Can’t expound much now but 2 thoughts:

1) "I would argue that running for president requires a candidate to address a multitude of factors that the public considers to be important. Gender doesn’t guide candidates’ opinions as much as party affiliation, religion, and socio-economic class."

On that – I didn’t suggest that any other these things are NOT true. I agree with all. But if gender was not an issue in politics, then we wouldn’t have women’s rights movements, bills that keep them out of combat, big old headlines when a woman gets elected to an office she’s never been in before, spewing over new supreme court justices… Same thing for minorities or ANY kind. We’ve simply decided to make these things issues, and I think in the case of the presidency it IS a big one, even if simply meaning bringing different characteristics – gender based – to the table.

2) Can you imagine the response if, during a Presidential debate a female candidate said, "I think I should be elected because the country needs a challenge. We need to see how the nation’s leaders would react to a change in the political power structure. Let’s just take a chance together, see how the nation and world leaders respond."

On that – I also did not suggest what campaign platform this candidate should run on nor what she should say. You’re being a little over the top with this one – the assumption in my comment about this nation’s giving itself and responding to a challenge is that this candidate – like any – will be who "we" feel is most suited for this job.