Seeing both a republican and democrat woman treated unfairly by the media really shows this to be a non-partison issue. Also, seriously, why isn't SNL cancelled all ready. This show is painful to watch.

It is disturbing to me to see all the comment about Palin's media coverage directed at her gender. I felt immediate anger and insult toward her because of McCain's political stunt in picking her in the first place. It was her complete lack of qualification that turned me off so much and the insult to our intelligence in thinking we would fall for that. Hilary's biggest problem is the closet full of ghosts the Clinton's still represent...it's not her gender that's the problem either. When women rise up and present a woman who has what she needs and can sell it to people and isn't all marred up with sex or money scandals, she'll get there. Obama just did it and he was masterful at it. We didn't hear him playing the race card as an excuse for needing favor and we women need to follow his lead.

My 80 year old Mother-in-Law commented that she thought Barack Obama looked really angry in his second debate with John McCain. She has lived her entire life in a small community in West Michigan. Her perception was rooted not in what she saw, but rather in the feelings that are deeply ingrained in her.

These polls indicate the same is true for many of the people who belong to the Female tribe. It seems clear to me that judgement over fair treatment was made based on what Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are, not on what they did.

Let me be clear, I want to see a woman as President, but I don't want just any woman as President because she is a woman any more than I want a war hero because he is a war hero or an African-American because he is an African-American.

I think the media reported on what happened, I saw stories about Hillary's mistakes, Joe's mistakes, John's mistakes and Sarah's mistakes, along with stories highlighting what they did well. The bias comes from who did what more often.

Hillary dropped flaming bags of dog dirt on her own doorstep more than once,and Sarah presented a beauty queen street smart hockey mom to us as viable for the office of VP, and potentially P.

It seems this poll indicates that many women believe the media is unfair when it reports what happens if it was one of the women who did it, but fair when it was one of the men who did it.

Sarah Palin was the worst choice the GOP could have made for a VP, not because she is a woman, not because she had limited experience, not because she was proud of being a hockey mom or had a family that has experienced the same trials and tribulations of many American families, but rather because she is an in-curious, un-informed politician who believes more in her own celebrity than she does in her country.

Palin had an interview back in AK awhile back before she was a blip on the screen. She more or less said if Clinton couldn't take the heat she needed to get off the stage. Well Palin the same goes for Palin. Palin was a journalism major and she knows exactly how her looks plays in the media. Clinton & Palin were talked about just like the guys. Am a woman and I see lots of woman use their sex to get what they want. Most guys are so fooled by a wink. Palin was not qualified but Hillary was. They were treated fairly.

Ms. Palin was fodder for both the news and comedy. She pandered to a religious "conservative" base while demonstrating a lifestyle that is counter to their teachings. Evangelical ladies preach sacrifice for God, family, children and country. They home school their children to ensure another generation of fundamentalists. Ms. Palin is all about Ms. Palin. Evangelical publications and media loved Ms. Palin while other outlets voiced observations attempting to open the eyes of those in the Republican base. I was a registered Republican and ardent admirer of John McCain for many years. The choice of Ms. Palin was enough to drive me from the party. The media took advantage of and highlighted her hypocritical treatment of the "conservative" base.

I don't see the underlying polling data anywhere and don't understand why you haven't provided it. 29% of those surveyed thought Palin was treated fairly, which seems low, but you haven't shown us what the question asked was and you haven't shown us what the other optional answers were. Moreover, the perception of Palin's treatment was undoubtedly influenced by the "Africa" hoax perpetrated on her by a blogger, and by the genuine attacks leveled at her by her own campaign during and after the election (Nafta, diva, whackjob, etc). It's hard to say whether people blame "the media" for those various incidents or not, even though only the "Africa" hoax can be traced to the media itself, albeit in a genuine accident. This election was overwhelmingly decided by women, who voted against McCain-Palin by a margin of 13 points. Many previously undecided women I know point specifically to Palin when explaining why they decided to vote for Obama, saying they were angered or even insulted by her choice. Believing that sexism exists in today's society and being supportive of Sarah Palin obviously don't go hand in hand. Your poll doesn't shed light on those factors at all.

Barack Obama didn't have to play the race card. He had the media doing it for him. No woman could have run for President after 142 days in the Senate. To have an entire station Msnbc to a commentator make daily racist remarks would not have been tolerated the way that sexist remarks were. Katie Couric made a tepid complaint and she was openly mocked for speaking out. I pray that our future President will be successful. I just feel like we had a woman candidate with more experience who by even the media's standards was more qualified who was vilified by the media. Until the day comes where a woman who is strong and smart is valued as much as a man, we will never reach our fullest potential as a nation.

