While not necessarily showing a "big picture," Steinem highlights some of the thinking that impacts how we view women in powerful positions, and what *may* be causing women to not rise as high as men if coming from a similar circumstance. Overall, some good "food for thought."

In my view this atricle is of liitle value. To say people are choosing a candidate by gender is extremely wrong. There are many other issues be considered

Ms. Steinem gives an interesting historical perspective, starting with the civil rights and suffrage movements. Whether or not the reader agrees with her explanations as to why a black candidate can claim to be healing while a woman candidate is seen as playing a "gender card," this should be thought-provoking in a very positive way as it pushes the reader to sort this out in his or her own mind.

what struck me about this opinion piece is the ratings of the other newstrust reviews by other reviewers, which i think demonstrates underlying cultural conflicts between men and women and illustrating some of what ms. steinem said. it's hard to believe that the u.s. hasn't been able to come up with women as qualified as in all those other countries who have elected them as leader, so...there must be some other reason why we don't yet have this. ms. steinem is looking for the answer.

This is a interesting opinion piece that raises valid questions about race and gender. I question Steinem in citing the claim that Senator Clinton's tenure as First Lady counts as "unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House." At least Steinem is overt about it. By this standards, is any close advisor of a President qualified as experienced? Would the husband of an elected woman make the same claim? If not, is it gender-neutral?

Unfortunately, Ms. Steinem leaves very little room for the idea that a woman can be a feminist, support women for office on local and national levels, and still be put off by Ms. Rodham-Clinton. "[T]he slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo" is not so much a slander as a fact. Ms. Rodham-Clinton is more likely than either of the other two front runners to cozy up to big business. The true slander is in calling her policies "progressive" when they are, in fact, centrist.

Interesting ideas. I am pretty tired of the whole 'Hillary's a *itch' concept (good for her, I say).

This opinion piece is labeled "Opinion" by the newspaper and does not come up to journalistic standards. It is not sourced (indeed one "fact" already has had to be withdrawn because it was erroneous). There is no balance, no evidence, no consideration of past history (Senator Clinton is not the first woman to run for President), and no fairness.

Although this op-ed raises legitimate issues about both gender and race, I am not sure if they apply in this specific case. Reuters reports 1.08.09 that voters are not turning their backs on Hillary Clinton because of doubts about a woman in the White House but rather turning on to the optimistic message of her rival Barack Obama. I've never talked to a Democrat who said they would not vote for a qualified woman. I believe that Iowa voters -- including women -- and American being polled now are simply saying they prefer Sen Obama to Sen Clinton -- not that they prefer black men over women.

I keep forgetting that I am still not equal. I know that if muslim countries were run by women who "prtotected their men", the USA would at least condemn the regime if not the religion. I know that the notion that if I did something as well or better than a man I would be treated as an equal died in me sometime shortly before I graduated from law school in 1958. Equality has to be fought for, so I guess that I am up for it.