To me, it boils down to a question of what kind of person you want running the country.

Regardless of whether you agree with specific points of policy with a candidate (and no one will ever agree with any candidate 100%), Clinton endured 8 years under the most intense national scrutiny that anyone had ever seen given to a First Lady. As a public figure, as a politician, and now as a presidential candidate, she has weathered more criticism, more nitpicking into her life, more petty insults, more hatred, more creepy obsession, than any other candidate. Compare the grace and dignity with which she has faced all these tribulations to the childish glee expressed by Obama and Edwards, let alone the Republican candidates, at the thought of her demise, and it seems painfully obvious who among these distinguished people is best suited to govern the world's most powerful nation.

I think the reason women are coming out to vote for Hillary is because they are finally realizing that people who intentionally and eagerly cast their vote against Hillary, instead of for someone else, are not voting on policy. They are voting on the social revulsion of seeing a powerful, calculating, intelligent woman on the brink of achieving the most important seat of power of our time. Many women are finally beginning to see that they are Hillary. Hillary is them. Chris Matthews does not just hate Hillary. He hates the idea of Hillary, and that idea is inextricably tied up in her womanhood and society's presuppositions of what womanhood is supposed to entail. Women are beginning to realize that the insults, criticism, undeserved hatred, and cannibalistic fervor displayed against Hillary are really an assult on womankind itself. And that assault is terrifying. There is no justification for what Hillary has endured. No one could honestly look at the wildly differing treatment she has received at the hands of her opponents and the media and say that she had it coming for some reason other than that she is a woman.

That until very recently, I was an Edwards supporter. Now I can't imagine giving my vote to anyone other than Clinton.

I am a Christian and I attend church, so I have noticed a few things about churched Christians. They like to talk in what I refer to as christobabble. There is a lot of mention of words like atonement and mercy and the great commission and salvation and love.

The problem is, no one in the church has any idea what these words actually might mean. They are nice, vague ideas that anyone can agree are good things. Who doesn't like love?!

But the majority of Christians have put no thought whatsoever into visualizing what these lofty ideas might actually mean. Love is a real thing, not an idea. Atonement is a real thing, not an idea. But no one can say what the real thing is.

To me, the Obama campaign has been the same way. There is a lot of mention of pretty words like "change" and "hope." And in the current atmosphere, obviously change and hope are pretty damn appealing. But WHAT THE HELL DO THEY MEAN!? Seriously. Someone define Obama's vision of hope to me, as something more than a vague ideal or a theory. Someone show Obama's hope to me, show me the evidence that this obsession with hope and change is not purely a political move, show me that he has been living the vision of hope and change through his life and his career. Because I see no evidence of the sort. I've neither seen nor heard any indication of what this alleged hope might be. Sure, we can hope. What the hell are we hoping for, though?

To me, Obama talks a good talk. He is full of flowery politibabble. But just as I refrain from putting my spiritual interests in the hands of Christians who use christobabble to distract from their own lack of theological knowledge, so I shall refrain from putting the future of my nation into Obama's hands, if I can help it.

More mindless, self-indulgent spew from our very own Camille Paglia. Yeah, that's right, she's so ol'-hat around here that I've started to call her 'our own.'

God forgive us for keeping her.

No one cares about this drivel, Salon. Maybe eventually you will stop and count the number of letter-writers who despise Paglia's arrogant writing and groundless opining, and drop her from your staff.