Authorial intent--"That's not what I meant"--is a canard. Your piece operates on its own, not as you "intended." You should have learned this in Journalism 101.

Or is this a ploy--fishing for double the angry comebacks?

They're tired of his lack of results. It was precisely his carefully-groomed back-slappin' image that helped him appeal to so many in 2000, and it was his kill-first-ask-questions-later reaction to the 2001 WTC bombings that won him stratospheric approval ratings. To pin his downfall on people souring on his masculinity is disingenuous; most Americans indulge in only the basics of armchair psychiatry. They want results, and if Mission Accomplished had really been so, Congress might have erected fertility statues in Georgie's image.

Okay, Michael, let's take a long deep breath and start over from the top. What makes you assume that either males or females have a monopoly on personality traits like aggression, arrogance, empathy, sentimentality, courage, bravado, communitarianism, individuality etc. etc.? Can't you think of a dozen examples off the top of your head of people of both sexes who display each of these characteristics? Okay, it's true that when we're talking about averages and large numbers of people we can say that as a rule some types of traits and behaviors are more prevalent in men than in women, and vice versa. But the minute you start labeling any sign of gentleness or sensitivity in a man as "feminine" and any assertiveness in a woman as "masculine," then yes, you're running with venom-spitters like Coulter and Dowd.

Do you remember that clown back in the Nixon administration who rightfully incurred ridicule by claiming that women were unfit for civil service because of their "raging hormonal influences?" He later "clarified" that statement by agreeing that not all women are overly emotional or prone to mood-swings, but that those who don't display those traits are "androgynous monsters," an even more undesirable characteristic. This is what we call a classic double bind: "You're an inferior human being because you have X, Y and Z traits, and if you can prove to me that you don't then you're an abnormal human being, which is even worse." For centuries, black Americans were told that they were lazy, ignorant and stupid, and that if they dared to behave otherwise they were not staying in their rightful place. They hated it, and so do women.

What The Brad said. Read some Joe Bageant, Mike.

The right has a much more elegant vocabulary for expressing their hatreds, fears and bigotries in PC ways. The left is not so good at articulating similar counter arguments in like PC ways as well. Under the covers, the argument, the whole argument is that Obama is black and Hillary is a woman. Full stop, end of story. Everything revolves around that and everything else is a side issue. If the Dems had a better vocabulary for expressing WTF is wrong with the white belt matching shoes fat white Republican closet case hatemongering assholes then they'd be ahead of the game.

I come from California, a State that has two Senatorial Jewish grandmothers and a Catholic grandmother who runs the House of Representatives. I don't honestly suppose that may make me some kind of an authority on females in politics, but here's my take on it: it's not particularly a relevant subject. Interesting, in a way that the coloring of, say, police cruisers is interesting, but that's about it. It may be a fun topic of lazy banter over a latte.

There's another point, too. Readers of Salon.com seem (to me, at least) to be consistent in their condemnation of minor, piddly criticisms of the people in power, presidential contenders, etc. We appear to be the crowd that likes meaty subjects, e.g. Rudy Giuliani's mob connections, Mitt Romney's embarrassing pandering to the base, McCain's idiotic campaign choices. Maybe even Clinton's strategic changing of views and the real substance (is it there?) behind Obama's "star power". We are much less interested in Edwards' haircut or, in this case, who wears their balls on their sleeve more, or less. This is for Limbaugh and Coulter and Matthews (and yes, Dowd on the left) and their ilk to chew over.

Reasonably informed, thinking people are sick and tired of image politics. We have image fatigue. Incessant discussion of irrelevant minutia makes us feel disrespected, it insults our intelligence. We don't care whether our next President would exude testosterone or estrogen. We want them to be COMPETENT at policy, foreign and domestic. Write about that more, please. The pissing contests amongst the Republicans (and lack thereof amongst the Democrats) are of lesser interest. I think that's what the critics of the article are responding to, though of course I can't speak for any of them, only myself.

All this is said with great respect for Mr. Scherer, whose columns I regularly read and enjoy.

I didn't have a problem with the first article, even though I don't agree.

The difference between Hillary and Obama seems to be that she tries very hard and he doesn't. Oh, I'm sure that his act is a well-honed, very prepared 'casual' style, but it comes across as easy-going, which I don't think of as a purely "feminine" characteristic.

In my eyes, Hillary is as bad as Bush in terms of swagger and bluster. What makes Obama so appealing is that he APPEARS to be doing it all without effort, pretense, or self-conscious concern. He doesn't SEEM studied, even though I'm sure he is.

Michael,

Unfortunately, the current way most people "learn" about things is via the soundbite. I believe in my critique, I mentioned that I understood what you were getting at. The "Obama is the woman" hyperbole, while understood in context of your article, makes for a very Republican-friendly soundbite. The title and those bites were unwise, in my opinion.

Anonymous (1st comment) – You are correct. People can’t read. (duh.) So go troll elsewhere.

"But I had no expectation that it would trigger such rage from so many of Salon's readers"

As soon as I saw your headline I had that expectation. There is no reasoning with the ubersensative offense mongering liberals who populate this site.