S0me might say this election is all about the women, and I might say it's about time.
All traces of feminism aside, I must admit I have closely observed the hairstyle and fashion nuances of the star women of both national conventions. Was Hillary's suit too bright? Michelle's dress better suited for a cocktail party? Cindy's outfit too green? Sarah's choice of unmatching top and skirt disconcerting?
When I saw this Opinion piece in my inbox today, I realized I am not alone in analyzing the wardrobe choices of the first and foremost women of this election. According to this, some people analyze it as a profession.

What You Wear Matters
Opinion Editorial by Pat Heydlauff
Over the last 10 days, millions of viewers have watched the Democrats and Republicans put on their best faces. Both parties have been successful in their own ways. Some were trying to portray themselves in a different light; others were trying to put themselves forward. Did their energy serve them the right way? Did they reach the voters with the right message?
Energy was apparent in the choice of clothing by each of the speakers, but did the clothing wear them or did it in fact support their intent and their message?
First Lady Laura Bush
Her high energy red suit exuded self confidence, poise and a presence of importance. Since she was on the platform officially representing the White House, and helping to introduce the satellite feed from the President, she needed to make sure all eyes would be on her. And she did just that with such a high energy color. The red further emphasized the patriotic theme of the enormous flag in the background.
Hillary Clinton
Hillary wore a bright, distinct, crisp orange pantsuit while delivering her speech. She wanted to maintain total control, be in charge of her moment and say to the world "here I am, and I am good." She succeeded because her orange suit was not only a high energy, high visibility, in-charge color, but it also contrasted perfectly with the blue background. Blue and orange are complimentary colors, which causes color vibrancy.
Cindy McCain
While she was not in the spotlight last night delivering a message, as a potential First Lady, Cindy knew she would be very visible at the convention. Her choice was a fresh, bright green dress that made the statement, "I am somebody - but not the center of interest." She gave the campaign a positive energy image by standing out in subtle way, and chose a color that represents growth, new business and giving birth to new things.
Michele Obama
She looked absolutely stunning, wearing a beautiful jewel-tone blue dress representing herself well as the potential First Lady. Her dress was soft, although fitted, and in a very calming color. Blue can be calm to cool and even cold in the certain shades but she got the color just right. Michelle would have succeeded even more had consideration been given to the background, which was also blue. If the intent was to make her melt into the background it worked perfectly. If the intent was to give her a strong but soft presence, a different color would have worked better.
Sarah Palin
She wore a two-piece suit with a black skirt on the bottom, giving her strong grounding and a light colored jacketed top. While this was a less traditional suit (since the top and bottom didn't match), once she stepped up to the microphone with a black background, the perfect yin/yang balance was struck. She succeeded in making herself be the "in control" focus of her presentation. All eyes were on her and not her clothing.
The results of this year's election are not out yet, but it's clear that each of these women is strong, self-confident and focused. During the recent conventions, each woman's clothing told its own story - speaking 1,000 words without making a sound.

Pat Heydlauff is president of Energy Design, a company that uses proven Feng Shui design principles to improve the bottom line. As a consultant and speaker, Pat helps organizations and businesses of all sizes remove stress and clutter, while increasing creativity, employee retention and productivity. Her forthcoming book, "Feng Shui: So Easy a Child Can Do It,"
outlines the small changes that can lead to a big improvement in one's personal and professional success.

When Bill Clinton was making his bid for the presidency, I was not enthralled. I failed to see the charisma or to identify with him, as many of my generation, particularly women, did.

I have felt the same about Hillary for the most part. While I agree with many of her positions, I just don't feel inspired or awed by the Clinton mystique.

One of my reasons for wanting to see the former president in person in Pottstown today was to see if the live speaker had a different effect than the televised version. And, he did, but not because of charisma or dynamics. President Clinton's speech at Pottstown High School this morning was impressive, more because of content than delivery and m0re because of substance than sparkle.

That says more for Bill Clinton and the future of the Democratic party, I believe, than the beckoning call to go back to the peace and prosperity of the '90s.

Clinton spoke for 50 minutes -- that in itself says something about the tone of this campaign. Many expected 15 minutes of glitz and hand-shaking glamour, inviting Pottstown residents to join him in giving Hillary Clinton a chance to change the world. Campaign speeches, especially on road trips as ambitious as Clinton undertook today with five stops from Pottstown to State College, are cheerleading expeditions more than they are insightful looks at a candidate's positions.