In the case of Sarah Palin, it was difficult for the media to focus on her political ideas since there was very little substance on the national level. It still infuriates me that the Repulican Party thought that to those of us who supported Hillary, women were interchangeable. The "picking Palin" stunt was an insult to our intelligence as though we had no reason to support a woman besides gender. I also feel the media was unforgiveably unfair and cruel to Hillary without good reason.

The majority of women polled decry inequality, but only 20% call themselves feminists? Even less want their daughters to be feminists? Huh.
I think that's the most telling part of the whole article. How does any woman expect fair treatment if we aren't willing to demand it? How did the term "feminist" get misappropriated to mean something negative?
The fundamental problem with the woman's movement, (what's left of it) is that modern women are so clearly conflicted. We want equality, but we also adopt behaviors and attitudes that directly undermine that effort. We don't stand together and demand fair health care costs, as group we don't demand affordable child care. Women are still forced to choose between career and motherhood, and to feel tremendous guilt about that choice. We want equality, but we also want to be pretty, to be treated as precious, to be protected by a big strong man. We cannot have it both ways. We must decide want we really want. We complain that we don't have a woman President, but we still raise our daughters in pink princess rooms, we still diet for looks not health, we still wear 5 inch stilettos, we still actively undermine ourselves. We will never have equality as long as we covet (secretly, and not so secretly) the illusory power of the "feminine". For centuries women have relied upon the power of sex to manipulate men to get what we want, we must be willing to sacrifice "feminine wiles", for authentic strength and achievement.

there is a big difference between the source of bigotry for Palin and Hillary. the difference in intensity is owed to pro abortion feminists supporting Hillary and the same women leading the mud slinging against Palin. if you disagree you can still see plenty of it in arriana-land.

I agree that the media made clowns of themselves with respect to women, but women themselves are equally to blame. Reading the comments on Huffington Post, one saw over and over again statements which began "I am a feminist ..." and then proceeded to eviscerate Clinton's marriage and looks, and the circumstances surrounding the birth of Palin's baby and of course the wardrobe that we now know she never bought. Clearly these women would not know what a feminist was if -- to paraphrase Frank Zappa -- it came up behind them and bit them on the ass. Also, a feminist is also emphatically NOT some power-hungry gold digger and former plagiarist with ideas about censorship that would make even Stalin shudder.

i don't feel that hillary was really treated that unfairly. maybe that's just my perception, but it seems to me that she was treated as a legitimate threat by the other democratic nominees--because she was. palin is not even comparable to clinton--except that they are both women. so trying to compare them is ludicrous. palin was so ignorant on camera that it made me sad that i am a woman. and as the previous poster mentioned, it's a choice between being pretty and feminine and demure or respected and being treated equally. palin seems more well known because of her shoes and glasses and skirt suits than her education and experience. God forbid someone like that be allowed to lead our country.

Yes, the glass ceiling exists and the choice of Sarah Palin demonstrates how thick the glass is. By choosing her, the old white guys running McCain's campaign demonstrated how archaic their views are. Simply stated, she's an idiot who was clearly not ready for prime time. The old white guys running McCain's campaign thought she would give Joe the Plumber a woody and inspire women to vote for her because of her gender. They have such little regard for female voters they didn't think it would matter what her capabilities or positions on issues were. Shame on the GOP!

In Hillary's case, she just ran the wrong campaign for the times we are in. She is part of the old school of "smash mouth", divisive, character attacking politics. There is no question she made Barack a better candidate but she lost because she represented what is wrong with Washington.

Polls aside, we did break barriers this year. The country made an evolutionary leap and is now ready to accept a woman as President.

These were two very seriously flawed candidates. Hillary had truth issues and was running a campaign based on being a "fighter" in a year that people wanted healing. Palin was a lightweight and had shown little interest in the world outside Alaska prior to her selection for VP. The fact that despite their major deficiencies they went as far as they did simply undercuts any claim that their treatment was unfair.

I'm a sixty-four year old woman and I've received what I've expected and worked for in my life. Sarah Palin didn't get any respect because she's an IDIOT. Hillary Clinton is a smart, savvy woman politician. Barak Obama, however, is a better person for the job of President of our country now. My children told me a long time ago: respect must be earned.

