Senator Clinton has repeatedly stressed how having a female president (i.e., HERSELF) would represent a "Sea Change" for the United States and its policies.  But presidential power lies largely in signatures... which bills the president signs, which bills the president vetoes, who gets nominated for certain jobs, and which executive orders are issued. 

I fail to understand how having a woman's presidential signature on a bill adds anything to the content of the document, compared to having a male presidential signature on an equally worded bill.  Even if Senator Clinton has especially good calligraphy, she could not reasonably attribute that to her gender, nor is that a reason to seat her in the Oval Office.  We are a nation of laws, and the gender of our President does not imply that the existing (or new) laws will be different as a result.

Senator Clinton argues that having a female president would inspire girls to achieve great things in life.  True, perhaps, but I don't agree that Hillary Clinton's path to the presidency (should she ever achieve that goal) would be an excellent career blueprint for most girls.  Hillary Rodham came from a two-parent, merchant-class family, did well in school as a College Republican at Wellesley, earned an Ivy league law degree, and advised the US House of Representatives during the Watergate investigation.  Then she... married Bill Clinton. 

Marriage to Bill Clinton was a mixed bag for Hillary Rodham Clinton.  There were many positives, including the rearing a fantastic daughter, and opportunities to pursue academic, civic, and career goals (such as Wal-Mart lawyering, and a failed 1993 effort at health care reform) while serving as First Lady in Little Rock and Washington.  And of course, there were the negatives, such as helping to gloss over Bill's Bimbo Eruptions. 

If (as a lawyer in 1974) Hillary Rodham planned one day to become president based solely on the merits of her own political accomplishments, perhaps she should have run for political office before age 52.  Instead, she is running for President now with a thin political resume, and the last name Clinton.

I see Hillary Rodham Clinton as a tragic figure:  she made some bad career decisions, but now expects the consequences of those bad decisions to be waved away by a sympathetic Cadre of DNC Superdelegates.  All this, so that she can be returned to the White House... not through the merit of her accomplishments, but because she is entitled to return there.

If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes president of the US, girls will look to her and say:  "Behind every Female President, there is a Male President whose cronies helped get her there."  Not a great message for girls anywhere.  Were I female, I would want the first woman president to get elected without it seeming like her candidacy was a de-facto circumvention of her husband's constitutional term limit (a-la Argentina). 

Barack Obama has accomplished very much in his 46 years (and he most certainly did not wait until age 52 to run for office).  For much of his childhood, Barack grew up as a mixed-race child of a young single mother, and managed to make something of himself despite the negative consequences of racism that was much more prevalent in the 1960's and 1970's than it is today.  Believe it or not, in those days mixed-race children were often scorned by racists of any color. 

I truly believe that Barack's ability to transcend numerous barriers as perceived by society (atypical name, mixed-race ethnicity, single-mother upbringing) says that ANYONE who is eligible and does the work can be elected president.  Barack has no sense of entitlement to the Oval Office, and that is one reason why I will vote for him in November.

Suggestion to the Obama campaign:

Start running a few ads in Florida and Michigan, pre-emptively, just in case there are re-votes there.

Start building positive associations with the Obama name in those states -- Obama has not campaigned in either state, but both FLA and MICH could start voting by mail any week now.  Address issues that are specifically of concern to voters in those states... and let Obama directly explain his personal view on the voting fiascoes there.

The HRC campaign does not have the resources to run ads in FLA and MICH -- she thinks those states are in the bag already, and needs to focus her dwindling resources on PA.

Obama taking Michigan and/or Florida would be audacious indeed -- epecially while the NY Times and other news sources continue to indicate MICH and FLA as Hillary wins.  Those January contests have no standing. 

I want Obama to win big -- even tying HRC in FLA/MICH would be a huge accomplishment. Of course, they are tied at ZERO delegates in those states right now, but I want Obama to win without having to zero out FLA and MICH.  I want there to be no asterisk attached to Obama's VICTORY in Denver.