ironically, the republican demonization of 'elites' parallels (to a lesser degree, of course) the persecution of intellectuals by the (oh-so-leftist) communist revolution.

thank you so much for debunking this harmful myth about successful women!

first of all, to echo hillary at last night's debate, i think that this debate in these salon posts is thoughtful and open and civil. so kudos to the posters (especially aka smith)!

now, what are you all thinking!? personally, i really like what all 3 viable candidates (sorry richardson) have to say. but only hill comes out as the winner when you do the math:

they are all committed to the issues that matter to me as far as domestic policy goes (although hill is the only one really pushing for women's issues - a necessity given the current supreme court line up). so for me it boils down to foreign policy...

having lived abroad for many years and studied how a variety of other countries view the u.s., i believe it is imperative we elect someone who the rest of the world respects.

1) edwards has ZERO foreign policy experience. plus he is a white male - which in itself will NOT signal the kind of change to the world that obama and hill will. the u.s. is frequently criticized for its contentious race relations (despite what george will says) and patriarchical nature. edwards will likely be viewed as just another white male.

2) obama will signal a fantastic change in the fabric of america - because he is black and because he is all about change. however, he too has zero foreign policy experience.

3) hill will signal change because she is a woman PLUS she already has most world leaders in her rolodex! she is respected all over, she's got bill by her side to grease any wheels and, consequently, she is the only one i trust to jumpstart dialogue with jihadists and antagonistic states with nuclear programs.

by the way, was anyone else terrified by charlie's estimations that there's a 50% chance of a nuclear attack on u.s. soil in the next 10 years? this is serious business and although obama is a lovely man, i just don't trust him - how can i? he is too green. he should run in 10 years.

so there you have it. i really like the others, but it has to be hillary.

many of you posters are all wondering 'what is it about obama?' - trying to pinpoint that feeling he gives us all. but you're not asking whether or not 'a feeling' and a promise of the unknown is a good basis for selecting a president. WE TRIED THIS AND WE LEARNED WHAT THE UNKNOWN CAN BE: THE NIGHTMARE OF THE LAST 8 YEARS. YET YOU'RE STILL CHOOSING TO 'GO WITH YOUR GUT'? THE REASON YOU HAVE THAT GUT REACTION IS BECAUSE OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN MANAGERS WANT YOU TO HAVE IT - they're not stupid - they know what works (hell, it worked last time). IT IS A MIRAGE AND A DIVERSION FROM THE THINGS THAT MATTER.

C'MON FOLKS - LEARN FROM THE COUNTRY'S MISTAKES AND BE SMARTER THAN THAT. DON'T LET THE SPIN DOCTORS SELL YOU ON PROMISES. YOU KNOW THAT CLINTON IS EMINENTLY MORE QUALIFIED AND WILL GENUINELY BRING ABOUT CHANGE. i just can't believe how easy it still is for American voters to be sweet-talked!

i agree with cary's advice to take it slow and not expect too much from yourself at work - but i would also apply that to writing. your urge may be to be brilliant when you sit down to write, but with that kind of pressure no one would ever decide on a sentence, much less a book. just breathe and write what comes to you and tell yourself you'll make it brilliant during the 2nd draft. during the 2nd draft, tell yourself you'll make it brilliant the 3rd draft... and so on... keep postponing the brilliance and after several drafts, i think you'll find that it just happened on its own.

as chuck close says: 'inspiration is for amateurs. the rest of us just show up.' so just keep showing up. no more, no less. amazing things will happen.

we have to get a woman into office. period. she doesn't need to be a superhero. she doesn't need to say everything right or embody everything you think she should embody. the mere FACT of a woman president says what desperately needs to be said.

this is very likely the only chance at making this statement during your lifetime. in fact, perhaps the first woman president will necessarily fall short in your eyes, no matter who she is. perhaps she NEEDS to be imperfect and 'male-like' to get into office and to OPEN THE DOOR for other women presidents - as well as for women in other traditionally male-dominated positions.

so stop knit-picking and look at the forest from the trees. her presidency would be progress. one may even argue that women not electing her is a giant step in the wrong direction - it sends a terrible message.