I've had some of the same thoughts, myself. I could not vote for Hillary because her tactics were so divisive, needlessly so. But this is still a great article!

Weak argument. For one, Olympia Snowe's pivotal role was media hype. They didn't need her to pass it thru committee and her vote won't be there in the end.

If Palin is a role model for women, then you can have her.

The problem with Clinton and Pelosi are they don't bring to the political table the compassion, thoughtfulness, and less aggressive side that would be a benefit to having more women leaders. Instead they play by the men's rules and try to prove how tough they are. WWhether its Clinton or Rice before her, or Albright before her, they are warmongers. I don't think they are representing there sex very well.

For that matter, Obama isn't representing his well either. Black Unemployement is way higher the the national average and Glenn Ford on the Black Agenda report today referenced polls that show blacks are way less likely to support the wars yet Obama continues to escalate.

I'm sorry I'm so late to this party. Now I have to read all ten essays in a pretty short span of time. But I'm glad I finally read this piece, because it is very good.

The only weakness in your argument that I see is in your assumption that powerful women are criticized because they are women. I don't think so. I think that the form of the criticism, some of the specifics of attacks, are based on their departures from feminine "norms," but the source of the criticism is the need of the opposition to oppose.

In particular, in the highly partisan environment of today, anyone who becomes prominent will come under attack. John McCain had to choose someone substantially younger than himself to be his running mate. Therefore, anyone selected for that position was going to be attacked on grounds of inexperience. Obama returned to an old custom, one practiced through Woodrow Wilson's first term, of naming his chief party rival Secretary of State. While that selection tends to blunt criticism from within the President's party, it also tends to enhance the heat of partisan attacks.

Except for occasional lapses (e.g., "you couldn't have convinced me to vote for Sarah Palin if my life depended on it"), this is an extraordinarily well-written piece. Since one imagines that it will earn you a spot in the next round, the challenge for you now is to wed your outstanding writing skills with more incisive analysis. For example, you might have might dug deeper into the reasons why gender issues trump partisan politics for you.

Good luck.

a mixed bag of thoughts and poor use of examples; the fact that these women are already inpower or positions thereof is seemingly lost by this writer.1st lady is taking her time and bering strategic and selective about what she champions and is still the primary adult for two minors while the 1st guy is running around trying to save this country from the 8 yr idiocy of GWB and DC. not a strong arguement here.

Gynocentrism is as problematic as any other form of ultra-idenity--ism. Exposing and condemning misogyny is fine--there cannot be too much of it. But it does not require blinding oneself to the differences between between, say, a Palin and a Pelosi.

It must be devine irony that someone with the homespun tag "LizaDoo2Little" would dare to question the author's sense of purpose. I'll just leave it at that.

Nice article, Ms. Gray. I for one appreciated your willingness to reconcile the the last election from a woman's perspective.

I could never read your column on a frequent basis. Too much dilemna about what you want to be when you grow up. We are responsible and able to create our own destinies without relying on others to come before us. You must have had an older sibling that did the ice-breaking in your family. Immaturity can be engaging. Yours isn't.

I'm late commenting on this column, because it made me think, which is good; I'm interested in how a young woman perceives older women in the public arena. But in the final analysis, I came to the conclusion that the three examples she chose have so little in common that ironically, one could perceive lumping them together as a form of sexism", admittedly a stretch given the author's perspective. I admit that my own point of view on each probably affected my judgement.

To my mind, Michelle Obama is a woman who is very comfortable in her own skin. It appears that at this point in her life she is fine with a role that she agreed upon in a willing partnership of equals. I see this as one stop of many for her and see her as evolving as the term goes on.

While I believe that at times throughout her long career, Hillary Clinton has been the victim of sexism, I don't think that's why she lost the election. Since, she has proven herself to be forgiving, wise and more than capable of fulfilling her current role of Secretary of State.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin, who introduced herself to America as a humble "hockey mom" shoving her children into the spotlight, has taken the opportunity she was given and translated it into celebrity without substance. She was a poor loser, angling to give her own concession speech, and is now a poor winner, using her fame to bully moderates, including a fellow, female politician.

The difference between my generation and that of my grandmothers is that, they, generally could not choose, inevitably had to be home. I can be where I want, at home, in the Secretariat of the State or in the garden of the White House. In a democratic system can occupy the position I want, another very different thing is that it costs me twice. Examples of barriers are filed in all sectors where women were beginning to excel. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor, Nancy Pelosi, Sara Palin are some of many woman's names that have had to support such a cross.
What now? Why we can not choose to be home? The organization of home, sweet home, involves substantial economic interaction skills, social and occupational functioning. It would not be bad that the governments were turning the home into company, where the persons who were busy with directing and with administering it were receiving a salary.
It is the socio-political structure that has underestimated the housework, and thus to us women that have been passed, with great effort, the perennial and systematic slavery home to a seat inside and outside the home. Whatever is not paid is not valued!
Speaking of what was said by William Kristol,”white women are a problem”, the only colour common to all women in the world, before the purple one, is the blue it sadder meaning. Blue to get the vote. Blue to work. Blue to occupy the same social places. And now we can choose to be inside our homes, if we want, also are they turning it blue? I am convinced that the day that the first lady of U.S. wants to leave the garden and chooses to be president surely sure, she can!

Is not a first lady cast in this role to begin with? If they dare to break the mold they peddle for scorn.

Did Palin not embrace the soccer mom stereo-type as a badge of honor? So is the role of motherhood really seen as a discredited profession?

The writing was good, but the subject matter covered. The point muddled by reality. The result.... I could only get through two-thirds before the itch on my foot took priority.

Interesting to me that you didn't mention Laura Bush who is the epitome of class. You gave Sara Palin backhanded compliments. You effectively said she is a dullard but they picked on her unfairly by calling her "shrill." Politics is brutal. Your feminist sensitivities regarding the "weaker sex" need to be turned down a notch or two. Palin can take care of herself and if not she should just write books for a living.

I have to agree with the post by BarryPopik. WHO IS JUDGING THIS CONTEST!!!

I must also state that I entered the contest with the same impression as BarryPopik and several others…….that this organization was looking for something different. As a practicing engineer who has authored many “PEER” reviewed papers, articles and etc.; I wrote on the following topic: “Journalism – The Dying Profession”. I had originally wrote on the topic and found it very difficult to trim it below the requested 400 words. Much of the research which supported the argument had to be deleted. I have tagged it onto the end of this post as it may be of interest to some with gray matter between the ears and the ability to critically think.

If this first selection is the benchmark for the rest that follow, my topic is well placed.

Furthermore, I am not a registered Republican, I voted in the recent Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton, but if my life depended on it, I would certainly vote for Sarah Palin. She is one of the few that has entered the national political stage that is representative of the bulk of this country. She did not get into politics because it was her life’s aspiration, but for an interest to impart “Change”.

I for one am interested in what our founding fathers envisioned “citizen representatives” NOT professional politicians. But with the feeding frenzy that swirled around Palin, no rational “citizen” would be interested in stepping onto that stage. SHAME ON US!!!….as we have allowed the media, the political process and this country to erode into this abyss.

We Desperately Need TERM LIMITS in this country.

There was hope for the Washington Post, but it to will enter the realm of “spam” on my computer. As for the “TROLLS” who continuously spew their form of vile noxious venom as they attack all who have an opposing view, I look forward to the day this country becomes like its third world neighbors.

Journalism – The Dying Profession

One underlying fact about the American public is they like to be their own “great decider”. They take offense when the media moves from the realm of reporting to telling the public what their opinion should be about the news.

The journalism profession has long ago made that very transition. No longer are journalist persons who practice journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information. It is clear that the journalism profession continuously blurs the line between fact and opinion by advocating non-transparent viewpoints.