But he offered the students and local residents jammed into the school gym specifics on health care, economic stimulus plans, alternative energy and affordable education. What's more, he did so in an intelligent manner that engaged the audience. Of the 900-some high school students crammed in the gym, I saw only a handful of yawns. Most were listening intently as Clinton went from a means to provide affordable health care for all citizens to how an energy-saving program could reduce pollution while creating "green-collar jobs."

He didn't patronize the students with strong-armed attempts to identify with their woes, but he offered enough references to flat incomes and rising costs and the danger of dropping out of college when loan costs get too high to let the kids know he understands their pain.

His message resonated with the audience, which included 90-year-old and nine-month-olds, who answered him with affirming nods more often than rousing cheers.

Bill Clinton was impressive in the scope of specifics he told, referring always to his wife's plans and proposals, not to the shortcomings of others. He spoke with the air of a statesman, not a politician, and reminded listeners that the lofty office of U.S. President is a heady place to be, demonstrating with that acknowledgement the humility people hunger for in an age of arrogant officeholders.

I left the Bill Clinton speech no more convinced that he is the ultimate charismatic leader of our times. But I left impressed. Perhaps, that is what his charisma is after all.

I prefer to leave the politics to my co-worker and much-more-prolific blogger Tony Phyrillas, but the view of the presidential primaries this year is too exciting to keep me on the sidelines.
Last night's primary victory for Barack Obama in Wisconsin was his ninth win in a row in what was supposed to be the Year of Hillary. Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a horse race toward the finish line of the Democratic primary. On the Republican side, even though John McCain has pretty much wrapped up the race, he's not boring.
Who would have thought as recently as a year or so ago that the nation would have real choices in 2008 -- a woman who is a political veteran, an Hawaiian-born African-American newcomer, and a wizened Vietnam POW with a reputation for flippant one-liners.
Take the nation's polarization four years ago, split severely into two camps along party lines, and put it on high speed in a blender and you'll get a taste of what the coming months will bring. People are not just looking at Democrats and Republicans this year; they are looking at real choices in style, experience, gender, race and ideology.
Which brings me to the year of my inbox.
Although it hasn't begun in earnest yet, I know that I will be inundated with email from throughout the country with form letters supporting one candidate or another. The onslaught will come after the conventions because the mailing lists to editors come out of central party headquarters. No point in wasting Republican or Democratic time and money until they have one person to support.
As November comes closer, I will get as many as 150-200 emails a day, the majority of them the same letter, sent from people throughout the country.
Occasionally, one of them is from a local person, and I have to be careful not to let it slip in as a letter to the editor. (Form letters are forbidden, according to our policy.)
The email proliferation in support of John Kerry or George Bush four years ago was annoying. At least this year, the discourse may prove interesting.
These are exciting times for our country, in my opinion, because the field of candidates we're looking at represent a new direction. The direction will be different depending on the candidate, but all currently in the running bring newness to the race for the White House.
I like it.

I made a New Year's resolution in January to become better informed about national politics in this presidential election year. I haven't done much about it though.
I have a tendency, as I believe is the case with many voters, to form political opinions based on who I like or don't like. And those preferences have more to do with the sound of a person's voice or body language than with his or her track record.
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate example. One of the reporters in the newsroom was saying last night during Super Tuesday hype that no one he knows "likes" Clinton, yet she remains ahead in the polls and in the race for delegates.
Barack Obama has a higher "likable" factor, but the Internet-rumor crowd is fond of saying he is hiding something.
Here's where I feel guilty about the limited knowledge I have of the candidates' backgrounds and positions. I find myself favoring Obama because I don't like the sound of Clinton's voice. Or, if it's Obama and John McCain, I think McCain gets points for not looking emaciated.
All of which I believe makes me a bad citizen.
But take a step back ... if the person this nation elects as president is to represent us in the world and to accomplish results in Washington, don't we want that person to project confidence and to be well, "likable?"
In the wake of Super Tuesday, it appears that the Democrats are still in a race to determine their candidate, and the Republicans have a front-runner, but he's not yet a certain nominee.
It's an interesting year. I resolve, again, to become better informed and make wise choices.
I just hope that come November, I like the winner.