The last time I looked, all the levers of power seem to be pulled by men. You know, wars, bribery, environmental degradation, political and corporate leadership, to just name a few.

Even in my house, my wife who has some feminist sympathies, supports Barack Obama. The significance of this is, I believe, that a female candidate must meet certain very proscribed standards, almost none of which apply to men.

When was the last time we hard about how men dressed, whether they revealed a bit of true feelings, and how their hair looked (one exception: John Edwards) and how their voice sounds. Especially, no one talks about mean some men are.

And calculating . . . I rarely hear male candidates described as calculating.

Yet every candidate is calculating - how else could you plan and run a national campaign? And mean- I think, and thought, both Bush and Cheney were very mean and hostile men. And please tell me what is wrong with revealing feelings? Should our leaders be so callous that they don't care about the welfare of our children- our planet - in fact every human being? Since when is it a good thing to be an uncaring asshole? Is that the mark of a strong leader?

While I support Hillary I'm not saying that her gender automatically ensures that she will be a successful president. Yet everything I've read about her personal and political life, on a one- on-one basis, by people who actually know her, state that she is a very caring , intelligent, well prepared and thoughtful person, with good values. I don't think we hear much about this.

When I hear people say that we are not ready for a woman president I usually interpret the questioner as making a very personal statement. Are some of these people in the media? Of course. The members of both print and broadcast journalism are not automatically or universally unbiased, so I believe there is much gender discrimination.

There is no magic bullet that will make prejudice disappear. Each of us has some areas that reveal ignorance, bias, ill will. The opportunity for each of us is to acknowledge our dark side, and having done so, be in a position to become more conscious, more caring, more responsible.

Who really knows Hillary Clinton? Only a select few. The issue for all of us is to look at each candidate as a real person, and ask: is this person genuine, believable, competent and responsible? Until we are able to do that, each of the candidates becomes merely a symbol of what ever we'd like them to be. Until we are honest with ourselves, we will be unable to make valid judgments of those running for office - our own biases will get in the way.

As always, our own personal journey profoundly affects our capacity to make an honest evaluation of those we choose to lead us.

A few years ago I attended a seminar in Plano, Texas. I did not know , initially , that it was conducted by fundamentalist Christians. The experience opened my eyes as to the power of this type of thinking. The fundamentalist appeal is powerful, for it frees you from having to think.

For many people, our world is threatening and filled with uncertainty - which is a condition many find unbearable.

Thus the sweet and calming appeal of faith based religion. It is a truly astounding experience to be in a room with about 100 people and realize that thinking and investigating are absolutely out of the question. Questioning or challenging authority is unacceptable.

It was at this moment I understood the appeal of George W. Bush, as he exemplifies a totally faith-based, non rational approach to life and to governing.

Mike Huckabee is clearly in this tradition. It is not a lack of intelligence - but a limited approach to understanding how life truly works - that is the problem. There are no guarantees in life; you can believe in God and there will still be poor people, natural disasters, wars and general all around unwillingness for governments to cooperate. All the faith in the world will not stop people and their respective leaders from being difficult, irascible and just generally being a royal pain in the ass.

Mike Huckabee would be a huge mistake, as George Bush has already been, because their world view is too rigid and naive. Essentially, both men are unsophisticated and naive because they think that their grasp of the world is expansive and correct. History has proved them wrong.

Belief in the inerrancy of the New Testament is no substitute for understanding psychology, politics, regional differences, tribalism and having a general grasp of history.We are not electing a Sunday School teacher but someone who has a grasp of how things work in the real world of people and institutions.

My wife is a steadfast Obama supporter and I support Mrs. Clinton. Tonight's debate/discussion showed that we have 2 excellent candidates on the Democratic side.

With all the negative press Hillary Clinton receives, I must say that I was quite impressed with her performance. What a pleasure to hear someone who actually understands what government can and should do. She just seems so competent and thoughtful. I also thought she had more depth in her responses. I have watched politicians for a very long time now, and have a feeling for answers which are political but unsubstantial. I feel we get much less of that from Sen. Clinton than from Sen. Obama

While I obviously want Hillary Clinton to prevail, our country will be in very good hands if Sen. Obama if elected President.

When was the last time we were able to make such a statement about any candidate; in this case we have 2 outstanding candidates. A real break for our country.