it is a cliche that the man, who is supposed to be hard and tough, is the softie, and the woman, who is supposed to be all sweetness and light, is tough as nails and spits venom.

and run with them? is this supposed to be a pre-emptive strike? if so, i don't think it works.

Are we not over this idea that men and women have to behave in prescribed ways? Why is this writer reinforcing a myth? It doesn't serve any one well. Let's do something fresh.

Stupid stories like these are why I stopped paying for a subscription to Salon!

The author of this article is a blatant sexist.

He just reinforced the age-old stereotypes.

(1) Strong articulate women are masculine.

(2) Men who share equality with their wives, speak clearly and softly are femanine.

Frankly men like Obama are much more sexy, and masculine the the "machos" of the world.

That's really a new low. The way this article is framed from beginning to end is insulting. Joan Walsh -- what can you be thinking?

I expected better from Salon. I think I'll stick to Glenn Greenwald from now on.

The headline is enough for me to know that it offers nothing useful, and no new information.

This analysis isn't even clever or unconventional.

It's rehashing a standard trope of Maureen Dowd's columns, Washington pundit roundtables led by pasty-faced weirdos with masculinity issues, and right-wing talk radio.

...OK, I gave in and read the article. What a crock. Michael Scherer must really be angling to replace Maureen Dowd. Salon, stop publishing this crap.

I don't read:

Camille Paglia (since prior to when she left. Maybe I just don't get her her, but I don't think so.)

Walter Shapiro (slowly dawned on me that he seemed to exclusively support the right wing. It took a while.)

Now adding:

Michael Scherer (Wondered for a bit. Seemed mixed overall and could deal with it but really wondered after the McCain crap yesterday. Sealed the deal today).

Just my list. You can print what you want, but seems like a good time to take a step left rather than right. We all have to make decisions as to where we spend our money as most of us here are not wealthy Republicans.

Ms. Walsh, did you proofread this hit piece before publishing? For Mr. Scherer to call Obama a woman is especially laughable, but it is also a transparent attempt to damage Obama's candidacy in the same manner as the Right Wingers/Ann Coulters are trying to knock John Edwards out of contention--by openly attacking Democratic candidates' masculinity. Meanwhile, the Republican candidates are frequently touted as "manly", "strong", "tough"--without ANY proof of those virtues whatsoever (save John McCain's POW experience). Shame on Salon for running this--after all the disasters we've been through with the current "tough manly cowboy" in the White House, you'd think the media might feel a twinge of remorse for not calling BS in 2000 and 2004, and resist the temptation to buy into this framing all over again--but now you've reinforced it. Thanks.

These sort of gender-style considerations mean absolutely nothing to me in terms of who I will vote for. Clinton and Obama are both fascinating and competent. Each as a steel-trap mind. Please focus more upon what qualifies them to be the next President of the United States. We aren't buying kittens here; we don't need to look between their legs to know which is male and which is female. The sort of focus Scherer offers here is no more relevant than that.

You would think it couldn't happen. It seems untenable given the charisma of these two gender-identity confused superstars.

An assertive, professional woman, who just happens to be the wife of an impeached former President?

Or, the young, mercurial African-American man who just happens to have a "muslim" sounding name and heritage?

Hey, it's the future of America!

Unless, the spirit of the lesser of two evils invokes itself, and we get the "Mayor of 9/11", the ultimate Republican huckster shill, re-inventing himself as he goes, and parlaying every investment his predecessors in the commercial media have made.

They will come to hate Hillary "the bitch".

They will come to hate Obama "the muslim".

They will come to love Rudy, "the Mayor of 9/11".

You don't even need to think about this stuff.

And if you are a thinking, analytical type person, your vote will pale insignificantly beside the thousands that will be told what to think.

Thanks a lot, Salon.

Why pander to the STOOPIDEST and SHALLOWEST prevailing notions of what makes a person believable, strong, credible, or worth voting for?

When are you going to do some growunup editorial thinking?

"Ooooooo, we're so provocative!" must be painted on your conference room walls, I swear.

Can't you sense the desperation of a lot of intelligent citizens with common sense who could use a liberal press that noodges the dial toward hope? Half of us already voted for Gore, and MORE than half of us could use a little company in trying to dig things out of desperation now...

But we hafta hear about Bush sneering at a question from a kid (alert the media...I despair) and now ("Ooooo, provacative!") more mindless prattle about the gender personalities of the candidates and by inference, the brains of the electorate.

Spit.

"May the best woman win."

Michael Scherer, who the hell are you to say Senator Obama is a woman? Have you peaking through Mr. Obama's bathroom window lately? Mr. Scherer you have no idea how offensive you last line was. Senator Clinton does not want to be confused with a man, and Senator Obama like wise does not want his masculinity questioned. I think Senator Obama has every right to launch a libel suit against you.

But you forgot to call Edwards "the Breck Girl," for the complete "Dems Are Fems" narrative. Karl will be disappointed ... but not too much.

I don't see what your twisted little castration fantasies have to do with anything.

So far, Salon.com sees Barack Obama as an uppity woman. Thanks for the "insight".