The difference though is that electing Obama would be historic not only because of WHO he is but because what he would accomplish in terms of redistributing the cards in American politics.
Sure, a woman President is great but the actual content of her Presidency would be the continuation of the politics as it has been practiced in the past two decades.

"I think having a woman president would be a huge change for America and the world."

Um America maybe but Canada, Germany, UK, Pakistan, India, Chile, Argentina, Liberia, Indonesia, has or have all had female leaders in the top spot. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

Also because it's not true. It would be the same co-presidency as in the 90s.

"I think having a woman president would be a huge change for America and the world."

For America, yes. For the world... balderdash. A change, yes... but this is just more typical American arrogance that something has to happen in the U.S. before it matters. What of past and present leaders in Norway, Germany, Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and so on? A bad step for Ms. Clinton; she should cease with this exceptionalism claptrap. A number of countries are way ahead of the U.S. in having more equal representation by women. In Sweden, now over 40% of representatives.

In other words, change for the sake of change?
Not good enough, I am afraid. Heck, so would
electing a Mormon, a 72-yr old man (Reagan was
70 years old), a Latino (e.g. the
"too qualified" Richardson), or a black guy.

Where is the substance of the change?

~ Jess

Every time I hear Barack Obama talk about being a uniter I get flash backs to George W Bush an the 2000 election. I will not take that chance again, this country can not afford another on the job training President. I know he has 2 years in the senate before he started to run, but with all that Bush has screwed up, I don't think that is going to cut it. He did okay at this debate but in the past has had his clock cleaned, just look at Edwards in the last one. What do you think is going to happen when the GOP attach dogs get the swift boat crew going, and the debates start. We have to win and get our country back. Why do you think that the GOP have been attaching Hillary from the start, she is very smart and a fast thinker. They are very afraid of her, and are trying to get you to make there job easier, anyone should be able to see that. If they thought she would be easy to beat they would be talking her up, and maybe even suporting her like the Fox guy's news paper is backing Barack Obama in New York. Think about it.

I missed all but the end of the debate. I wish someone had asked them: "Which of the specific arrogations of executive power done by the Bush administration would you make a pledge, now, to reverse when you become the executive. I will list some of them and you tell me whether you are prepared to pledge to reverse them." I'm pretty sure neither has been asked that and I'm pretty sure readers of TPM would really like to know.

This, other than the Iraq vote, is one of my fundamental issues with Hillary. I don't know for certain that Obama would be better, I'm just betting on the constitutional law professor over the wife of the president who began our rendition program and introduced the phrase "regime change" for Iraq.

This has to have been the most preposterous statement of the evening.

How on earth would the election of a woman to the Presidency change the world? It wouldn't. That's just pure and total bullshit. Yes, it would be a first and earn Hillary Clinton an asterisk in the history books, but unless there's some magic spell that would be unleashed I don't see how anyone can believe that her gender alone is of any import anymore than Obama's race alone would "change the world". It's just a stupid thing to say unless everything else is equal and, of course, everything else is not equal.

The whole aspect of interest group politics that has dominated this Democratic election is making me sick to my stomach. Here we have been clamoring now for seven long years for substance in the White House and everyone is all hot and bothered over which is the better symbol? I have never voted for anyone solely because of their race, gender, religion or anything beyond their positions on issues.

It seems grotesque to me that people would see reducing the vote for President to this coarse level as somehow showing progress. It's only real progress if it is done outside the context of identity in my opinion. Isn't that what all progressives/liberals/ Democrats have been working or all these long, long years? To elect people because of what they believe and propose and not because of their race or gender?

It'll be far less of an achievement the more she brings it up. I groaned when she did it in the New Hampshire debate and I groaned when she did it tonight (even more blatantly).

I'm not saying it wouldn't be historic, but how can she talk about wanting to be elected on her merits one moment and mention both her gender and her husband in the next moment?

Either one will set a historic tone...as I poster earlier IMHO it will be Clinton/Obama 08 with Edwards as AG.

I'm still waiting to hear the argument? How does it change the world?

i know that clinton's words here are true, but i'm sorry, guest at 9:54, that rationale doesn't work for me. it actually sends me running.

as her campaign says repeatedly, this is an election with serious implications. I don't want senator clinton and her husband back in the whitehouse with all of their baggage and triangulation. now is night the time to make a decision based on past wrongs.

And, while I see your point, it has too much of a 'victim' tinge to it. did thatcher or merkel make these arguments?

i get angry at the clintons about the war and about gay issues, but i get disgusted with them when they play at being persecuted.