I agree that there should have been more women commentating, but you have to look at who is commentating: old political operatives. 10 years ago, there were almost no women high up in politics (as politicians or on their staff), and it's still not great, but its getting better.

Also interesting that, while the men as a whole leaned right, there was some ideological diversity. The three women you list for the main networks (Roberts, Mitchell, Crowley) all tend to identify with the GOP (though none of them identify as "opinion journalists").

Bearcat, your point only underscores how the old boy network hurts women. Of course, it could be neutral - in a gender-equal world, it wouldn't discriminate between men and women. But it would still reduce the quality of new coverage, and in the real world it also blocks women's advancement.

Well, Fred, that's because everyone knows a liberal feminist is too shrill for that kind of public exposure :P

It's sideline girl syndrome. I love watching sports and I get soooo pissed at ESPN. They have taken great strides to hire women, but they put them all on the sidelines in cute outfits to flirt with the ballplayers. GRRRR.

The sad thing about ESPN and the election night coverage is that women are still "tokens" in the news industry.

Puh-leeze. CNN was even worse than that since they did their hip little bloggers-in-the-house thing (though the network connections were such shit that half the folks couldn't blog). And even though they made sure to ask two--count em, two--black women, La Shawn Barber and my girl Pam Spaulding over at the House Blend, who did they ask for commentary?

Three white guys: two who I didn't know Adam, plus John Aravosis of Americablog--who, when asked about the races he was watching, said bupkus about the anti-gay marriage amendments around the country. (Goodness, could it be that John thinks that a serious journalist doesnot go about jabbering about silly, identity-related civil rights stuff anymore? That would be a shame.)

55% of women voted Democrat in this election and 43% voted Republican so women commentators should be more Democratic than Republican or it's tokenism/misrepresentation as TLF said.

Male 50% 47%
Female 55% 43%

Whites were the only race to vote Republican more than Democratic so if anyone tries to deny this is a racist country refer them to the House Exit Poll. Whites are the only race supporting the status quo by far in a country under Republican rule.

White 47% 51%
Black 89% 10%
Latino 69% 30%
Asian 62% 37%

It's a good thing men and women saw eye to eye somewhat in this election but check out the difference between whites and nonwhites in voting Democrat or Republican! Holy cow!

Makes one think the era of the caucasian should come to a close and it will.

(Yes, I am one also, but I think outside the box)

Only 10 years ago? 10 years ago was 1996. Women have been openly involved in the American political process since at least the 1850's when they spearheaded the temperance movement and the women's suffrage movement. The first women to be elected to Congress was elected more then half a century ago. Several women have been government department heads and cabinet members in the past 30-40 years. In addition to that, countless women have written political books, ran political websites, worked for political campaigns and worked as political news reporters. This idea that women just aren't in politics or haven't been for long enough is complete bullshit. The truth is that women and their voting power have been largely ignored or demeaned. Whenever a large number of women vote for a candidate, people always talk about how women voted that way because of the man's personality or "good looks". No one ever says that a large group of women voted for a certain person or party because they were actually concerned about serious issues. When women are allowed to speak about their political views on TV, they are often talked over by men, who often tell them they are completely wrong, even when it comes to the woman attempting to explain how women feel about certain political issues. It's not an old boys club. It's an old immature, sexist, club of men who are still threatened by the idea of powerful women.

I noticed the same thing - all day, mostly white men commenting on the election. I wonder how long we will have to listen to these right-leaning dudes complain about how Bush can't get anything done with this Democratic congress. More then likely, we'll hear it for the next two years.

The other groups that voted Republican more than Democrat.

Protestant 44% 54%
White Men 44% 53%
White Women 49% 50%
Income $100,000 + 47% 52%
White Protestants 37% 61%
Married 48% 51%
Married Women 48% 50%
Married Men 47% 51%
Married w/children 48% 51%
Rural 48% 51%
South 45% 53%

--muckraker dd

So to the conservatives who say we don't live in a racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant backwards country:

FUCK YOU

NPR had roughly a 50/50 split between men and women reporters and hosts during its election night coverage. Most of the analysts brought on (to say stupid remarks) were men, though.

By the way, if you agree to be filmed by CNN blogging, you have no self-esteem and should be shunned by polite society. At least somebody could have downloaded some naughty pictures for the cinema. But no, everybody's just a huge lame-o.

"Whites were the only race to vote Republican more than Democratic so if anyone tries to deny this is a racist country refer them to the House Exit Poll. Whites are the only race supporting the status quo by far in a country under Republican rule." - donna darko

How exactly does this show racism?

The status quo in this country is Republican because we have lived under Republican rule for the last six years. People who voted Democrat in this election voted for change.

Chris at MyDD even said Latinos (and blacks) won this election for the Democrats. Hopefully, the Democrats be inclusive of minorities from now on. As if.

In 2006, Democrats made gains across the board because of Iraq, Katrina, Social Security, Corruption, et all. However, the true dagger came from Latinos who, to the tune of a shocking thirty points, shifted to Democrats more than any other demographic group in the country. This almost certainly because of the hateful, harsh, anti-immigration rhetoric from the conservative base, and refused to even listen to its leaders like Bush and McCain who wanted to adopt a more open approach. This shift accounted for between 25% and 30% of the entire shift to Democrats nationwide, and did not net Republicans any "backlash" gains whatsoever. Considering Latino population growth, that is the sort of dagger that will stick in and cause wounds to fester for a long, long time. It is also probably one of the main reasons why Democrats did so well among both Catholics and the youth vote.

Pluralism won out over the "battle of civilizations" this time around. Democrats won because the nation turned away from conservative ideas of cultural supremacy and turned toward progressive ideas of pluralism. The war on Latinos and Asians (the anti-immigration message), the war on non-Christians (which they called the war on Christmas), the war Muslims (which they call the war on terror), the war on the GLBT community, the war on poor African-Americans in New Orleans--this all failed for the conservative Republican base. Their general war on pluralism did not produce any sustainable backlash for them, but instead turned key, growing demographics towards Democrats. That not only played a key role in how Democrats won the 2006 elections, but in giving us momentum for many elections to come. If conservatives persist on running on a message that denounces the key demographic changes in this country, they can expect to quickly become reduced to a near-permanent minority in our national politics.

"People who voted Democrat in this election voted for change."

And thankfully so.

When there was one, Katie Couric was the face of US election coverage in the newspapers in Europe.