women if they step outside the precisely proscribed bounds of the gender socialization.

Frankly, I cannot recall that men have these buttons on women that they can use against women side by side in a discussion like this.

It brings to mind my contention that the gender playing field indeed is NOT fair, with women pretending it is while they take advantage of the terrain being in their favor. Kind of puts to the lie the idea that men have it over women.

Biden claims that reporters are in a "time warp" if they think he'd prepare differently to debate a woman than he would a man -- but that doesn't appear to be entirely true. The Wall Street Journal reports that he has been preparing by sparring against Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, chosen not just because she "ran as an outsider and reformer" in 2002 and 2006 but because she's a sports mom and, yes, a former beauty queen. I'm going to bet Biden would have prepared a bit differently if McCain had chosen Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

All this means is that men are cognizant of the unlevel playing field. The walking on eggshells we men have to engage in, an extra level of talent required on top of all the other demands made of us, is taken at face value. The need to pretend debate opposite a woman is intended to familiarize oneself with the territory so as to make it that much less of an issue once they reach the real debate.

Also what bothered me about this paragraph is the implicit assumption that just because he is a man, he will automatically fail in this regard. So women take it as a given that the territory of landmines the women lay down INEVITABLY bring men down in a war against men.

Since Biden beats Palin hands down in matters like "experience" and "knowledge of the issues," his real challenge Thursday night is how to not come off like a dick (cf. George H.W. Bush debating Geraldine Ferraro in 1984). Biden might have difficulty with that regardless of the gender of his opponent, but the fact that Palin's a woman does put him in a bit of a double bind: It's not just that he can't appear condescending; he also can't seem like he's going too easy on her. Either one, the Journal correctly points out, would lead to accusations of sexism.

This brings up the interesting question of why no one seemed too worried about coming off like a jerk in front of Hillary Clinton (Obama's "you're likable enough" comment aside). Is that because Clinton, to quote Amy Poehler's impersonation of her, "has a pair" -- and wasn't actually thought of or treated as "female"? If that's the case, then could Palin bring an interesting new challenge -- a female candidate who emphasizes her femininity?

Here is where the offenses begin to multiply. Miz Hillary is ironically both less female (has balls) and more female (makes excuses and attributes sexism to the people around her)

Maybe, but I think something else is happening here: Palin's gender is being used as a cover.

Except that right wing women are not known to make excuses such as this, preferring to take it on the chin and retrench-- in other words they are not whiny leftist women.

Biden is going up against someone who, feisty and scrappy though she may be, is simply not as knowledgeable or prepared as he is, and if she were a man, Biden's task would be relatively easy.

Again, the double bind men are in. If Biden debated a man, the assumption is things would be easier. This insults men who have learned how to scrap with women without seeming jerky. It also points out the obvious, that women indeed use these weapons against men. SO, if he falls, it was inevitable. If he succeeds, time to torque up the battle against him or against all men to develop more advanced rules to find ways to thwart men from being able to be on a level playing field with women.

But the fact that Palin is a woman gives her a convenient defense: using accusations of sexism as a way to cover up her weaknesses.

Right wing women do not regularly pull these stunts that left wing women do-- using excuses of sexism. So this rings hollow.

It's a tactic that might work in the short term, but in the long run would be damaging both to Palin and to America's perception of women's ability to lead.

This I actually agree with.