There is a time and place for everything. Gov. Cuomo's oft repeated line remains true..."You campaign in poetry and govern in prose." Sen. Obama's great skill thus far has been in outpacing Senators Clinton and Edwards in crafting captivating and motivating campaign poetry.

Edwards does pretty darn well at it too, of course, really moving people. In any room without an Obama speech, Edwards easily wins the campaign poetry contest. Unfortunately for him, in this campaign, most of the rooms do involve an Obama speech.

All three have laid out impressive policy positions and details. We can quibble over which has a better or stronger position on this and that policy, of course, but all three are extremely solid. They not only out shine all the Republicans on their policy positions, but clearly outshine them on the detailed nature of their policy positions. Go look at position pages on the web sites for Republican candidates-- in addition to being wrong, there is almost no detail at all, on any position.

Sen. Obama has laid out detailed policy positions, just like his fellow candidates. His choice to campaign in poetry rather than the policy specifics does not mean the specifics are not there. Campaign rhetoric (poetry) moves people to support the polciies. FDR in '32 campaigned on few policy specifics, but moved people. JFK in '60 campaigned on few policy specifics, but moved people. Reagan in '80 campaigned on few policy specifics (other than the Kemp-Roth tax cut proposal), but apparently moved a lot of people.

However, it is deliberate.  If he is very concrete on policies he risks his appeal as a "uniter" to those who dont like his specifics.  Much better to play everyman to everybody and then later, when it is too late for some, let it rip.

But I don't buy that, I think that because of Hillary Clinton's age she has bought into same mindset which sees the only viable path to real political power for woman is through her husband or father and the strength of the historical legacy he has provided.  Perhaps that was the case in the past, but today I believe a woman can overcome the handicaps of their gender in the political sphere.  Perhaps if Hillary Clinton becomes president it will be easier for the next woman, but a victory that is not based on merit, will continue to leave doubt in the minds of men, especially men who are less progressive in their thinking regarding women.  It will only assist in the perpetuation of the myth of male superiority in leadership roles.

I think that a woman can step forward in today's America, a woman that does not have to come across as cold and reject the feminist agenda, or at least a modified version of the feminist agenda, and still be a leader who can project strength, whilst simultaneously holding on to her femininity in the public eye and all those things that uniquely associated to her sex, which give women an advantage over men in their perceptions, things like motherhood.

It's funny, because I suspect Hillary Clinton is such a woman, yet when she stands before a crowd of people giving a speech, or in a debate, she has learned to hide the qualities which I think would give her a distinct advantage over her male opponents, if she would only let us see them.

In fact, I believe the the nation could desperately use a woman's touch in healing the divisions which exist within the American family.  Unfortunately, Hillary has been conditioned to reject such an approach in favor of the cold calculating Iron Lady image which has been so successful for women who have aspired to power in the past.

Hillary Clinton is still the leader in this race, and I think if she could show the American people that she is still in touch with the part of her self that is uniquely woman, the kind of thing that no man can match, or perhaps even understand, then I think she could still take this race and be one of the best presidents we've ever had.  The problem is she's spent all these years conditioning herself to come across in a way that was the only path to power for a woman through the last century, but that time is over, especially in the eyes of many young people in America.  And I think this is why her age is a disadvantage, not because she is simply older, but because she still stuck in the female leadership mindset of the last century, a mindset that is a trap, a Catch-22 which leaves a woman in a continuing position of disadvantage when they go up against men for leadership positions.

I would love to have a mature woman with years of experience and wisdom under her belt in charge of this country, but when it comes down to picking a leader for America, I will not allow the gender, race, age or even political affiliation to blind me to who is the best person for that job, and in this race for my money it's Barack Obama hands down.

 It Takes a Family (to Break a Glass Ceiling)

[Those of us who think 43 male presidents in a row is quite enough, thank you, still sometimes question whether a woman whose greatest political move was her marriage deserves to be the first woman in the White House.]

[The uncomfortable truth is that political nepotism has often served feminism's cause well.]

[Like it or not, the road to female advancement often begins at the altar. History books are thick with examples of women who broke political barriers because their family connections afforded them the opportunity. ]

[She clings to the political center like a life raft and rarely ventures from the shallow waters of establishment predictability.]

[To be a strong, competent woman is to be something culturally unattractive, which probably says something about why few American women even aspire to political office. ]

[No mother wants to tell her daughter that she can aspire to the presidency only if she snags the most gifted politician of her generation. But Hillary Clinton's rise to power, unsettling as it is, follows a time-tested pattern for the breaking of gender barriers.]

[The great feminist promise of a Hillary Clinton presidency amounts to this: If we elect a political wife now, perhaps we won't have to later. ]

I definitely agree that Obama's answer was the most disappointing.  It stinks having to answer last and face the tough choice following the other three to dodge the question or answer it.  Unfortunately, by clumsily dodging the question he just looked...I don't know...unprepared and awkward.

We must move forwards, not backwards, upwards, not forwards, and always twirling, twirling towards freedom!

It why it has seemed to me all along Obama lacks substance as well as experience.

As well as this:

He comes across as all promises, no specifics.

But then you say this:

We shouldn't have to do hours of research on candidates to know where they stand.

So you're criticizing him for SEEMING to lack "substance as well as experience" and being all about "promises, no specifics", but then admit that a few hours of research reveals that none of this is the case. I.e. you're criticizing him for what he APPEARS to be, not what he actually is, and complain that he doesn't make this easier to understand in a sound bite format.

Seems to me that it's actually the shallow media environment in which all of these debates, sound bite-based campaigning, and so-called media analysis is taking place that you're actually having a problem with (and perhaps the candidates' decision to work with rather than against this process), than the candidates' actual positions on the issues and political experience.

I.e. that they're not really as shallow as they might seem to be (well, on our side of the aisle at least). It's the process that's much more the problem here--and I suppose the candidates' inability and/or unwillingness to challenge it--than the candidates themselves, it seems to me.

And I personally believe that one SHOULD have to do "hours of research on candidates [not limited to their web sites and PR materials] to know where they [actually] stand", as opposed to where they seem to or want one to think that they stand. We (hopefully) do this when we purchase cars, TVs, homes, etc. So it seems only proper that we should do this when we vote for candidates.