FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Ask a feminist why Hillary Clinton is struggling to get the Democratic presidential nomination and you might be told she is bumping up against the ultimate glass ceiling.
Her career and resume are beyond impressive. And yet in the last several weeks, she's begun to lose the nomination to a man whose charisma and style belie his comparative lack of experience.
When it comes to voting for president, Americans tend to pick people they like. It's just the way we are. Give us a choice between a Jaguar convertible and a Toyota Prius, and most of us will go for the glamour and glitz every time.
Add in the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman and it gets even tougher. The conventional wisdom is for a woman to be taken seriously, she has to come across as tough and competent. Clinton is certainly both of those. But on some level, those very qualities that might make her a great president are probably working against her.
It's nothing new: Jack Kennedy was "Jack Who" until the debates against the far more seasoned political professional Richard Nixon. But once the public caught a glimpse of Kennedy's charisma, Nixon didn't have a chance.
Here’s my question to you: Which is more important in a presidential campaign: style or substance?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Jorge from Monterey, California writes:
Jack, Style! It’s that simple. Do you want another 4 or 8 years of a divided country? I personally will go away to Canada or to Europe. I will not stay in this country for a McCain or Clinton administration. No more politics as usual!
That's a no-brainer, Jack. For the last 7 years, we've suffered under the regime of Bush, the man who was the style against McCain's and Kerry's substance. They told us that we should ignore his lack of experience because they would surround him with the best and brightest this country has to offer… see where that has gotten us. I will take substance every day of the week and twice on Sunday!
The question presents a false choice insomuch as it assumes that Obama lacks substance. Both are important. Obama has both and he deserves to be our next president.
Jane from Wisconsin writes:
Substance is most important. We are living in dangerous times, and giving a good speech is not going to solve any problems. Calling for "change" is fine, but change is not always for the better, and we need specifics about what kinds of change we are talking about and exactly how they will be accomplished.
We need both! I have long said that Hillary's strength is Obama's weakness, and his strength is her weakness. We are at a critical point in our nation and world history, and we need a combination of both to clean house and restore the "American dream" at home and our standing in the world.
Bill from Toronto writes:
Jack, Most of us have the attention span of an amoeba and so in this era of sound bite slogans, style is more important than substance for a political candidate (within reason), all things considered.