If women really wanted to elect a woman President, they could, based on the fact that there are more women voters than there are men voters - so why hasn't it happened? Would Democrats vote for Rice? Would Republicans vote for Hillary - based merely on gender - and if they didn't is that sexism? We all know the answer to that. While I do believe that blacks would line up for Obama, would racism prevent white liberals from pulling the trigger for this man? and would it be racist for conservative Republicans to vote against him? I don't think so. Maybe, instead of playing these kind of silly games, liberals (and conservatives) should worry about finding good candidates to run for office - that's far more important than identity politics which probably mean very little on the national level.

I think - I hope - that race and gender do not become an issue in the primary cycle, should Obama and Clinton run for the Democratic nomination. Religion didn't become a significant factor in Leiberman's candidacy for VP in 2000. So I have great hope that the Democratic Party will vote on the merits of each candidate without concern for their race or gender. I think such a race will come down to political experience, likability and charisma. Maybe even, dare I say it, ideas.

Now, will it come up in the general? Sadly, yes. The slash and burn politics of the Grand Old Party relies on playing on the fears of the constituency. Given their firm base in the Old South, this means the race card and the gender card will be front and center. I just hope some crazy-ass klansman doesn't shoot Barack.

Republicans will never crudely spin this in terms of gender or race. They will use words like 'maturity', 'experience'. But we will all know what they really mean. See Americans don't want to have to defend to one another their support of non white non protestant non male candidates.

It really isn't particularly useful to compare in generalities whether the country is ready for a black or female President. Specific candidates are going to be on the primary ballots, not gender or races.

With that being the case, I am going to support just about any democrat before Hillary Clinton.

I don't want only members of two families occupy the Presidency for over 20 years. Hillary Clinton winning in 2008 would setup the very real possibilty of that happening for over 30 years (if Jeb Bush runs in 2012 or 2016). Despite how much I like Hillary and Bill, that possibility disturbs me deeply.

So though I would love to see a female President, I won't support Hillary in 2008. I also hope Obama doesn't run, because I don't think that he is ready.

When people started being troubled by the fact that only 42% of college students are male, we were shown a study that said, "there's no boy crisis in education." Why? Because the disparity in men's and women's college enrollments is mostly explained by differences in black and hispanic male/female enrollment levels. In other words, the "boy crisis" is just a "black and hispanic boy crisis," so there's no problem. I mean, why complain about something if the only ones who suffer are black and hispanic males?

Feminists thought this was just fine. For example, Broadsheet and "feminist" Broadsheet posters fell all over themselves telling us that the study "debunked" the "myth."

So what's the deal with the racism vs. sexism thing. If you're clever and unprincipled enough, you can do both.

Obama is half-white. On a different note, remember that black men won the right to vote in the US 50 years before white women did.

As you've noted in an earlier story, the contextual pre-spin put on questions posed to young women changed their stated preference for a field of academic study.

Not suggesting that the name Hillary should be proceeded by "warm and cuddly". But surely Clinton's less-than-stereotypically feminine affect can be characterized as something more aspirational than a cold piece of sedimentary rock.

How about "smart and savvy Senator"? You know - like a good role model?

Not voting for a candidate because of their race or sex is just as bad as voting for them because of their race or sex. Both attitudes are equally sexist/racist.

The popular feminist notion that women should fall in line behind a female candidate is pure sexism.

For some reason group think notions like "it's our gender's turn" or "we need diversity in the white house" obscure this simple logic. The New York Times article was just as guilty of this, implying that a non-white male candidate would be preferable. Why exactly? For a change? Hello! It's a presidential election. How about focusing on real qualifications, and not skin color/gender.

(For what it's worth, I'm thinking of jumping on the Obama bandwagon, after I read his book, because he seems like a great candidate. I also like him because he's young, and when it comes to politics I'm a bit ageist.)

No fair

Obama is half-white. On a different note, remember that black men won the right to vote in the US 50 years before white women did.

-- A-Bomb

Yes, but black people weren't really guaranteed the right until 40+ years after (white) women had it.

Robert, interesting point but the reason feminists say it's not a boy crisis is because the crisis among Latino, black and poor males has been going on for many years. It's always been a problem or "crisis" but when it's called a "boy crisis" people assume it's about white males.

I will vote for Clinton, Obama, or Clinton/Obama. Clinton first because we're ready for a woman president in 2008. I think the US will be ready for a black president in 2012 or 1016 but in 2008 I would fear for Obama's life.