“The American Journalist in the 21st Century: US News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium” found that 40% of journalist describe themselves as left leaning politically. This is a purely academic study of the American news profession published every 10 years since the 1970s. An investigative report titled “The list: Journalists who wrote political checks” by Bill Dedman reviewed the political contributions 143 journalists: 125 giving to Democrats and liberal causes, 16 to Republicans, and two to both parties.

A recent Gallup Poll found that forty percent of Americans described their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate and 21 percent as liberal. Our country as a whole is continuously described as being center right which means center conservative not Republican. Yet, the political disposition of those who are creating the media content is exactly the opposite.

The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism issued a report: “The State of the News Media”. This report details the decline in subscriptions to newspapers and audience numbers for network TV. Ad revenue has been down across both Medias, there have been substantial cuts in news staff. That is “NO” surprise, I for one, long ago cancelled my newspaper subscription and would have eliminated the television if not for my kids.

As a practicing engineer, I find my profession similar to a journalist. Engineers gather information to solve problems. Engineers have a code of ethics like journalist. Engineers can be held criminally, financially liable and have state boards governing them. Engineers are regularly disciplined for violating their ethics. That is an interesting fact: I wonder how many journalists if measured by the Society of Professional Journalism code of ethics would be able to continue practicing their professional?

Ms Gay,...it seems you are indeed the "identity politics" candidate. Your 1st piece is the young voter, your 2nd a woman commenting on other women and their life decisions. But who do you quote? Bill Kristol...he's not running for anything, his identity would no more pass muster among "values" (read religious right) voters than Mitt Romney. I'll let you figure out the contrast and comparison intended, but Kristol can and does say anything until he gets to his neocon fantasies and then he stays on the reservation...after all, his father invented the term. Harry Reid says Palin is "shrill"...he's flipping out the line Repubs used on Hillary so often. He's wrong, Sarah plays the cute and snide routine...stupid comes without any additional effort. Hillary, well she lost fair and square and you helped that happen. So methinks this...probably you should ignore most of what men say (including me!) and decide what you expect in the candicacies of women. But Michelle Obama is no more a candidate than Laura Bush was. Hillary is, of course, a different story. She was running, did indeed win, and now holds a pretty meaningful position because of her efforts. Michelle Obama is said to have been resistent and fearful of her husbands' efforts. Images of Medgar Evers and Martin, all that stuff...she didn't want his name on various thoroughfares in urban America. She probably would have been perfectly happy as hospital counsel and her husband a law professor in her native Chicago. She's not comparable to candidates. Finally, it is funny that you use the garden thing to mildly denigrate her. I just heard Rush Limbaugh do the same thing. I don't think you're comfortable with that.

Listen to the words of advise given to Golda Mier when she complained politics wasn't fair to women. "Stop complaining the game isn't fair. Learn how to play the game better." Seems to me Clinton, Palin and Obama have learned how to play the game and keep playing it, win or lose. Not everyone wins, they can't. But to keep playing and learning is the real trick.

Ms. Gay, you choose the fault the American voter and our political system for doing exactly what you did in November 2008...you elected a male to the highest office in the land. Your post-election schizophrenia borders on amusing.

Ms. Gay, you choose to fault Mrs. Obama for choosing to be a mother and an advocate...both very valuable and needed roles in today's America. In faulting these activities, you alienate the millions of others who choose similar paths.

Ms. Gay, the words "shrill" and "abrasive" are part of the language of today's arena...they are not sexist, they are political. They are not hateful, they are political. Your attempt to make a negative-toned comment about a female politician into a sexist diatribe is an old act, and a tired one as well.

If the best candidate won, you have no argument here. A woman will be president in your lifetime, and that is not why Hillary lost...

I couldn't agree with the main point of this essay more, but I think the author held back some of what should have been said. I was surprised to learn Michelle Obama had taken on the cause of eliminating childhood obesity. Every single headline I see about her has to do with her fabulous fashion sense, especially in the Washington Post. I'm not sure how you could write an essay on this subject without mentioning all the stories about how Michelle Obama dresses, or the ones gushing about her toned arms. I'm glad to see though that I'm not the only one saddened to see Clinton and Palin sidelined and an educated first lady who seems to stand for nothing but a woman's place in the home. Can we at least agree that Palin should still be governor of Alaska and Mark Sanford the one who resigned?

Four points.

1. I don't recall men being outraged that Margaret Thatcher's husband played no role whatsoever in government during her years as prime minister in Britain.

2. The American people did not elect Michelle Obama to any office, and would most certainly not have elected a corporate lawyer to the presidency in the midst of the economic collapse of 2008. Mrs. Obama has never shown any interest in running for elected office nor any talent for doing so.

3. Hilary Clinton is a national figure because she was the wife of a president. Her election-winning skills are no match for Obama, who didn't have to ride anyone's coat-tails to win office. She is not the optimal figure on which to hang the feminist hope of electing a woman to the White House.

4. It is not only feminists who hope to elect a woman to the White House. I hope we see a woman elected president and sooner rather than later. We impoverish our nation when we ignore the abilities of half of its population.

I do, however, hope that the first woman to win that office does so based on her skills as a politician, not on her gender or some other irrelevant thing like who she was married to.

I think the "judges" at "The Post" are being a little unfair in their expectations of potential "pundits," especially those who do not have prior experience in politics or have already written a lot, such as professors. The "judges" should think about their earliest attempts at writing columns and be a little less arrogant in their judgments. There is seldom any imaginative or original ideas in the columns of current columnists at this or any newspaper.

That being said, the column "mom in chief" seems to be mostly a repeat of what some other women were writing about Hillary Clinton's candidacy about eighteen months ago. Michelle Obama is a great and gracious First Lady. Her efforts to improve the attitudes of many students and the healthy choices of most of us are highly commendable, being two of the most important subjects to the vast majority of people in this country.

This was so horrifically bad!

The author says the last election said "not you" to young women yet she, herself, would not vote for a woman candidate. She ridicules women in her own piece about the low status and low brow treatment of women in America.

I found the piece hypocritical and insincere - this author's piece does not merit even making the top 10.

I like the idea of including a young voice to the mix of commentators. Since it usually takes considerable time for journalists (or other professionals) to work their way up the ladder to a prime gig like an op-ed columnist, many of the writers we have access to in established media are a bit more seasoned.

Having said that, this piece does not have the fresh perspective one would hope to discover in a new writer. This is particularly evident as the subject is rather well worn.

Of course, had the writing been of better quality, I would look forward to the next piece by Ms. Gay. Unfortunately, this column is full of clunky sentences and poor construction. It's worthy of an English 101 "B-minus" grade, at best.

I don't mean to be mean spirited. I just think a bit more time working on the craft of writing will help greatly. Personally I prefer a better marriage of content and execution than what we see here. Sorry.

This is not a particularly novel topic, but the way Mara wrote led me to want to engage her in discussion.

Pretty Michelle is a woman with lots of carisma and brilliant besides. i have a very good opinion about this womans loyalty and courage. if she runs for a future political office, I will vote for her. i also admire the new strong republican Dede Soozzafava who has clearly stood up to the Conservative GOP who sandbagged her in NY. I also admire Megan McCain for standing up to the rat pack Ingram and Limpballs. Megan has courage and wit. Speaking about the future "up and coming" tallent, people should keep Chelsea Clinton in mind. there are a lot of excellent women with political tallent in the wings. America has some excellent potential winners waiting in the political pipeline. despite the dreams of some fringe republicans, they ought to not get too excited about sad Sarahs chances. She is an excellent example of republican Failure, popular only among the rabid drama-trama fringe. rcm.

Women can never be truly equal players in American politics so long as any sharp criticism of the positions and records of female politicians is treated by many as an insult to their gender rather than an argument against the policies they propose and have stood for.

