Q: When you're thinking about your own reporting, do you consciously make an effort not to tilt your coverage when reporting on a female candidate?

Kornblut: I don't worry about it, because I think I'm pretty well inoculated against being sexist -- I would hope I am. I think I would try not to ask questions of anyone that, if it were me running, I wouldn't expect to be asked. I've certainly seen what a man's world looks like, working in Washington for a long time, so I know what these women will be up against if they win. But no, I don't worry about it at all, because I think it's something that I think I would have a pretty natural radar for -- if the question were inappropriate.

Q: Is it ever a discussion in your newsroom, among editors or other reporters? Does this issue come up when you are talking about coverage?

Kornblut: I think we're lucky here, because we tend to be more serious. We don't, you know, by and large, cover just the clothing they wear or the family lifestyles or some of the, quote-unquote, softer things that I think women candidates are sensitive of being lumped into a category and being treated only on those grounds as opposed to being asked serious questions. Certainly in the coverage of Clinton there were moments when her pantsuits were talked about; there were a lot more moments when her policies were talked about. That's largely the focus here now.

That's not to say that we haven't thought about what the female electorate is undergoing and the changes that we've seen. I mean, this is the first time that women have had so many choices across the spectrum, and we've asked public opinion questions about female voters, but I don't feel like we've had to really alter our coverage or avoid certain questions because there have been women on the ballot on both sides.

Q: John McCain seems to be trying to strike a balance between using Palin's gender as a selling point while at the same time -- as with the "lipstick on a pig" comment -- using claims of sexism as a deflective tool. How do you deal with that kind of message?

Kornblut: Again, I think I'm lucky insofar as, simply being female, I think I can call it like I see it pretty fairly. I don't have to be overly sensitive to it. And I do think that one thing we've seen, both with Senator Clinton and with Governor Palin, is an outpouring of support for female candidates, that far from there being evidence that men won't vote for a woman because she's a woman, we see the opposite, which is women willing to vote for women because they are women....

On the flip side, using it as a defense when the complaint isn't real is probably dangerous territory. And I think Senator Clinton was very sparing in the beginning. She didn't really talk about when there were stories written or comments -- mostly I think it was comments made on the cable news networks that they felt were unfair. They, in the beginning, didn't talk about it. She'd gone through all these years at the White House feeling like she was put under a tougher microscope than someone else might have been. But she started to talk about it later, with some reluctance.

The McCain campaign has been a lot more open about using it as a defense, and I think that they've done so at their peril, because at the times when it's been perceived as just being kind of phony umbrage as opposed to a real complaint, they've run the risk of not being taken seriously when there is a real complaint.

Q: Last week, CNN's Campbell Brown asked the McCain camp to "end this chauvinistic treatment" of Palin by letting her field more questions from the media. What did you think of that?

Kornblut: I think it's a really good point. I think the truth is that most professional women, certainly women who've been in careers long enough, know they have to be as good as men -- and sometimes better, but certainly as good as -- and there's no reason why she shouldn't answer questions the way any man would, any woman would. If she were running, let's say, in a Republican primary against other candidates, she'd be forced to answer those questions. The fact that she was kind of picked out of the blue and put on the ticket has meant that they can shield her from some things, like releasing her tax returns or answering questions. But I don't think that's an experience that most women in the workplace have -- of being shielded and protected because they're women -- and I think that asking her to answer questions the way anyone else would was perfectly legitimate.

Q: For Thursday's vice presidential debate, some have suggested that Joe Biden is going to have to walk on egg shells to avoid appearing like a bully. Do you think that he's going to be scrutinized because he's being put up against a woman? What do you think of the coverage that's going to surround the debate?

Kornblut: It's going to be fascinating. I think that you've seen, even in the coverage of the interviews -- the first interview that Charlie Gibson did versus the second one that Katie Couric did -- that Gibson was much more of a sort of talked-about character in his one, whereas Katie Couric has asked questions and sort of sat back, and we haven't heard much about Katie's performance; we've heard a lot about Palin's. So I think that Biden will probably try to be more Couric-like than Charlie Gibson-like, insofar as not wanting the attention, not to have him look like he's being condescending.

That said, again, if she were to actually win and become vice president, she would have to be able to stand up to many senators who are as tough, and tougher, than Joe Biden, so there's no reason not to expect her to be able to compete against him.

Q: After everything is wrapped up this election cycle, looking back, what are some takeaways for journalists? What kind of lessons do you think have been learned in regard to covering women and the issue of sexism?

Kornblut: That's a really good question; I've been trying to think about that myself. I'd hate to suggest that it doesn't exist in the world. I think it probably exists more in everyday peoples' lives than it does in politics, because we're in an arena where people are so careful, at the national level, not to be seen that way.

But I do think that the sensitivity to it has been raised, and I do think that to the extent that there were things said about Senator Clinton, in particular early on -- harshness toward her, not giving her credit for having gotten where to she is on her own, et cetera -- I think that perhaps reporters will be more sensitive to that going forward. I think that like everything, though -- forget politics and journalism -- simply having had women running pretty much the whole year is going to acclimate people to it so that it won't be the dominant talking point the next time it happens.

We've watched Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House -- this is not something that people on the Hill talk about anymore; they talk about the work she's doing. And because they've gotten used to it, it's not a question. She's been there a long time. So I think it won't be a sort of specific takeaway, but I think the general takeaway is that it just won't be as remarkable. It will be a given that a woman can do it, and we'll get past talking about gender and talk about substance.