Portraying Clinton as being beleagured by sexist men does nothing to promote the notion of "Clinton the statesman". If Clinton really is presidential material, she can show it by rising above any pettiness or sexism that she may encounter by being the bigger person. It seems that her supporters seem more interested in her sex than her issues. That degrades the quality of the debate by shifting the focus from issues and qualifications to subsidiary qualities like sex. The best way for Hillary Clinton to convince voters that she is qualified to be president is to stop mentioning her sex. Unfortunately, Clinton does not want to run her campaign on the issues, she would rather use the press to provoke some vague outrage against men for keeping women "downtrodden". How sad.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to be winning votes by promoting a vision of hope and reconciliation. What a contrast! I am, for the record a Republican Romney supporter and will cast my vote for neither Clinton nor Obama in the partisan primary, however, I can't help but to point out how much healthier it would be for our country if Obama became the Democrat nominee. It is time for reconciliation not resentment. Thank goodnes for candidates like Obama that keep our political scene from descending entirely into pettiness and pandering.

Exactly. That is why I (a white woman) am supporting Obama. This country needs someone who can bring people back together after the past 2 decades of division politics. I fear another Clinton in the WH (despite her probable qualifications and, for me, left-moderate viewpoints) will only serve to divide us further. I am so frustrated by the constant coverage of Hillary as the Shoo-In Dem candidate. There's a reason Obama has raised more money than her. The media would do well to pay more attention to that fact.

To me, the issue is not about how electable is a woman or a minority representative. I think that within several months of the election, we shall wish that Obama was elected. The direction that our country takes is far more important than the likeability, popularity or connections of a given leader. I think we've been lulled to complacency by Bush's predictability. I did not say contented by his people-pleasing tactics; but in a globe all set to go haywire, we must seek wisdom or leadership having wisdom. More than leadership having abundant social connections.

Now Obama is the perfectly polished politician. Of course. He had to be an exceptional individual in order to get to where he is, and he's had to do lots of listening and broader-base cooperation with those who after all have a finger in the pot (no matter who runs or gets elected).

My own assessment is not that the most ideal candidate is the perfectly politician who obtains counsel and seeks consensus, but that Obama is our best likely option at this time. There may be a contender with whose policies I sympathize more--anyhow that is not Madam Clinton (much as I respect our former First Lady). She will always do well, elected or not, and has made history as an attention-grabbing female candidate.

Whereas Obama has discovered how to become what the people want and how to act in their best interest, folks are looking at his heritage and skin-color. I'm sorry to declare it, but that is odious folly.