Mara Gay's piece is one of the worst examples of asserting gender grievances in response to sharp criticisms of positions and records that I've ever seen.

A couple of grammatical errors but you get the point.

A woman (Michelle Obama) who puts her children first; personally teaches students the importance of healthy eating and exercise; personally highlights soilders families; personally thanks federal employees in various agencies(something that has never happended); personally leads by example as a volunteering family; personally has astronauts, artist, athletes, scientist, etc. to mentor students, in schools, throughout the DC area; and begins a mentoring program for area DC students. Those are just a few of the things that she has done and she hasn't even been First Lady for a year.

She is more than Mom - in - Chief. Since this article seems to not have been well researched I think you writing leaves a lot to be desired. FACTS are important.

Well Maya, you've got 'em talking. I think this is an important topic -- everybody loves the educated and stylish and slender Michelle Obama because she is deliberately not challenging anyone's ideas about what a woman's role is supposed to be. And we love it that America and the world love her, but it is a little bit sad, too, that she can't be more than that.

Re the piece on Michelle Obama, its main point is completely off the mark. Being "Mom-in-Chief" isn't a cop-out. It is a clever extension of the traditional First Lady role. As for playing an inspirational role for the little girls who want to grow up to be Commander-in-Chief rather than "Mom-in-Chief", it is Hillary Clinton who deserves applause for trying.

If Gay and many other black women had chosen to vote for Hillary instead of for Obama, they would have their inspirational political figure in the White House now. Michelle may live there, but the political role is not hers to play.

The topic is a worthy one, but I found this treatment uninspiring and uninsightful. Sorry.

It seems to me (so it is just my viewpoint) that if you support equality for all that it is then unfair to include Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin in the same comparison. Hillary is not merely educated, but perspicacious. Sarah Palin is unlearned and narrow.

Further, it must be acknowledged that Secretary Clinton came within a hair's breadth of the nomination and would most likely have soundly defeated Sen. McCain last November. So there's no point crying about what didn't happen and plenty of reason to recognize that America had several "comings of age" last year. Women still seek pay parity and acceptance when it comes to positions of power and control. But so also do African-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans, and many others whose identities are more often defined by color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Walls are coming down on these issues, but as a society we also must see how far we have yet to go.

It is interesting to note that we talk much more about diversity than we actually understand it. For a society to truly accept diversity, we must first realize that all of us are different. And acceptance requires that we, as a society, fully enfold the many heritages we share and the abilities of men and women across our land. Until we do, we will continue to have foolish discussions of whether this gender, this color/ethnicity can lead, direct, command. There are no boundaries except the ones in our heads.

I think the Commenter fail to distinguish between how Political Women are treated at the Polls based on what Party they are Members of. With Paulin as a Republican she rpresent the Ultra Conservative wing of that Party, so it's unlikely that she could get significant support from either Women or Men that are Moderate or Liberal from either Party.

However, a Hillary Clinton could draw Moderate support from both parties, based on who she was running against, and a lopsided voter support from the Liberal voters of both Parties also.

I don't think that Obama was elected because they didn't like Paulin, it's just that she doesn't have enough ultra Conservative votes to allow her side to win.

The Republicans don't seem to realize it at this stage, but most of the voters are growing weary of conservative politicians that allow the Rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. We are running out of space for the "have-nots", and as many have found out in recent months, that havenot group is constantly expanding, and some that thought that problem was for other people, are finding out they are those other poeple, fighting to get at the front of the "Soupline".

leart2

Where is Molly Ivins when we need her (and I mean her wit, not necessarily her political perspective, altho for me that too)? Found the column uninventive.

mrs. obama is the most uplifting and intelligent first lady we can remember in recent history.
ms. gay if you are rooting for ex governor palin aka the quitter then i am concerned what young girls will gain from that endorsement.
i know a lot of black americans feel they have to knock this president to prove they can be impartial, but your views must be credible and make good common sense.

Everything in Washington is partisan. Politicians like to mix a little sexism with their partisan attacks but the women mentioned in this article are verbally assaulted because of their political idealogy. Are the attacks against women really worse than the attacks against President Obama?

The obstacles that were faced by Hillary Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor, Nancy Pelosi, as they rose in their successful careers (and you are forgetting Geraldine Ferraro, Sandra Day O'Connor and Barbara Jordan), were formidable, but not unprecedented. For centuries, strong women learned that in order for their agendas to succeed, they had to "play by the rules", i.e., stand behind and support powerful men. Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Lady Bird Johnson, are all excellent examples of the role of "wind beneath the wings" of their Presidential husbands, all the while progressing their own agendas.
Yet Hillary Clinton was the first to be treated as an equal by her spouse while in office, and not just a "First Lady". As a result, she bore the brunt of the wrath of a sexist nation, and Washington, with brave dignity, never backing down or batting an eye when even the strongest amongst the rest of us cringed under the criticism cast her way. Watch the tapes of her testimony before Congress over healthcare reform, she was the personification of grace under fire. It was her example of successful working motherhood that relieved the anxiety and guilt of many women during her "mom in chief" years, my own included. Without Hillary's trail blazing precedence, Michelle Obama would be suffering a much more difficult transition, and scrutiny under an unforgiving public eye. She at least, does not have to hold up her own cookie recipe against the former first ladies as a measure of her worth!
A woman President will eventually be a truth, and not just a dream. But it will be HER choice, and not in spite of or because of what any man does or says. A woman strong enough for that role will not be defined by a man. To be the "vessel", and not the wind, comes with enormous personal sacrifice and consequence beyond any critcism of gender.
Women have come to realize perhaps, that there is as much personal gratification at the end of the day, in the role of "anchor" especially in the family, as there is in the role of "wind". Few of either sex will aspire to "vessel". At least now, thanks to the trailblazing of those strong women before, there is a choice.

Michelle combines the grace of Jackie Kennedy/Laura Bush, the folksiness and off the rack clothing of Barbara Bush, the women's issues of Hillary (not as strong), the helping of military families and her pet project childhood obesity in one woman. She is the president's sounding board on how people feel on issues and I believe with
Toot made Obama pick Biden as veep. The obvious spark alive in their marriage leaves many wishing for the same in theirs.

Reciting the same old stuff about what women have and haven't accomplished, Ms. Gay falls into the same trap of 'somehow women still aren't getting what they deserve'. As a woman myself, I am not interested in being shoehorned into some sort of victim class by Ms. Gay or anyone else. I assume WaPo is looking for a fresh perspective with this contest. For this round at least, Ms. Gay doesn't deliver.

Oh for the love of Pete. Why not just hold a contest called America's next irrelevant throwback to the industrial age? The blogosphere is where people in the 21st century go when they want fresh new opinions from people with no vested interest in tickling the ears of the crusty old Establishment. A contest for America's next film photographer would be far more interesting but equally obsolescent.

this women is the back bone of the greatest president this country will ever have. behind every great man is a great women, i should know my wife stands behind me but does not understand all that i do. sometimes i don't understand things that i do but you better believe she will tell you when you get too far out there!!

Women do have a much tougher time than men getting ahead in politics, but her arguements are weak because many of the "oppressed" women she mentioned had a sizable amount of trouble unrelated to their sex.

Clinton was running against Obama, arguably the most charismatic political figure in the US -- I think that probably hurt her chances more than anything.

Sarah Palin is an idiot.

Sonia Sotomayor's nomination was bound to be challenged by Republicans, since partisan politics has been blindly pursued on both sides of the aisle in the 2000s.

And Nancy Pelosi's sometimes shady political manuvering has shaken her credibility and at the least, revealed her to be nothing but a politics-as-usual drone.

