Go Dems!

Has anyone been keeping track of the democratic presidential candidates so far?
Disclaimer: For my own sanity, this is a completely partisan posting.

(The following are taken from President4-2008, Congresspedia, and the Washington Post's "The Presidential Field," which I'm sure will be updated accordingly, for those of you interested in following along. As for me, I'll be following the latter link because there are pictures of the candidates to judge from. Awesome... ;)

DEMOCRATIC PARTY (as of 1/21)
Official Candidates

1. Christopher J.Dodd, Connecticut Senator
2. John Edwards, North Carolina Senator
3. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Representative
   
4. Tom Vilsack, Iowa former Governor
5. Mike Gravel, Alaska former Senator
6. Randy Crow, no affiliation
   

Exploratory Candidates

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Senator
2. Barack Obama, Illinois Senator
3. Bill Richardson, New Mexico Governor

Unofficial Candidates

1. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Senator (Senate website)
   
2. Al Gore, no affiliation (Washington Post profile)
   
3. John Kerry, Massachusetts Senator (Senate website)
   

At first glance (based solely on character, as Dave Chappelle advises), I'm leaning towards the two candidates who are not yet quite candidates: Clinton and Obama. It slightly worries me that these are also the two candidates who have been receiving boosted media coverage - am I a victim of media influence?? I suppose I'm being too sensitive as usual.

On the topic of sensitivity, I'm going to barge right into a glass wall (never mind treading on broken glass) by saying that, while I fully support Hillary Clinton's ability, intelligence, and experience, not to mention that the person closest to her was a very successful President himself, she is a woman. All right, before all y'all start raisin' a fuss, I really want to point out who we're dealing with across the oceans abroad. We've all heard the stories of Afghani women not being allowed to step out into the public without at least first covering their entire bodies and being escorted by a man. Women tend to have substandard rights in that region, often not being valid enough to speak, let alone vote. And I can't imagine that Kim Jong-Il would bother consulting with women (other than his harem, for other reasons), either.

Imagine the leaders of these countries, with all of their preconditioned conceptions of women, confronted with a woman who is vocal and unhidden, with a mind to communicate on an equal level with them. What would they think, how would they react on a humanistic level, and how would they respond politically? Would the United States gain any support or trust or even respect from them? Now, I know that with regards to all of the other thousands of issues on the president's plate, Middle East/North Korean/etc. Foreign Relations is only a part of the pyramid, but I can just see it: "[Insert country name] refuses to negotiate with U.S. on terms of female president. Conflict continues without end."

Why, oh why, isn't the world fair and objective??? We need a female president to temper the flaming testosterone and pompousness that make up the administration (and the world) today. Someone reasonable and gentle, yet strong; easy to approach, yet comfortable with control. Someone who is open to discussion and willing to compromise without foregoing confidence, or degenerating into automatic warfare. Someone who holds pure democratic values, yet is able to put them to practical use. I see all of that in Hillary Clinton. In fact, she has the potential to bring domestic policy to the highest levels of quality yet to be seen.

But, I need to be convinced of the viability of her presidency in international policy. Thoughts anyone?