As a feminist, I would have been thoroughly embarassed if the train wreck Palin was the best we could do in terms of women in the WH. How is that people are so oblivious to the fact that she would make us look even more ridiculous that Bush did?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for this article and this poll data. By the way, did anyone see the Laura Bush interview when she said that during the Obama White House visit she showed Michelle Obama "the closets . . . you know the things women are interested in." Where have the feminists gone?

I don't think gender was even the issue with Clinton or Palin. Clinton has a reputation of corruption, and Palin is a complete idiot. I think it's fairly insulting to say that black voters went for Obama simply because he's black as well. The media analysis of minority status playing a role in this election has been laughable and simplistic at best.

The crux of the missed discussion in this article is right here:

"Not surprisingly, women completely reject the idea that a women president would be too emotional and end up crying in the Oval Office. But 4 in 10 men freely admit sexist attitudes towards a female president. 39% of men say that a male is "naturally more suited" to carrying out the duties of the office."

Can't we recognize that crying is an emotional outlet, much preferable to slamming a fist on the desk, and does not render the crier incapable of making good and timely decisions?

I self identify as a feminist and I feel as though neither Hillary Clinton nor Sarah Palin were treated unfairly based on their gender. If anything, it seemed as though Sarah Palin were treated with kid gloves by the media, and let's not forget that the McCain campaign would not allow the media access to Palin were she not treated with "due deference." The fact of the matter is that neither women were the right candidate for the job. To expect female politicians to be treated with "due deference" is insulting to feminists such as myself, they should be subjected to all the same tough questions that male politicians are. Palin should never have even been on the ticket and should have been questioned MUCH more in-depth to truly highlight her complete and utter ignorance of any issue of any importance to this country in a time of turbulence and change.

Clinton reaped and suffered because of her spouse connection - afterall look what the Bush dynasty produced. Palin was simply a poor quality too polarizing choice.
If Obama garnered 94% of the black vote - why didn't females behave the same and gravitate to the sisterhood? The facts are 8 million more females voted for Obama than for Sarah. So it appears that women of majority did not like Sarah's campaign performance and/or her positions on the issues, especially I believe, those pertaining to women.
Calling yourself a feminist is asking for special consideration because you are female. Asking to be considered on a level playing field is acting as a strong female not a headcase with a crutch.

I think the sexism in the media angle is at best overblown. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin ran wretched, despicable campaigns. Until she found her populist message towards the end, Senator Clinton's campaign was tone-deaf and flailed from one position to another. Gov. Palin quickly revealed herself to have little knowledge of the issues facing the country, and spent her energies delivering mean-spirited and baseless accusations (e.g. palling around with terrorists, socialism, etc.) How else should the media have dealt with these candidates, regardless of their gender?

I must say, in addition to my previously comment, that it is decidedly UN-feminist to vote for a woman based solely on her gender!! When the day comes that a female candidate is the best candidate, that is the point at which I'll vote for her. Not a moment earlier.

I came across this website that is dedicated to ending sexism in the press! As depressed as i've been over this election it is great to know not all women in media hew the line of sexism!
Here is their mission statement:
Femisex.com
by M.A. Liginter
A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the general election of 2008. Millions of Americans discovered the Liberal Press despises women. Not all women. Liberal Press does adore certain women--wives, mothers, workaday gals, these are all accepted models. However, the love STOPS DEAD for Alpha Women.

For a woman with the temerity (The Audacity!) to make a run for the Top Dog spot, the Liberal Press stripped down, all the way down, showing Americans the Misogyny and Sexism they, until now, kept tucked up around their private parts.

The founders of this page are mainstream media journalists appalled by this shameful display. When Pat Buchanan is the most reasonable voice of comment on the topic of a female run for the presidency....well, the time has come for a Very Large Correction.

No longer should one think in terms of Conservative vs. Liberal Media. In regard to sexism and misogyny they are exposed as one and the same. To end sexist press we must focus on Derailment.
www.femisex.com

It is incredibly misleading of The Daily Beast to publish this article without disclosing that the "Penn" in the polling firm of Penn, Schoen et al is actually Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's top campaign advisor. His obvious bias makes the poll data worthless and the article based on it nothing but a Hillary propaganda piece.

How many readers recognized the polling firm name? None, as far as we can tell from the comments so far.

For The Daily Beast to mislead its readers by disguising the central fact in this story is journalistic fraud. What a disappointment from such a promising new site. I had hoped this would be a place for trustworthy serious journalism alongside the gossip and fun.