Unfair shots were taken at all those women, but even in a perfectly egalitarian society, I think public perception of these women would be largely the same as it is in the imperfect and real one. This article doesn't do a lot to convince me otherwise. I will say that talking about Michelle Obama was a strong point -- when Barack was elected, she somehow went from being a high-powered lawyer to a gardener. If that isn't a statement about the US's perception of women, I don't know what is.

Indeed Mara has a point in this issue. During almost 10,000 years women have been relegated to the role of mom,lover, servant or something else. Only during the civil war in Spain the Anarchists gave the women a principal role in taking important decisions.
The problem roots principally in the religions. The priests are the governing class letting the priestesses the role of representing fertility. This has permeatd the minds of everyone. But some women have been placed in relevant offices. One of them Hypathias was a beacon but she was darken by
christian monks of her time. The reason that was for this is envy. And until now it seems that men envy that a woman occupies the post designed for men. No matter the religion, beliefs or social structure. Things are changing and when a woman will be elected to the high office of President of USA it will be a triumph over the theme of men superiority.

and you actually like Palin...what a slime you are...she is the personification of everything bad that could happen to this country....aren't we backwards and ignorant enough....just when the nation is actually making strides ....you want a freak like that at the helm....you worthless slime!

This column provides a superficial take on a well-trodden theme. I congratulate Ms. Gay her being selected as one of the ten finalists but, keeping it real, this piece was really shallow and uninteresting.

on another note Barry...you know very well what the writer meant in all the cases highlighted by you....this isn't a writing class Barry...it's an opinion piece....and did you like my history lesson??....i betcha not..being a Palin fan criticism is probably hard to take by you.

Posted by: BarryPopik | November 2, 2009 2:54 AM
******************************************
Barry...If you are a noted scholar of americanism you then know that this country became great by stealing the land...slaughtering the natives...replacing them with poor europeans with the lure of jobs and land(provided by the theft)..and add 300 yrs of slavery to the pot...and also using the influence provided by the military stranght and wealth (provided with all the stolen land and resources)to influence other nations for our benefit...now..if you're as bright as you think you are you know this to be fact...so get off your high horse...you and this country ain't all that good...you betcha

Dear WAPO: Can you please ban your pundit contestants from writing identity-politics pieces? Commentary need not always be reduced to a point about the young (Mara's first piece) or women (her second piece), or men, the aged, Native Americans, disabled, blah blah blah. The essays by Burton Richter and Maame Gyamfi and a couple others were particularly refreshing because they broke free of the identity shackles.

Much much better than that idiotic piece from Darryl Jackson. She clearly laid out the central theme of her column and fleshed it out. My main criticisms are i) that it was too long and ii) she does not say what she'd like Michelle to focus on. By essentially arguing that Hilary Clinton Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi were "strong" women because they were either in or seeking political office, Mara is guilty of stereotyping women - exactly the same thing she's telling us is being done to working women.

Hr argument would be more persuasive, if directed at Laura Bush, when she was in the White House as Laura didn't have young ones and chose not to pursue her career. Michelle has had a very successful career, and has consciously chosen to take a back seat, for now.

Mara can get carried away when a line is drawn between emotion and fact. Sexism for sexism sake is bordline stupid; and that goes for both sexes. Hillary had great promise, but when she tried to be manish, she lost a lot. Michelle is being herself. Give her a chance and let us see what happens. Hillary has not shown any wisdom in her current job! However, I believe that any person who is qualified should get their chance. Americans will vote for a canidate if they believe that person can do the job.

This piece was better than most, because it had quotes to provide the skeleton for the fleshy parts of opinion.

On the philosophical level though, it continues down the dead end of equating victim status as entitlement to advancement or reward, and under that thesis tries to establish women as being more worthy victims than black Americans.

Everyone knows of Ghandi's eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. But few understand the lessons of Slumdog Millionaire where an eyeless beggar earns more money. Should our focus be upon finding the most pathetic victim in need of advancement? Or should our focus instead be upon valuing objective output over perceived victim status?

Martin Luther King's world in which the content of your character reigned supreme is never going to be reached as long as we focus on which colors of skin or genders or ethnicities are the greatest victims.

In my opinion, this paper has enough victim status journalists, and not enough content of character types. The world moves forward by focusing upon a positive goal. We wallow in self destructive feeding when we focus on victim entitlement.

There are some ideas here, but this has been written before. What's new in the debate? Also, the 2008 election was not Hillary vs. Palin. It was Obama vs. McCain.

Michelle Obama has said in interviews that she isn't focusing on her own career right now because it's kind of impossible - she can't relocate her family, for example. I will be waiting to see what she does when the Obama presidency is over, and the First Lady can return to the professional world if she chooses.

Like domestic violence victims, the Democratic and moderate women of America got trashed, and still don't press charges. Obama is a wealthy "good ole boy" from the Ivy Bankers Boys Club, of the highest order. He shills for Wall Street, with his hand out, after carving a Congressional District out of wealthy white guilt Hyde Park. Yet, blacks compliantly vote the Democratic line, hover over their homie, who gives not a hoot about you.

Down South, in Mississippi, the pariah state, theory has it that all whites are wealthy Klan members. Reality is that the wealthy Congressman is a black slum lord, who is under fire for ethics violations going to his Caribbean resort.

Reality is that Obama is inexperienced, beholden to the wealthy, narcissistic, racist to a degeee, but deeply surrounded by hardcore black racists, and a sexist.

But, he's very "sociable." I'm sure he will send a nice gift and give a great speech at Chelsea's wedding to a Hedge Funder.

But, Mara, you "celebrate" Michelle. Celebrate her 300K a year job arranged at the University of Chicago Hospital after Obama got a Million Dollar Earmark for them.

And just keep believing that Democrats are "for the little guy" and affirmative action (race discrimination) is still a necessary evil, and that aborting a baby is a "reproductive choice" and a gay man French kissing another at his "wedding" is a human right (as opposed to life).

Cause that what BO and BS are all about.

Both stink.

But your race and ethnicity dictates you MUST vote Democrat. Toe that line.

Nancy and Harry and Chris need your vote.

Well done Mara!

I would point out that Michele is First Lady, neither elected nor appointed to any position, and is acting appropriately.

Michele is also a mother extraordinaire, both before and after the election. As women become over the majority of the educated and work force in America, they better figure out how to emulate Michele the mother if they want the next generation of American children to do well.

It has been hashed out before..mediocre..this subject has to inject extreme humor or something creatively compelling....

You know, I was just thinking that the Washington Post really, really needed yet another voice from the over-educated, privileged class.

Because while the rest of us are looking at long-term unemployment and half-assed healthcare reform, the Post trustafarians all get together and put on a musical, just like "Glee"!

Hmmm - A menopausal female as president - Heaven help any terrorists - But one thing "mankind" has to realize, women handle stress better and think clearer than men do.

Next Great Pundit Scorecard:

Selected: 5 men, 5 women – no surprise, even though a significant majority of entries were from men. Met the D word requirement – Diverse.

Seven were either bad, dumb, light weight, single issue writers(3), Obama bashing, Fox news supporting, or water down with “fair and balanced” writing (5). Not one did a credible job covering a big, national issue. Not one supported the President Obama.

Three were actually quite good, all by women. One was youth’s view, one single issue, one was personal and very insightful. All covered big, important national issues.

Bottom line, WP did a poor job selecting. 5 men, 5 women - seriously? Several were so bad the contestants have no chance to win. Single issue writers, gone in 60 seconds. Excluding the 3, no depth, no insight, no original thought. Oh, I guess in that way it does mimic with current crop of opinion writers in the WashPost.

THe woman angle is good...

but if you want to win this one, it's easy.

Take a poke at anything Islam or Muslim,

try to sneak in something about how Israel is our best friend (@!#$%) and deserves mor money.

And scream for bombing of Iran, or at the very least, sneer at it.

