"... why not confront these politics head-on? Why not ask the question directly: What's so great about electing a president because he claims to have the most machismo?"

Why, indeed? And why didn't you do it the first time around, Michael? Instead, you sidestepped the tough questions, treating this subject in a half-jokey manner, as though this wasn't a heavily loaded subject that's continually being used so effectively to smear Democrats. As though calling Obama feminine couldn't possibly be construed as a slight, so therefore you didn't need to worry about being clear about it. That's just grossly naive. Your follow-up proves that it's not so difficult to put things in the proper context, and you should have done it the first time.

Also, you say "I assumed that, in the context, readers would see [the final sentence] as the hyperbole it was, a provocative exaggeration to prove a point. I obviously was wrong." No, we all recognized your last sentence as hyperbole. We were complaining because it was a really stupid choice.

... who are claiming that the article is innocent but we the readers are being sexist--damn, talk about missing the forest for the trees! No, there's nothing inherently wrong with being feminine, but look at the context here. This is a presidential race (like the last two) in which toughness and masculinity have unfortunately played a huge role, and where the public perceptions of these candidates, which is formed more by "news" articles like this than by anything else, is critical. Everyone (including Scherer and Walsh) knows that to the general public, calling a male presidential candidate feminine is an insult, effectively saying he's not qualified to be president, and that the perception of Democrats as sissies has done them immeasurable harm in recent elections. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, and you can't ignore the fact that this article plays perfectly to the prevailing stereotypes just because being feminine isn't necessarily bad. If Scherer honestly wanted to explore the way that these campaigns are subverting stereotypes, he needed to acknowledge the power of these stereotypes, note the way they've been exploited by Republicans, and point out that they're erroneous and narrowminded. Instead, he fills the article with flip remarks like "May the best woman win," and he feigns ignorance about the effect an article like this has in the real political world, just like you do.

P.S. Paging Glenn Greenwald: Please write your next blog about this article. It's a perfect subject for you.

"Why does Jeanne Zelasko get to be snotty about Barry Bonds? But let me not be sexist; why do so many tedious unworthy men get to be snotty about Barry Bonds?"

Wait a minute--Who the hell do you have to be in order to be snotty about Barry Bonds, Joan? I wasn't aware that one has to be judged worthy and non-tedious first.

I'll answer your question, and it's the same reason so many tedious unworthy men get to be snotty about George W. Bush, or anyone else, for that matter: Because the only relevant question is whether or not he deserves criticism, which has nothing to do with the "worthiness" of the critic. That's just changing the subject. I don't care how stupid Zelasko is, or even how stupid I am--if Bonds deserves snottiness, then we have every right to be snotty about him.

You're free to like Bonds if you care to--have your fun--but the effort to insult Bonds' critics and the whiny complaint that everybody's ganging up on poor Barry are getting embarrassing. Pondside (upthread) made a great point in comparing the tactics of Bonds defenders to those of Cheney defenders.

I appreciate the good reporting, but a little commentary would be nice, too. This sounds to me like an idea that's sure to fail and produce some boring football on the way, but stop making me think for myself.

So noted. I think Thomas is great and I'll be happy to assume that she was just conveying the gist of what she'd said. I didn't intend to be nitpicky, but distinctions like that are often the difference between good journalism and bad, and I think it's immeasurably important (as I think everyone here does) for reporters to get this stuff right.

Is President Bush respecting a wall between church and state? No. That's an opinion, and it happens to be a very sound one, but it's not a fact, so a reporter can't just assume the truth of it and then ask why it's so. It's like asking "Why don't you represent the interests of the people?" It's unanswerable because he's not going to agree with the (subjective) assumption. Granted, W. would never give a reasonable answer to any question on this subject, but that's not a good excuse for not asking a fact-based question that simply gets at what the hell an office that promotes religion is doing in the White House.

Like I said, maybe Thomas didn't use the exact wording she used in this interview, but questions like this keep getting used by the goddamn Bernie Goldbergs of the world as evidence that the press is biased, and when the question actually is biased, people are more likely to believe him.

I respect Helen Thomas, and I'll grant that she may be misquoting herself, but ""Mr. President, why don't you respect the wall between church and state?" That's not an example of an honest, truth-seeking question, but of a loaded "gotcha" question that assumes what it's trying to investigate. She could have asked plenty of fairer and more useful questions about how the Faith-Based Initiatives office fails to square with the tradition of church/state separation. Thomas is usually tough and smart, but letting dumb questions like this slip out makes it awfully easy for right-wingers call her a nut.