Dear Mr. President;

Four years ago, I suggested it was okay, even advisable, to show your strength. Taking the high road doesn’t always mean letting the competitor have the advantage.  Wednesday night, I worried. Thursday through my workday, I worried.

I’m still worrying.

President Obama, you remain calm in the face of stress. You think through your decisions in order to make the right ones. You understand the seriousness of your job. The gray hair and frown wrinkles show that you’ve internalized the conflicts and challenges you’ve faced, that you’ve aged much more than you might have had you remained in the Senate.

Mr. President, you are a skilled listener and negotiator. Your body posture gives nothing away. You might seem to agree with an enemy even as you’re planning to disagree publicly and take action to prove it.

In a campaign debate, these strengths can appear as weaknesses. Each time Mitt lied, we saw you tense up a little – only a little. Those who don’t understand might think you didn’t notice or that you – gasp! – might agree or give in.

But Mr. President, we heard you the next day in Madison. You reminded your followers that taking on the opposition means acting, not shouting. It means voting, not booing. It means pointing out the ridiculousness of considering PBS a moocher. Big Bird, one of the 47%? Say is isn’t so!

Now, Mr. President, it’s time to stop being polite. It’s time to show the world what your competitor already knows; you are a force with which to be reckoned. You are willing to stand up, speak up, and rise up swinging. You’re willing to stop putting up with the dangerous garbage spouted by the Republican Ticket and their Tea Party Pals.

So Mr. President, show that strength. You don’t have to hide it. When Mitt tries to leave you speechless, speak right up and show him.

Show him that you are the President, and you intend to remain so.

Todd Akin, the idiot, er, candidate from Missouri who claimed women can “shut that whole thing down” when raped, has done it again. He opened his mouth yet one more time and showed that he views females to be inferior beings.

He complained that his opponent, Claire McCaskill, “came out swinging” and seemed “aggressive” in their debate. This threw him a little, took him unawares. He thought he remembered McCaskill in her 2006 campaign being “…very much sort of ladylike.” Apparently he didn’t expect the little female to be strong competition to an old-fashioned guy like him. If you ask me, he didn’t expect McCaskill to be strong, period.

Remember the movie Field of Dreams? Annie Kinsella accuses an ultra-conservative PTA mom of having lived through two 1950s and jumping straight into the 1970s without ever experiencing the peace, love, rock and roll of the 60s. Akin is stuck in the past somewhere, too, in an unrealistic vision with unrealistic plastic people.

When a candidate is strong, that’s good. If a candidate has enough knowledge and skill and strength to come out swinging in a political debate, that scores points in the candidates favor.

Male or female, I want my senator to be intelligent, articulate, and yes, strong. Male or female, that legislator needs to be able to come out swinging when it’s necessary. Ladylike? I’d rather see someone with strength, knowledge, and ability to work in a team.

Ladylike? I think we’re looking for womanly, myself. No apologies for being female, and no tolerance for inaccuracy and idiocy and condescension.

Hm. That sounds a lot like Tammy Baldwin for Wisconsin as well as Claire McCaskill for Missouri. Come November 6, I know who deserves my vote.