BINGO...you'd write forthe Washington Post.

I'd do it myself, but coudn't stand the dishonor that grows daily.

Well-written, but I disagree on your last point. Our "Mom-in-Chief" may be the most celebrated woman in our culture currently, but she is only tangentially a political figure at all.

Sotomayor (and Ginsburg), Clinton (and Sebelius and others), Pelosi, and Snowe are all important political figures in their own right. Michelle Obama is an accomplished lawyer, a good campaigner and now an excellent First Lady. But compared to the others listed, she is simply the spouse of a politician.

While I'm interested in hearing how the plight of female politicians affect women of Ms. Gay's generation, I view the specific women she wrote about in a completely different way. Other than the fact that they are swimming in the same national, political pond, I don't think they have very much in common except the obvious; they are women. One could say that it is sexist to lump them together, although I will concede Ms. Gay her conceit, which is discuss women as role models. It's perfectly understandable why some smart, talented, young women would see Michelle Obama's choice to limit her public role as a concession to outside expectations, but I view her as someone who is so comfortable in her own skin that she feels that she has nothing to prove to the outside world. What we see of her is ceremonial, part of the job she signed on for, which I believe was a genuine choice made by one member of what appears to be a flourishing partnership. I suspect that this is just one step and one role that she will take in her life and it will be interesting to see where she goes from here, as a First Lady and beyond.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton, who from the beginning had political ambitions to match her husband's, for which she was pilloried. To my mind, she has exceeded everyone's expectations; for every person, many of them male, who doubted her strength and competence, there are others, many of them male, who have had to concede that she is a highly qualified, talented and even formidable political actor, who has earned her position as Secretary of State. In that sense, for all of the abusive and sexist rhetoric she has had to endure throughout her career, she has managed through hard work, cunning and intelligence, to transcend her gender. Unless they are biased beyond reason, it's difficult to believe that those who remain critical of her do so for reasons that have anything to do with the fact that she is a woman or the wife of a former POTUS.

Which brings us to Sarah Palin, because of all three, she is the one who least fits into the thesis of gender bias. In fact, I would say that the person who injected gender into the debate about Sarah Palin was Sarah Palin. Overall, her entire performance was a study in contradictions. On the one hand she constantly thrust her children into the public eye and on the other, she complained that they were being exploited in the press. On the one hand she referred to herself as humble "hockey mom", who somehow rose to her aery heights by osmosis, not ambition; on the other, she was a victim of stereotyping and sexism. But despite those issues, which again, she brought upon herself, the main criticism of Sarah Palin had very little to do with the fact that she was a woman, a wife or a mother, but that she proved flagrantly unprepared for the job for which she had been tapped, VP of the United States. Actually, what surprised me wasn't the fact that Democrats found her a seriously flawed candidate, but Republicans. I personally know at least three who switched parties to vote for Obama specifically because of McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate. Personally, I don't think she belongs in the same sentence as Hillary Clinton in regard to serious intent, but for the sake of argument, let's compare their trajectories. Hillary Clinton was indeed the victim of sexism. Again, for the sake of argument, let's say that the same is true of Sarah Palin. So, let's compare their reactions in the face of this adversity. Hillary Clinton, after a hard fought campaign that she lost, picked herself up, made a dignified exit and was receptive to an offer of a job from her opponent. Sarah Palin alienated McCain and his staff, fought protocol by arguing to give a concession speech on the eve of the election, complained bitterly about her treatment by the press and public and went home to quit her job. Since, she has spent her time overseeing the writing of her book, raking in money from speaking engagements and sending out divisive missives via Facebook. For those who share her political views, she is seen as a powerful force in the Republican party. They are so convinced of her power that they imagine that those of us who don't are shaking in our boots at the thought of her ascendance. In that sense, she, too, has transcended gender. Ironically, had the GOP chosen a woman of substance to run with John McCain, it would have been considered a milestone. Instead, they created a celebrity, whose gender is the least of anyone's concerns.

Michelle wasn't elected to any office so she should not make the mistake of acting like she was. Hillary has been there and done that and it set our gender and better access to health care back. Compared to Laura Bush who was a wallflower, Michelle is light years ahead. Still, I agree, I'd like to see her act less like Jackie O and more like Eleanor Roosevelt, my very favorite first lady.

Oh for the day when it is character that counts not sex or color but REAL Character. That is the only thing lacking in politics, the substance of Character. Like the politicion saying I am a Christian and living it, not just lip service for the Christian vote. For those in politics to make the Claim then not stand for Godly principles in such issues of financial stewardship, the right to life for the unborn, accountability in decission making, and treating others as they themselves would want to be treated across the board men and women, and homosexuality being a choice that no-one should be forced to accept as a good thing. When that becomes the way of politics thats when women of Character will be seen as such.

I have to agree with the post by BarryPopik. WHO IS JUDGING THIS CONTEST!!!

I must also state that I entered the contest with the same impression as BarryPopik and several others…….that this organization was looking for something different. As a practicing engineer who has authored many “PEER” reviewed papers, articles and etc.; I wrote on the following topic: “Journalism – The Dying Profession”. I had originally wrote on the topic and found it very difficult to trim it below the requested 400 words. Much of the research which supported the argument had to be deleted. I have tagged it onto the end of this post as it may be of interest to some with gray matter between the ears and the ability to critically think.

If this first selection is the benchmark for the rest that follow, my topic is well placed.

Furthermore, I am not a registered Republican, I voted in the recent Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton, but if my life depended on it, I would certainly vote for Sarah Palin. She is one of the few that has entered the national political stage that is representative of the bulk of this country. She did not get into politics because it was her life’s aspiration, but for an interest to impart “Change”.

I for one am interested in what our founding fathers envisioned “citizen representatives” NOT professional politicians. But with the feeding frenzy that swirled around Palin, no rational “citizen” would be interested in stepping onto that stage. SHAME ON US!!!….as we have allowed the media, the political process and this country to erode into this abyss.

We Desperately Need TERM LIMITS in this country.

There was hope for the Washington Post, but it to will enter the realm of “spam” on my computer. As for the “TROLLS” who continuously spew their form of vile noxious venom as they attack all who have an opposing view, I look forward to the day this country becomes like its third world neighbors.

Journalism – The Dying Profession

One underlying fact about the American public is they like to be their own “great decider”. They take offense when the media moves from the realm of reporting to telling the public what their opinion should be about the news.

The journalism profession has long ago made that very transition. No longer are journalist persons who practice journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information. It is clear that the journalism profession continuously blurs the line between fact and opinion by advocating non-transparent viewpoints.

“The American Journalist in the 21st Century: US News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium” found that 40% of journalist describe themselves as left leaning politically. This is a purely academic study of the American news profession published every 10 years since the 1970s. An investigative report titled “The list: Journalists who wrote political checks” by Bill Dedman reviewed the political contributions 143 journalists: 125 giving to Democrats and liberal causes, 16 to Republicans, and two to both parties.

A recent Gallup Poll found that forty percent of Americans described their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate and 21 percent as liberal. Our country as a whole is continuously described as being center right which means center conservative not Republican. Yet, the political disposition of those who are creating the media content is exactly the opposite.

The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism issued a report: “The State of the News Media”. This report details the decline in subscriptions to newspapers and audience numbers for network TV. Ad revenue has been down across both Medias, there have been substantial cuts in news staff. That is “NO” surprise, I for one, long ago cancelled my newspaper subscription and would have eliminated the television if not for my kids.

As a practicing engineer, I find my profession similar to a journalist. Engineers gather information to solve problems. Engineers have a code of ethics like journalist. Engineers can be held criminally, financially liable and have state boards governing them. Engineers are regularly disciplined for violating their ethics. That is an interesting fact: I wonder how many journalists if measured by the Society of Professional Journalism code of ethics would be able to continue practicing their professional?

