Who won the debate? Reviews favor Obama. Obama wins on personal dynamics too.

During the debate Tuesday night, I kept trying to imagine both Obama and McCain negotiating with other world leaders, over the global economy and the growing consequences of climate change. I recalled the last 8 years, where cowboy and goofball George Bush has been representing us to the rest of the world. I thought about Bush mispronouncing the word "nuclear" for the last 8 years. (Couldn't Laura have told him privately how to say that word?)

During the debate last night, when I imagined Obama representing our country, I felt confident and relieved and proud. He's a scholar - he graduated from Harvard Law School as president of the Harvard Law Review. He's articulate, every sentence reveals his intelligence and his facility with words, and his thorough understanding of the challenges that face our world. More than that, Obama has the social skills of a diplomat. He listens, he affirms, he looks at people he's talking to, he's respectful: he doesn't make personal snipes and condescending grimaces. As a bonus, Obama speaks, moves, and interacts with grace. He's a dynamic and charismatic presence.

McCain on the other hand graduated 5th from the bottom of his class; he's not a scholar and he's not especially articulate. He seemed last night to sort of stalk and lurch around the stage; maybe that's a function of his age, I don't know. He patronizes his opponent with facial expressions and tone, and he's often downright rude, referring to Obama as "that one" while pointing at him, but without ever looking at him again! And what could he have meant when he said "Not you, Tom" to moderator Tom Brokaw? Was that supposed to be a joke? Brokaw, baffled, tried to respond as though it was. McCain has the social skills of an eight-year-old. The world is too fragile politically to take risks with unpredictable gaffes and random social blunders on the part of the president.

I'm quite clear that I agree with Obama on the issues, and the things I'm saying here are secondary to that. But it does feel good to imagine an articulate, intelligent, diplomatic president representing our interests and negotiating on our behalf with other world leaders for the next eight years. That feels really good.

by Sally Kneidel

Click here for an overview of Tuesday night's presidential debate: reviews from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and a citizen focus group.

Keywords:: Presidential debate who won debate Obama wins Obama is diplomatic McCain social blunders

Palin, Clinton, Michelle Obama: Double standards for women in politics?

Just how comfortable are we with female leaders? Not at all? Very? Somewhere in between? Judging from the current presidential race, all of the above may apply. While the unprecedented participation of women in the current US presidential race marks monumental progress in the acceptance of women as solid political leaders, media spin and water-cooler buzz may suggest otherwise. If there is one thing we can glean from these mixed messages, it is this: gender is and will continue to be a big issue in the political decision-making process.

When Gloria Steinem brought gender to the fore of debate in a widely discussed New York Times editorial last January, she painted a telling hypothetical picture. Take Obama's past experience, she wrote, and change sexes- Achola Obama as opposed to Barack- and you will come up with a political ticket going nowhere. Regardless of our political leanings, many of us had to admit it was a good point. That, however, was in January.

Now with Sarah Palin, an arguably less experienced and more problematic candidate than the hypothetical Achola Obama in the mix, we must ask once again: just how comfortable are we with female leaders? How will our expectations of a 'female leader' as opposed, simply to a 'leader,' color our ballots this November?

As more and more information trickles in regarding Palin's personal life, I cannot help but wonder— how would we react if she were male? Would the debate surrounding her daughter's teen pregnancy be nearly as vocal? Would her physical beauty be mentioned with such avid frequency?

One aspect in this hypothetical can be nearly certain. If Palin were male, the fact that she recently gave birth to an infant with Down syndrome would most likely be a blip on the radar- a talking point to induce empathy and garner votes rather than a reason not to run for VP. Only one week into her candidacy we have all likely heard the same refrain. Often laced with incredulity, it is this: "How can she think of running for office when she has a baby to take care of?"

In terms of logistics, there is only one answer: Palin can think of running for office in the exact same way a man with an infant can think of running for office. Perhaps she will have to confront some extra decisions, such as whether or not she will have the time or desire to breastfeed during intensive campaigning, but these are not insurmountable obstacles. This however, is not just a question of logistics. It is a question of how we define 'politician' and how we define 'mother' and just how willing we are to let the two cozy up together.

The case of Palin is just one example of the ways our ideas about gender will influence politics in the years to come. Whether we are talking about Hillary Clinton crying during a speech, the fashion choices of Michelle Obama, or the intersections of Palin's personal and professes ional lives, gender is there. It is our job as voters, at the very least, to begin to acknowledge and understand this force in our political consciousness.

by Juliana Sloane