I'm a woman, and while I strongly support Bernie, the symbolism of breaking that glass ceiling will have a huge impact. It normalizes the image of a woman in power and it does send a message to little girls that they can be and do anything they want. That said, for me, obviously those are not the only considerations and there's a big picture to look at. In the primary, my policy differences with Hillary outweighed my desire to see a female president. Most Hillary supporters here would not support a woman Republican for president. It's about weighing the pros and cons- but I wouldn't diminish what a powerful pro electing our first female president will be.

and her war-like intentions. She'll cheerfully declare a few more wars, blissfully bomb thousands, even millions of women and children. She'll assure us that there's simply not enough money for Social Security or to pay for wounded vets, but by god there's plenty of money for those bombs.

In all reality, Margaret Thatcher made a complete lie out of the notion that a woman as head of state would be kinder and gentler than a man. She demonstrated thoroughly that a woman needs to be more of a man than those who actually have that Y chromosome if she's to compete with then.

To come back a bit to reality, the problem with Hillary or with Margaret is that they are (and were) operating in a world that is almost totally male. The testosterone poisoning is rampant. Until we get at least 40% of women in all positions of power, it's not going to change. The world as we know it (at least in the U.S. -- it seems to be somewhat different in Scandinavia) us based on an assumptin of male normalcy. Men go off to work, make important decisions, bring home money. Women stay home, raise the children, cook, make sure the men have clean clothes. And even for the women who work full time, their role has barely changed.

As a personal aside, I stayed home to raise our two children, even though my husband periodically pushed me to get a job. After all, everyone he worked with, male and female, had a full time working spouse. What was invisible to him, but not to me, was the incredible juggling act the wives pulled off to maintain everything. Not to mention the cost. I recall one wife, pregnant with her third child in four years, saying that the daycare cost of this newest baby would mean the total cost for the three kids would be more than she earned. When I suggested she stay home for a while, she stared at me as if I were speaking Martian. That possibility, that not working would cost her family less than working, just did not compute for her.

As an additional aside, recently someone posted a paean to Hillary, which included among other things that she made sure that a staffer was able to attend her child's pre-school graduation ceremony. Excuse me? Since when should working mean a parent forego the milestones in a child's life?

Honesty and integrity is key for me, everything else doesn't matter.

because they think people will take advantage of them being "soft" otherwise.

Margaret Thatcher, for instance.