Ms. Katz,

I'm confused. I didn't think Ms. Gay was questioning the role Ms. Obama is defining for herself at all. It seemed as if she was questioning the idea that our society continues to be more comfortable with women when they operate in their traditional gender role. What Palin, Clinton, Pelosi and Sotomayor share is that they all operate outside of those roles, and have all been greeted with varying degrees of hositility as a result. Not coincidentally, it is the same hosility the now-first lady faced during the campaign, when it was unclear to some whether she would play a more traditional role should her husband be elected.

Now that she has accepted that role, (This weekend's NYT piece on the first couple makes clear that the Obamas understand there is a political reality to her positiion.) she is venerated and held up as a role model, even as those other women publically face the challenges familar to so many women who quietly challenge tradition every day.

The questions aren't for Ms. Obama; they are for the rest of us.

As for the rest of it, if Ms. Gay left you asking questions and wanting more, than she did what I have come to expect from my favorite columists... not provide me with answers, but rather provoke me to ask the questions.

I enjoyed the column.

OK, I'm supposed to be telecommuting today, but have been drawn back to these comments sections as I dwell unceasingly on my crushing defeat in this contest.....and I can't help commenting on the posting made by GHF_LRL TD.

I kept thinking about this comment as I did my afternoon workout, and smiled as it reminded of something I read, and can't recall just where. The story itself, and the circumstances surrounding it are far from funny: In the antebellum south, a slave was punished, I think for trying to run away. And the punishment he got was that he was forced to sit at the dinner table with the master and his family. And you have to use your imagination to see how humiliating that would have been for this poor man, in ragged clothes, no table manners, being stared at by his "betters", socially superior in every way--and how he would have been made ever more conscious of his low station and the hopelessness that it would ever change.

GHF's posting with all of his references to "the cocktail circuit" reminded me of the above story, as it was something of what I had imagined I might feel like if I'd actually won this contest....IMAGINE: GHF, being forced as the new pundit to actually be a part of the Washington Scene! I have to say here, as a rural girl, that after working so hard to get into this smaller pair of blue jeans, I frankly am not getting back out of them, even for George Will. I don't think I said that properly.....But seriously, IMAGINE, being caught at a cocktail party and having to listen to William Kristol rhapsodizing endlessly about his boat trip to discover Sarah Palin....
or possibly having to stand, in a scratchy Men's Mart suit with the wrong tie, and your Chinese shoes ...and keeping a forced smile on your face as you listen to members of the Washington Post deliberate, in all seriousness, over just who they should award "their"(oh, coveted) Nobel peace prize.....Happily the Polanski story seems to have died down a bit as of this writing.....but, Afghanistan looms large... I'm less worried about what I'd have to say than what I'd have to be polite enough to listen to...and I live in a part of the country where we don't dress up except for state funerals....and even there the men tend to wear their work boots and bibs under the suit jacket--justin case they have to break loose to get to a calfing in a hurry...

So, while it is truly unfortunate that nobody pointed out the nobel winner exception clause in the rules to Dr. Richter, and that some of the other winners have actually worked or achieved---gasp!--in the field of journalism or other worthy endeavors---and, alas, some of these folks inadvertently sent in stories and won....

What did I win by losing? Only as many words as i feel inclined to write, and I get to keep my jeans. And I was already a telecommuter---ah, life is good.

As a frequent commentator to the Comments to various opinion pieces and stories, I was excited at this opportunity. I sent in a piece.

Boy, was I a fool. As one of the 4800 people who submitted a sample column and a short biography, it looks as though it was a waste of time, and I have the sickening feeling that the fix was in.

I am not a media person, but if you read the biographical blurb of the 10 who were selected, it is apparent that many of people who were considered were; others seem to be wired. True amateurs need not apply.

I did an analysis of the 10 selected, when I unloaded on the Editorial Board (and directly to all the members of it) about what I thought of the choices. Here's my breakdown:

*Burton Richter - Nobel Prize winner from Sanford, member of the National Academy of Science, now working on energy and environmental issues. How many cocktail parties has he "networked with" people at?