I'm female and though this isn't an up or down comment on your article, it is related. After reading I started to think about evaluating female candidates and those in public office as a female voter, sort of like "it takes one to know one". I have never read anything that explores that idea. With Sarah Palin for example I felt immediately insulted by the choice thinking is that is what women are evaluated on, just their looks. I also saw her as manipulative when I read about her getting people to help her and then using them. She fits one of my stereotypes and its not the underdog. "Popular mean girl" generalizations are the opposite of underdog in my mind. Underdog would be the studious shy girl, the girl from the rough home who gets pushed around, the girl having to care for her siblings while her parent or parents work long hours, the heavy girl, etc. I just don't see how the flirty, power hungry female who doesn't care if her kids get caught up in her dramas (and in public) is an underdog. All this was just an example of how women might evaluate women differently.

Let's see, women aren't treated equally and men are mean to them. That's a bad thing.

Got it.

This country missed the golden opportunity to elect its first woman as President of the United States. It wasn't the sexists, the racists, the pundits, the main stream media or even the 'Clinton haters' that defeated Hillary. It's women like Ms. Gay who continue to lament the fact that qualified women, like Hillary, are not electable due to the 'assaults on a woman's right to be a full and equal participant in our democracy' and yet in the same breath declare: 'I didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries ... I believe the 'better' candidate won.' Better candidate? Where have we heard that before?Until women like Ms. Gay quit falling for the oldest line in the political playbook against those qualified and experienced women who aspire to shatter that 'highest and hardest glass ceiling'-- we will never see one of our own become the leader of the free world.

I like the honesty, even painful honesty, of this piece even if I don't agree with the author on all the details or every woman mentioned. This surely was not easy to write and is refreshingly open and candid about a vexed but important subject. Good work!

P.S. I had forgotten that appalling Bill Kristol comment, which presumably was meant as (an unfunny) joke. Even worse, it only makes sense (as an unfunny joke) if you assume all readers and viewers are male. Even a friendly woman would have trouble smiling at that.

The object of punditry is to evoke thought, which you've done. I see other comments that mirror my own thoughts, which is that this is a good, solid piece. I liked it; it speaks to my interests and concerns. By competing, and with previous journalistic experience, you knew to expect the naysayers (and worse). Good luck.

While sexism certainly exists, I will say the following: In my opinion each of these women got what they deserved politically, and in a fair way. Palin was sent back to Alaska, Clinton led an inferior campaign and lost but ended up with an important post none-the-less, Sotomayor was confirmed and Pelosi is still kicking ass. Sure they've all at moments dealt with harsh sexism, but men in politics get slammed all the time as well, and in the end, they got what they all deserved. Hopefully in the future the personal insults hurled at these women will be personal insults non-sexually based - then we'll all be equal.

there's nothing new or controversial here.
no one cares about what a first lady does or doesn't do.
pick a subject with teeth!

overall - boring and disappointing.

Ms. Gay I commend you. As you can see by most of the comments it is the women themselves that hack the rights of women.You have people on here that only have two thngs on their minds:bash the First Lady and defend Mrs. Palin. There is one thing for certain no matter how much they write the will not be able to take the First Lady's intelligence or her dignity from her because she is that confident in her abilities. To Annetta3,I can't believe that out of Ms.Gay's article was there ever inference or direct mention of Mrs. Clinton noncommitment to the issues of women or children. And if you ever took the time to really understand what the First Lady is doing in the White House you wouldnot even make the staement she is not using her e&e to help change lives. Really is cannibalism contagious???

Like your first piece, this was well written, though I can't say I agree with the argument. I can't say I envy anyone making the case for Palin.

If McCain had not made the mistake of bringing in Sarah Palin from obscurity & put her in the pedestal she did not qualify to occupy, we would still be asking ...Sarah.. who? Or Sarah.. what?
She proved her worth (or the lack of it) by arrogantly ignoring Gwen Ifell's questions during the debate & during her various interviews. She brought in a new level to negativity & yes.. she was shrill. Listen to her FL, PA "speeches". Her whole demeanor was cheap.

As a 72 year old female, I was insulted by McCain's pick for VP. Did he think that he would get the votes just because he put a female on his ticket? Didn't he think that we, as females, would question his motives and her qualifications? After hearing her speeches and interviews, I was definite in my choice. Placing an unqualified person in the second-most powerful position in our country was irresponsible and outrageous. Palin did more to lessen women's strength in government than anyone I can think of in recent years.

As for our First Lady, she seems to be placing importance on those things she deems needed for our military families, the children of our country and the problems that everyday people face. Nothing grandiose like the "Just Say No to Drugs" campaign, but down to earth problems that we all face. She also brings us some fun and joy in hoola-hooping, dressing up for Halloween, even wearing shorts for a hike at the Grand Canyon. And all this while still being able to look and act the part of our First Lady - intelligent, caring, sophisticated when needed, and a good example of the mix between family and work.

As for Hillary Clinton - she is in her element as Secretary of State and is carrying out her duties in a careful, thoughtful, intelligent manner. When she was chosen for that position, I had my doubts as did many others, I am sure. It is a more than pleasant surprise to see her in action and she is a great benefit to our country in its negotiations with other countries.

Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton epitomize the best in women now, while Palin is a throw-back to days that I had hoped were far behind women of today. I don't want to go back to days when we had to fight and march for rights that too many younger women take for granted now. There will come a day when there is a female president or vice president of our country - maybe not in my lifetime, but it will come. Qualified, intelligent women are making a difference in our government now, but it is up to the younger women to ensure that we make more progress, not less.

Wonderful piece. Well written and thoughtul - raising excellent points and questions.

Some history that may be helpful - If you read some of the most intelligent and perspicacious black females writers of the Civil Rights movement you will find an interesting pattern of behavior that they reveal in their writing which is repeated throughout recent history. Women (both white and black)fight along side black men against prejudice and unmerited privilege. But as the movement strengthens (much from these women's arduous efforts) - women are sidelined and relegated to the back of the bus (or powerless "ladies' committees"). Please don't take this for more than it is, but it has crossed my mind that the Civil Rights movement, at least in some small part (maybe very small to those well-versed in its history), was more about black men gaining the privileges of white men, than about equality for all. Women fight for rights along side men, and then they have to fight again - without men -for their own rights (not all men, obviously, but as a group). The saddest part is that over and over again throughout recent history, women realize too late that their efforts for "all" were really just for the benefit of men, and women are just a footnote (benefiting through men not directly).

Mankind, in practice, really does mean mankind ...and his wife...not humankind.

Eesh, surviving these comments is probably part of the contest.

This is a good piece, Ms. Gay. Thanks.

I generally liked and agreed with the tone and content of the piece- HOWEVER, for me, oft-time called a "liberal" "lefty" and other such stereo-typical labels, I think it was a severe disgrace to infere that the job of First Lady, or even that of Mother, don't have sufficient heft to command your admiration, nor satisfaction as a role model.

The lady is demonnstrating competence, and commitment in area of American life we have become seriously deficient in- parenting.

As first lady, she harks back to the deft use of "soft-power" epitomized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

Congratulations on your punditry, Ms. Gay, although I must admit that I had to read it again after I read through the comments on it; for the most part, I was wondering whether we were all reading the same article.

In retrospect, it must feel quite engaged to be so put upon by those who seem to be from both the left and the right, many of whom were elevating side points, ignoring your central tenant. Because of such, in the hopeful event your career advances in this direction, you would do well to study many of the comments made to your article so far. It will help you understand how little some are able to put their own (embarrassingly self-serving) agendas aside to hear the point-of-view of any others. For these writers, hearing an honest voice comment about how they are reacting to the goings on of the day is not why they read; they are mostly interested in hearing the echoes inside their head playing out political sophistry. Empathy is not one of the gifts they have. Knowing this ahead of time will ward off some frustrations that you might have while wondering how you could be so misunderstood.

