I am wondering why we’ve heard so little about Michele Obama. She seems like a great person on her own accomplishments. And, I love Dennis Kucinich’s wife.

I agree with you about Obama, but again must admit I’ve not been following nearly as much as any of you probably, plus when I was growing up I just happen to meet Hilary when she was visiting friends in NY (Chelsea & I had a mutual friend - at the time) and I thought she was a unfriendly bitch, course she was only the wife of a govenour at the time, maybe now that she’s running for president she’d be more friendly, and again that sorta doesn’t make me like her much either - that sorta only friendly when it’s convient behaviour (NOT that that is a good judge of presidency either, but that’s just my 2 pence from L’town)

Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. So, actually, she has more NATIONAL experience than Obama (elected in 2004) or Edwards (elected in 1998, served one term).

And I’m totally sick of the racism vs. sexism crap that has permeated this race. Which is more pervasive? It’s impossible to say. I know that as a white woman I have faced lots of discrimination in my life, both overt and subtle. But that doesn’t make my suffering at the hands of sexism more or less heinous than the sufferings of people of color due to racism.

I admire and respect the three major candidates, and if I had to vote today, I would vote for Clinton. She does have the most experience. Being a First Lady is a lot more than “sleeping with the President.” During her eight years as First Lady, she served as a virtual ambassador of the United States around the world and really was the first proudly feminist First Lady we’ve had since probably Eleanor Roosevelt. But I honestly wouldn’t mind if Obama or Edwards got the nomination, though Edwards probably won’t. And I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be awesome.

But I get so frustrated with this “Hillary is cold” argument. It plays right into the sexist double standard. I honestly believe that if Hillary had come across from the beginning as warm, touchy-feely, and sensitive enough to be moved to tears she would never have gotten as far as he has. She’ be seen (whether this would be part of the public discourse, I don’t know) as “too woman-y”. She’d be considered way to sensitive and moody to be the commander-in-chief of our country. But when she acts the way she has seen necessary to get where she is she’s considered a cold bitch. Obviously I can never prove that she wouldn’t have gotten just as far without being so cold, but I do believe it in my gut.

And while I certainly don’t like the idea that our first female president is only president because she’s the wife of Bill, I wonder if that IS precisely why she is the first woman to make it this far. You’re question is very relevant- why are the many many other women who have devoted their lives to public service not running for president? Maybe because this country isn’t ready yet. Maybe we are only ready for this somewhat a-sexual wife of Bill who many people still love (and obviously others hate) because in the back of our minds we still feel like voting for her is voting for him. But maybe having her in the white house will be the catalyst for all those other women who don’t have presidential coattails on which to ride to get into the office. Who knows.

these are the reasons conservatives (and a lot of liberals) don’t like her. they don’t see her as centrist, they see her as a radical liberal. regardless of what her actual political orientation is, if she’s going to be able to unite rather than divide, she’s going to have to gain the respect and confidence of those who don’t agree with her, and hillary will never do that. it’s not a matter of being centrist — there is almost no difference between hillary and obama’s politics as far as i can tell. it’s all about the way they present themselves. that’s why obama has a better chance of getting things done. it’s not because HE has hope. he GIVE US hope because he can promote the same ideas hillary is promoting and do it in a way that gets people excited about his ideas, or at least doesn’t piss them off as much as hillary would. when he talks, he sounds like someone with common sense and integrity. when hillary says pretty much the same thing, she sounds like a wonky shyster. look at george w. bush… as far as i can tell he was pretty much elected solely on his “beerabilty.” for better or worse, personality is everything in national politics. it’s hillary’s personality (and her last name) that is divisive, not her gender.

as far as having our first woman president, i hope that our first woman president is a self-made woman who gets to the white house on her own achievements. not someone who rides her husband’s coattails into national politics. do you know how many smart women have devoted most of their lives to public service? why aren’t any of them running for president? the ONLY reason hillary is a viable candidate for president is because she is married to a former president. there is no way she’d be where is today if not for bill. and even if i’m wrong, and she would be where she is today without bill, the perception that she rode her husband’s coattails into the white house seriously tarnishes her image as some great feminist hero.

Additionally, I am not convinced that the sex issue is any less significant than the race issue. I feel a lot like the woman on NPR. How can I not vote for the first woman president? But you know me, the freaky feminist
Anyway, since I feel like I am not articulate enough to communicate how I feel about the sex issue, I am linking to this article because I think it is very well written an interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?ex=1200459600&en=b89398531bea1916&ei=5070&emc=eta1