*Courtney Martin - Professional writer, has a book to peddle

*Darryl Jackson - Bush 43 worker - is he the token Black Conservative? On the local cocktail circuit?

*Jeremy Haber - Kennedy School of Government? Student at Harvard? On the local cocktail circuit?

*Kevin Huffman - Teach for America executive? A former lawyer?On the local cocktail circuit?

*Lydia Khalil - Middle east token?

*Maame Gyamfi - Washington native - some sort of token On the local cocktail circuit?

*Mara Gay - professional writer, media person On the local cocktail circuit?

*Mark Esper - "I’m editor, publisher and janitor of the Silverton Standard, a tiny weekly." Is he an attempt to have somebody like William Allen White?

*Zeba Khan - another media maven. Islamic token?

After I vetted the group, it dawned on me that the way the choices were made were not by reading the columns, but by reading the 100 word bio's. This is why they made the choice in roughly 8 days, and explains why the first two "real" columns from the group appeared today, 4 days after the list was announced.

I also remember the colunms by Deborah C. Howell in September 2006 and May 2008 lamenting diversity. This approach seems to be a different way to get the same place. As I indicated to her back in 2008:

"If you don't expand the points of view, you will reach the tipping point, and the WP will slide into financial oblivion. Like the Confedercy, on the tombstone would read "Died of a Theory", the theory being liberal elitism."

Really? You're doing this? A competition like the Next Great Chef? or fashion designer or dancer?

Whatever happened to deciding who is qualified yourself and taking responsibility for the content of your paper?

On the other hand, given that you give space to Gerson and Cohen, the "wisdom of the people" would probably be an improvement over the judgment of the editorial staff at WaPo.

It's clear that the judges aren't making their judgments based on content in the first place. Instead they're falling back to the old Washington favorite of 'resume' which is more 'who do you know.' All but one of the entrants have a great resume, and that one is clearly the hat tip to it's local constituency, Gyamfi. A Stanford Professor, newly-published author, a former Assistant Secretary of Commerce (who can't even properly capitalize the title), Kennedy School of Government, Teach For America, Council for Foreign Relations, Atlantic Media, U.S. Treasury Department, a self-publisher, and no less than the U.S. Treasury. These people weren't selected by their talent at writing, but for their talent at promoting their resume.

I'm, frankly, a little bit baffled. It seems the critics have fallen into the trap that Ms. Gay points out so well.

One critic admits he wanted to keep reading Ms. Gay's article and that he did not feel that way about Mr. Jackson's (which I wholeheartedly agree too. Go figure that a Bush administration toady would try to call Mrs. Palin the next Ronald Reagan. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.)

But look how many more words you use to critisize Ms. Gay vice Mr. Jackson! Mr. Lozada spends about four times as many words on Ms. Gay as Mr. Jackson. So I gather Ms. Gay was the more engaging of the two. Or are women indeed held to a higher standard? In that case, Ms. Gay accomplishes her objective.

I love this contest Washington Post!

Mr. Jackson's piece is a a perfect example of the vacuous state of thinking in conservative circles. Could Gov. Palin be another Ronald Reagan. It's possible but now tell us why. To make the comparison and then not make the case is typical of conservative thought right now. William Buckley would have torn this piece apart brick by brick even if he agreed with it's conclusion. Rush Limbaugh would cite it as astute and perceptive.

Marisa makes a good point. If you want to write opinions for major publications, knowing what has already been said is required preparation, part of your research. You have to build your piece with an awareness of what's out there that your readers would be likely to be familiar with.
If you're not willing to do that and follow what it going on with these stories, better choose a topic that hasn't been covered to death. But if you choose something that's not been covered, then you so many words in expository writing and figuring out how to get it all said with without decimating your word allotment, that there isn't much left for opining. This contest has given me more respect for the work that goes into
good opinion writing. That's not to say I'll ever let the regular opinion writers for a newspaper off the hook. I won't. But I empathize with the contestants.