One of the rarely mentioned prejudices in this election is Sexism, I was out there marching for Women’s Lib before it became a dirty word, and I have watched it erode away year after year. There are women who are bobbing around under the glass ceiling who would deny that prejudice, but I would be willing to bet that the old white males who wouldn’t vote for a woman if she were a re-incarnation of Jesus Christ, would not vote for Obama if it were a choice between an old white male or a black man. Add to the problem the women who believe themselves to be incompetent and project their self-hate on other women. The end result, we have another old white male to take us down the primrose path to hell where they can use the sons we raise to play war.

I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. (Especially with my personal finances; which means I research every charitable organization, and generously give to groups who will not squander my donation.) This is a HUGE problem when it comes to election time: I have never been represented by a presidential candidate since I was eligible to vote in 1980. And now? McCain’s foreign and domestic policies are likely to bankrupt America, both as a nation and as individuals. Clinton (the honest one) has a healthcare program that will bankrupt the nation even faster: basically lumping more worthless, yet costly, government paperwork over the infrastructure of an already-paperwork-laden commercial HMO-favoring system. Obama is the ONLY candidate I am willing to vote for. In fact, I am already starting to look at which foreign country I will call home should he not succeed…

Bella Mia: How do you know a similar crowd of Clinton supporters would have reacted differently when challenged to name one of her accomplishments as a senator? Joy Lazaro: It is well-documented that the Republicans are betting and strategizing on the exact opposite of what you say: promoting the nomination of Clinton is the surest way to a Republican victory. That is why they registered and voted for her in the primaries in droves. Suzanne de Cornelia: As you undoubtedly know, the word “liberal” is a variant of “liberty”. Who should apologize for that? Ironically, “liberal” often means “even more conservative than conservatives”, such as in the environmental movement, when progress means returning to a superior prior state. The stigmatization of this word’s proud legacy is second only to that of the slang word for “negro”, which after all is only a latin form of “black”. This is what the right does, only too well: manipulate words in order to manipulate people. Current stigmatization campaigns include the word “secular” and a few others. The key is to realize that the stigmatized word’s power is granted by the person who reacts…and that words are cheap. It’s actions that should make an impression upon us. As you allude, the far right has had an agenda to eradicate liberalism and create a “permanent conservative/Republican majority”. That agenda shows a real misunderstanding of social dynamics, and is a logical impossibility like achieving more selling and less buying. Each side exists in reaction to the other. Fortunately the Founders realized this, and that the healthiest solution is to create a system whereby each side is played against the other in healthy debate, thus utilizing creative energies toward improvement and advancement. I don’t think they would view the current tactics of destruction favorably. What about this post comparing Clinton’s and Obama’s record in the Senate? http://tinyurl.com/ypykhr Voting for a candidate because of that person’s race or gender is a singularly lousy reason to vote for that candidate. We’ve been voting for candidates for the invalid reason that they’ve been (generally elderly) white males for years, and it isn’t an improvement to vote for them for the equally invalid reason that they’re black or female. Even agreement on issues is secondary. Just as you do when you hire someone, go for the best and most-qualified person. Period.

One of the yardsticks I have used to measure the two Democratic candidates is the efficiency and effectiveness with which they have run their campaigns. If you look at Clinton and Obama as CEOs in charge of their campaign logistics, you get an indication of how they would run the White House. Clinton’s campaign has stumbled numerous times; it has lost top advisors (just this week Mark Penn resigned ..at least “offically”… because of a conflict of interest that is truly unethical), has failed to raise sufficent funding…Clinton had to loan her campaign $5,000,000 just to keep going, and has flailed around with first one approach and then another…drama and comedy. It’s not very reassuring to think of the White House being run that way. On the other hand, Obama’s campaign has been called the best managed in recent history, has continued to raise funds from individuals in record-breaking amounts, has been consistently on-message , and has retained a well-organized, well-led staff. For me, the contrast between the two campaigns is dramatic and telling. I keep reading arguments about Obama’s junior status and lack of experience, but I’m hard pressed to find much more content in Clinton’s experience. She can tout the White House years, but, as we found out recently when she erronously described the circumstances of her Bosnia trip, there’s not much there. I give Obama high marks for his integrity, his willingness to speak with our adversaries, and his intelligence. I am sure that, as President, he will select a cabinet of experts. At this point in our history we need real leadership to deal with internal and external issues, and I sincerely believe that Obama offers that leadership.

Suzanne, thank you — as always.

normally, i stay away from politics having been thrown into a frenzy years ago when i allowed a local candidate the opportunity for a photo opp…. today i feel strongly that hillary has a leading edge on the learning curve. she already knows the white house ins and outs - the foreign policies, the shakers and movers, etc etc. for me it is not a matter of race - its a matter of having been there - knowing the expectations - understanding the game - being strong, independent and self sufficient. not who has the better campaign manager or the most money - who knows what the american public needs to survive and how to provide the staples of our everyday lives - health insurance, good paying positions and stability with the economy. yes its simplified - but isnt that want the american public needs and desires? does obama understand? i think not.