I wonder how Republican women in elected positions of power would respond to this question; Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins come to mind. I think that even Condoleeza Rice and Karen Hughes must have been distressed by McCain’s selection of an attractive, aggressive woman for only those traits. When it came to really putting the “Country First” he put his political ambitions first and pandered to the people in his party determined to keep women in their “place”.

Sorry to turn this discussion on its heel - but I have done it before so I will say my piece: When we are talking about who should be president (or VP for that matter), we should NOT be talking about “women” as we are. Aren’t I correct in saying that we want the best qualified PERSONS in the White House protecting our interests? If your answer is “yes”, then gender should not be thrown into the equation at all. Those of you who have done as I have - interviewed people for high positions - want to see, first of all, that they have all the experience and CREDENTIALS to assume such responsibility. We then look at the many ways that they will relate to the public and their subordinates - and if they pass muster. There is more, of course. But never have I looked at gender when making such a decision. If you understand so far, it is how they have grown from their past experience (which should be major), in government - what prior connections(!!) that are very broad based have been developed and cemented firmly so the plans can take action with confidence, the steps they have taken to achieve the place they are in now, and then - well, of course there is more. Vision is important but is no good without firm direction — and many have only one or the other. If you haven’t met such people, well - I have. They talk a good talk, but when it comes to knowing how to move into action, many fail. As we are talking government here, we are seeing more and more women gaining high office. Of course, we are proud. But I am hoping that what they have achieved is not because of high support of women because it is “a woman”, but because her credentials and the meld that makes her the best candidate overrides her possibly male competition. Again, in government as well as business, we are seeing many many women moving to the top rungs. They have worked their way up, been exemplary and have proven themselves “winners”. We will see more — as we women believe in ourselves and our capabilities as never before. There is no doubt that a woman will get there. Hillary at the end of the campaign suddenly became a “winner” - just a little too late. She found her pace and style — and she was well-grounded in experience and knowledge in the Washington crowd. I believe what we will be seeing - and trust me and watch closely - is that women in Congress are being given more roles and more challenges to “test” them, and a few are being groomed for high office - and being taught what the boys in the back room have formerly held sacred to men. This rounds out the experience factor for a woman and also lets her on the inside of the Congressional world, making close relationships with the giants who have been around. So I think we can expect to see the exceptional women in government - and not all are - being well-grounded to assume command. Personally, I think that Senator Amy Klobuchar (D. MN) will bowl the future generation of women now in higher positions over. She’s got it all - and has the ear of the ones closest to the White House. They are watching. Perhaps, you may want to also. BUT - to the point again - let’s cut gender out. Let’s not think about getting a female in the top slot so “we can be proud of our sex”. Instead, in a world torn apart, we MUST have the best-qualified PERSON protecting us. I think that perhaps that - from what I am closely watching - that the best qualified woman we have is having a learning curve at present, having higher education on the job and absorbing it well, and we may see that the PERSON best for the presidency will be a woman. So far, no one has complained about my crystal ball.

Why we do what we do: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tony_robbins_asks_why_we_do_what_we_d… Barack Obama just proved the American Dream is alive and well for those who prepare, plan, are results oriented and consistently work hard toward a goal. A black man is supposedly racist America just became the most powerful person in the world. The difference between he and GWB is Barack is extremely intelligent and classy, and he didn’t have anything handed to him by rich establishment parents.

Hillary Clinton helped herself and women immensely. Yes, she lost the election. However, her cross-country mission to unite the party and promote an Obama presidency, along with helping downticket candidates cannot be overlooked. The success of the Democratic party is her success as well. Her approval ratings show this, as they are now higher than when she entered the presidential campaign. Hillary will have even greater influence going into the 111th Congress, and she remains a role model for millions. I find it difficult to argue how Sarah Palin helped herself or women in general. Yes, she is a star. And I suppose she does have charisma and a certain sexuality, but so does Paris Hilton. While I think it’s unfair to compare Palin to Clinton when it comes to understanding the issues, it is rather disappointing how little depth of knowledge Palin displayed and how comfortable she is with that lack of knowledge. Perhaps there are those who see Palin as a role model too, but I question what they base that on.

I think it helped. We cannot now be rejected because others view females as not serious capable contenders. I do differ with an earlier comment that said Hillary broke the glass ceiling. Not until a woman is elected and holds that office will that glass ceiling be broken. Cracks- yes. Broken- no.

Just as with any candidate, regardless of gender or race, one has to earn allegiance and be viewed objectively. I thought Palin hurt the efforts of women in politics because she was not selected for the right reasons, she is not qualified and women initially bought in to that selection without taking a look at who she really was and what she really stood for. This is a woman who is used to getting by on looks and timing, not qualifications and experience. I would also like to see women run the course of a campaign without drifting into the dark side of behavior. Both Clinton and Palin did so and when you play in the dirt, you just end up looking dirty.