Okay... It's one thing to argue that liberals should monitor the media's campaign coverage for bias against Hillary Clinton that treats her differently or with disdain because she's a woman. Since that has happened before and will again, that's good advice. One could even extend it to say that we should come up with strategies to fight back effectively against gender swift-boaters or the subtler MSM purveyors of bias. It's another thing entirely, however, to suggest that Clinton's low level of support among men and her high level of support among women is a particular reason to argue in her favor in general. I should say that it's a little unclear to what extent Francke-Ruta is arguing for Clinton per se, rather than just against a tendency to "flee her side simply because her gender helps make her a divisive figure." At that level, Francke-Ruta is absolutely right. Treating her gender as a reason not to support her because one thinks others will so treat her is to make the danger of gender bias a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, more talented women should be hired as pundits and elected to office. But in a particular election, one has to judge the candidates on the merits and for the most part argue for or against them accordingly. As I indicated above, they should generally be supported when they are subject to unfair attacks, even if they aren't our favored candidate. But that's a far cry from saying they shouldn't be criticized.

As for Clinton's differential popularity based on gender, I find that troubling in two ways. First and foremost, gender bias is encouraging men (and some women) to denigrate her unfairly, and secondarily, it's encouraging women (and some men) to support her as a woman beyond what their knowledge of her career or proposals can justify. (Supporting her because she's a woman would probably only make sense if one agreed with her no more or less than with other candidates and if one believes, as I do, that she has at least a reasonable chance of winning a general election.)

The broader point is that I suspect that many Democrats' views of her are rather uninformed as of yet -- and certainly, I think it's fair to say that the more female and male liberals learn about her policies, the more their support for her would tend to drop, especially when she is compared to some of ther other Democratic candidates. She is smart and hard-working and I would support her enthusiastically if she were to win the nomination. But we have a primary season precisely so we can study and compare the candidates, all of whom will be subjected to unfair press at times. She'll probably get more unfair press than most if not all of the candidates in both parties, partly for reasons Francke-Ruta explains. As I said, we should fight back against such coverage. But we should also express our own opinions about the candidates, because the differences between them carry divergent implications for the direction of the country.