But luckily there will be others who will listen and process and come to unique and specific conclusions (sometimes agreeing and sometimes not) and that will be among your reasons to continue to express yourself. No matter the outcome here, I look forward to reading your thoughts somewhere and adding them to the debates of the day.

Again, well done.

Don't you just love liberals. They attack Palin as unqualified but support Barry who has absolutely no qualifications for the position he holds. Palin has been a business woman, mayor and govenor. Barry has been? Not even the night supervisor at McDonalds.

They gush over Michelle whose chief accomplishment has been marrying Barry and getting political sinecures at the U of C as a result. Just how did she get those corporate jobs and what were they? The Chicago Trib reported that she was involved in dumping poor, uninsured patients out of the U of C hospital to wrethched, unfunded community clinics. I guess going to school and wearing nice clothes is enough for yuppie pin heads.

This is a good article for an Eastern, politically correct high school paper.

Watch out! Sarah is coming with a large dose of reality and she is going to get you. Boo!

Hopium Dopium chumps.

Sorry, but Palin reaped what she sowed. Her public interviews were devatating to her as they revealed her abysmal ignorance of the role of VP, her lack of knowledge of -- and interest in -- domestic and international affairs and her grandiose narcissism. Her public speeches consisted entirely of throwing red meat at the GOP base. Moreover, she dragged her children around as props, particularly that poor disabled baby. That was nauseating. In addition, she clearly played on her sluttish appearance. So, she's really the one who behaved as a sexist. She quit her job mid-term for the lure of public speaking, books, etc... in other words, money. Sarah Palin is about nothing else than Sarah Palin. She amply deserves the criticism that was heaped upon her.

Forget it but Palin

Well, I'm sorry you shared Daryl Jackson's fascinatin with Sarah Palin, but I was able to read your entire column because, other than that bias, you write well and have a good argument, which I agree with totally except for Palin. I am a man and your saying Palin is worthy of admiration because she is a strong woman, would be like my saying that Hitler, Reagan, and Bush, Jr., heck why not Chaney, are all worth of my admiration because they are strong men. Otherwise, congratulations, you are presenting a non-political voice for strong women of the new generation.

"Sarah Palin will forever be marked with her first national speech of hate, bigotry, goody goody two shoes snobbery, and racist, dirty, dishonest inunendo."

Well gee, you sure know about dishonest innuendo, don't you.

I love how liberals who like to beat their chests about how "tolerant" are driven to call anyone who disagrees with them a racist. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Sarah Palin will forever be marked with her first national speech of hate, bigotry, goody goody two shoes snobbery, and racist, dirty, dishonest inunendo.

Her vacant stares, gobbled speech, and lack of effort to develop skills or intellect to prepare herself, or work in any way to pay dues are
secondary to what is in her soul...

Nothing she can say or do now means anything.

Well Done!

But the thing that needs discussion is the
permission to do whatever needs doing.

Permission? Isn't that another cop out? No, its not.

Yes, we came close to having a woman elected to a top office this year, and yes, like with civil rights all those years ago, black men won the not first...

But look at the rocky road he's traveling...fully half the criticism he's face has been pure racist...that was to be expected. It would have been, will be, the same for the first woman. It is just not humanly possibly to both break down barriers and to be allowed to do the job.

The merits of black men in high visibility national public offices will not be properly judged until the second, third and fourth one makes it. Until then, they will spend all their time re-asserting their right to be a citizen, deliberate over decisions, worship in their religion, and how they conduct the functions of their office. Always having to work longer, harder, smarter than the white guy.

In due time, and the first one will have a rough time. Better that she arrive in a time not so besmirched with greed and war mongering, so that she can be judged as most men who have held that office have been.

Arlington resident wrote:

" ' "A year later, I am still celebrating Michelle Obama myself."'

You're "celebrating" Michelle Obama. For doing what?!?

Sigh. So many partisan hacks, so little time."

Sigh. So many mean people! So little time. I'm outta here. Mara, you go, girl!

"A year later, I am still celebrating Michelle Obama myself."

You're "celebrating" Michelle Obama. For doing what?!?

Sigh. So many partisan hacks, so little time.

MSSmith wrote: "As with the other columnist, I will again express my confusion on what the Post was looking for. Here is another person who already works in the media and is a professional writer. Sounds like what the Post really wanted was more of the same, not something different."

Let's reply to this and give Mara another comment. Hey, folks, if you submitted an entry and it wasn't chosen, don't take it so personally! It is not necessarily a reflection on the quality or worth of what you said. It just means it wasn't what they were looking for. To some degree, it has to do with marketing segments, and how they can attract more people in certain groups to their site. If Mara is already a journalist, so what? It means she has been working and polishing her skills, the better to be able to market them, and hopefully attract a following, bringing people to the site who otherwise wouldn't come here.

Mara, I like this piece! I didn't actually plan to read it, but after your competition had the nerve to drop Palin's name in a gambit to garner the most comments,(and of course I felt it necessary to comment on that...)I was determined to root for you on this round. What we need is not more about Sarah Palin, but more thoughtful pieces like this one. This is nice. This is good.

As a woman much older than you, I can tell you, women today do have so much going for them than we did. So in a sense we are rooting for you and in another sense we envy you, but the envy is without malice. While growing up I was told I should be either a teacher or a nurse. Or a housewife. And I became two of those three. That was both the time and the socio-economic group to which I belonged, which gave those messages. We did not have the internet. There was no such thing as telecommuting. Sexual harassment was often the price you paid to get and stay employed. And I know things were so much worse for most black women than for white middle-class females like myself.

It doesn't matter if you win this contest, because by placing at all, you have already won, as I'm sure you know. And you have what it takes to take you the places you hope to go---and the vehicles are so much better than what we had.

I sometimes wonder what it would have been like if Hillary had become president. Instead of Bill, I mean.

As with the other columnist, I will again express my confusion on what the Post was looking for. Here is another person who already works in the media and is a professional writer. Sounds like what the Post really wanted was more of the same, not something different.

Better than the other columnist - but still derivitive and silly. Hillary is SOS. The second highest position in the executive branch. palin is no one to root for regardless of gender. A woman will be president. As Hillary herself said - the glass ceiling has 18 million new cracks in it. The very fact that we can not only contemplate a woman in the WH, but that had the primaries gone the other way we would have a second president Clinton, shows how different this country is from just 30 years ago when people thought Mondale was insane for putting a woman on the ticket. People took Dan Quayle more seriously in 1988 than theydid Geraldine Ferraro in 84. So chin up - stop the phony lament. It makes women seem petty and weak.

Meh. If you really felt the need to stretch a premise the examples you chose might be relevant. When placed into their surrounding contexts however they fall short. "Shrill"? That's simply mirroring the same rhetoric coming from the extreme right running the GOP. Comments from Ken Spain, trained parrot of the right? Same. This entire piece suffers from the same manufactured outrage we've been getting from the right.

Additionally, it's "President Obama", not Barack or other diminutives.

Corporate lawyer? Michelle Obama was an associate who left the practice of law after about three years, the point when it becomes apparent that an associate will not become a partner in the firm, even though she was only active in the "entertainment" division, hardly cerebral stuff.
As for not "vot[ing] for Sarah Palin if [her] life depended on it," is there any particular reason why Gay would find a successful politician who successfully fought corruption in her own party and the State of Alaska, beat a sitting governor and a powerful former US Senator to become Governor, and negotiated the largest public works project in American history, as unworthy of consideration? Palin started as a PTA voluteer and worked her way up to a vice-presidential nomination. Who knows where she'll go, but she has power that she gained on her own.
Screw it if you don't agree with her, but Palin deserves respect for what she has accomplished. Or didn't Gay want to hear it?

Too much selective hearing in Gay's ramblings. This piece and the last were trivial.

This is terrible in many ways.

First, some confessions. I'm a noted scholar of Americanisms and I entered the contest with an originally researched piece about the origins of punditry. I lost. You write for The Atlantic (a major national publication) and I do not believe that you qualify under the contest's rules. I'm a registered Republican and yes, I sure would vote for Sarah Palin if my life depended on it.

SHE'S TAKEN ON CHILDHOOD OBESITY--Michelle Obama has taken on childhood obesity? Or the "issue" of childhood obesity?

AND SHE MAKES IT LOOK GOOD--Michelle Obama makes childhood obesity look good?

WATCHING THE CORPORATE LAWYER--She hasn't been licensed to practice law in about a decade. You watched Michelle Obama in the mid-1990s?

HARRY REID FOUND THE NEED TO CALL PALIN "SHRILL" AS WELL--That's all the sexism you can find leveled against Palin? Someone called her "shrill"? You didn't see the articles claiming she never gave birth to her last baby? Or the purported nude photos and sex movies? Or the disgusting c--- T-shirts?

THE OPPOSITION TO SOTOMAYOR DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE BASED ON HER JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY--The opposition to Sotomayor was all about her political philosophy! Sotomayor herself stated that a wise Latina would make better judicial decisions than a white man. She said this over and over, yet she claimed she "misspoke." She also said that judges make policy!

"IF NANCY PELOSI'S FAILED ECONOMIC POLICIES..."--Republicans don't like Pelosi's failed economic policies. We don't care what her sex is.

JUST LAST MONTH...A YEAR LATER, IT DOESN'T LOOK MUCH BETTER--A year later than last month? I'm confused.

I AM STILL CELEBRATING MICHELLE OBAMA MYSELF--Drop "myself."

HILLARY CLINTON HAS SO FAR EXCELLED IN HER ROLE AS SECRETARY OF STATE--Really? Is Iran better? Is North Korea better? Is Israel better off? Is she siding with a dictator in Honduras? Her office is so bad that it couldn't even translate "reset button" in to Russian!

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOW (R-MAINE) HELD THE SENATE CAPTIVATED--"Capitvated" is not the word I'd use. Olympia Snow is to womanhood as Arlen Specter is to manhood.

AND SHE MAKES...AND HOW ABOUT NANCY PELOSI...AND THEY'VE GOT TO STOP...AND THE LIGHT IS SHINING...AND IT MAY..AND I, FOR ONE..--Don't begin sentences with "and"! How many is that? Six sentences?

Look, you won. Congratulations.

Who is judging this contest????

This column found a wonderful balance between insight and empathy. It shared a personal perspective about the topic that only could have been written by a woman. I felt the "bittersweet" feeling she described about the Obama victory. Well done.

Sarah Palin is an incompetent - hiding her behind her gender does a dis-service to capable and competent women everywhere.

In the same light and the same vein - and this person will not be so well-known in the national press - but, Jane (Not so...) Swift, the former governor of Massachusetts, another rank incompetent, used to play the gender card (and the motherhood card), as well. Her problem was her political tin ear; her imperial requests (demands?) of her staff to care for her children while her husband was off growing blueberries (or whatever it was that he did) and her inappropriate use of a State Police helicopter to ferry her back and forth to her Western Massachusetts home (and then it went from there...) - more symbols of a feeling of imperial entitlement and sense of elite standing. We want our politicians to have the common touch; not to decide that the office makes them king or queen, emperor or empress.

Playing the gender card will never be a substitute for competence. There are plenty of competent women around - Sarah Palin is an example of one of the incompetent ones, albeit one that (shiver...) the fish-brained American people (how quickly they forget...) may yet unfortunately decided to bless with higher office. God help us on that one, if and when it happens, for sure.

congratulations on being the first to meet the deadline!

Brilliant!

Say what you will, but Michelle's got a good strategy goin' on.

Whatever one thinks about the women themselves, the column is well-thought out and makes a good argument that, in fact, women ARE a discriminated-against class in certain arenas. Unfortunately one of those arenas is national politics. People generally think of women as softer and nurturing, so when a woman steps up to give forceful opinions, or fails to demure to a man, she is seen as shrill, bitchy, or obstinate.

Seems to me we need a woman candidate able to do what Obama did - remain mostly calm, and not give in to outbursts that would "prove" to some people he was the stereotypical angry black man, a move that would have cost him votes even though a white candidate can rant all over the news and not have it be an issue. Fair? Absolutely not. Reality? Yup.

As for Michelle, Hillary, and Sarah, well ... I can never be a Sarah fan, because in my opinion she's an intellectual lightweight. I don't want someone just like me in the White House, I want someone far, far smarter than me. Hillary seems to be doing OK as SecState, but was really trying too hard in her campaign for president. Which led her to make things up, which got her hung up. Michelle may have learned from Hillary's time as FL, too. Remember when Hillary was gonna reform health care and what a flop it was? Maybe Michelle is starting with the low hanging fruit and working her way up to other issues as we all get used to watching her wield her own power.

i think we should remember that as individuals we all have paths we choose and sometimes decisions are difficult to make but made nonetheless....just because someone chooses a path others disagree with ,we need to remember...it is her right to choose how she wants to develop as a human being....it's not for anyone else to decide if it was the right path.Michelle Obama may be experiencing an epiphany influencing and watching her children grow up to maybe be.....who knows?...they have grace,intelligence,,,,will most likely possess an advanced education....maybe her kids will be..president?

I kind of hear you, but not really. Your dangerously close to making a case women are a discriminated class.

Hillary Clinton went into the primaries the odds on favorite only to be out politiced by Obama. Obama didn't beat Hillary because he happened to be a man. He beat her simply because he was better at it.

Of course there is truth to a statement like sexism still exists in this country. The same could be said about racism and age discrimination. Look at the continuing vile baseless attacks Obama has to endure on a daily basis. One day he's a Nazi and the next he's a Communist. People (wingnuts) have even gone so far as to let all of know he's the type of person who will pull the plug on Granny. These types of personal attacks go with the territory. How these attacks are handled by the recipients speaks volumnes about their character. Hillary and Nancy normally handle these personal attacks very well. Palin didn't. She still doesn't. On any given day 50% of the people will love and support you and the other 50% will be questioning your parentage. Welcome to life in the big leagues.

When we stop talking about a, "smart, confident woman," and start talking about smart, confident people you'll be on your way to getting your wish. There's no time to start like the pesent.

This is a beaten in topic in a country that correctly thinks Hillary faced less obstacles as a woman than Barack did as an African-American. Perhaps the message sent to young girls wasn't "not yet" so much as "field better candidates".

And in fairness, most criticism directed at Justice Sotomayor was because she was a Democrat and nothing more. I would deem any insults hurled at women as far less insulting than the massive campaign aimed at questioning Barack Obama's citizenship and his father's conspirational motives....

Finally, I think the most should have looked into writing ability a bit more than qualifications. Because some of these writers look suspiciously as if their essays weren't screened at all.

This column reminds me of a young woman I heard one day, late in the primary, ask what had Hillary Clinton ever done for feminists. I understand backing Obama if you believed he was a better candidate, but to question Clinton's commitment to women and children is a kind of cannibalism that I think women too often engage in.

Having watched Clinton try to maintain a professional persona as First Lady was painful. It helps me understand that Michelle Obama may be trying a different path.

I think that at some point she may want to decide whether she wants to be remembered as the glamorous FL who dabbled in organic gardening, hoopla hooping on the lawn, date nights, and exotic trips. Or, will she decide to use some of her education and experience to help change lives?