Don't Vote Chromosomes: The First Woman Must Be The Right Woman

I was talking to a friend about the tortured persistence of the Clinton campaign and she said: "She needs to stay in. This will be the last chance in my lifetime to vote for a woman for president."

There are a lot of women of a certain age saying the same thing. And I can only ask: what?

Could this really be the reason that Hillary polls best among older white women? Will we really vote for a woman simply based on the fact that she happens to be one?

Don't get me wrong. After a combined 16 years of intern abuse, lying to Congress, bullying, and macho posturing, I would love to see a woman's imprint on the Oval Office. But not to score one for our side. That makes as much sense as choosing Pepsi over Coke because Pepsi is run by a female.

Female management styles swing from the neighborly Meg Whitman of eBay to the head-butting Carly Fiorina, formerly of Hewlett Packard. But across the spectrum of types, women do bring a more collaborative style to leadership - a more even-handed willingness to form consensus and consider opinions counter to our own. Before she went before the cameras to scare us with tales of weapons of mass destruction, might a woman have listen more closely to evidence that didn't exist? I think so.

And I also like the idea of voting for a woman who truly cares about women's' issues. Without that, I'm not sure why women should get all that excited. In fact, a Yale study looked at voting records and found that legislators most likely to favor women's issues are men - with daughters.

Before we vote for someone simply because of chromosomes in common, it might be helpful to put the candidate to the test on both counts.

Leadership style? I see in Hillary the same calculating, "bring em on" swagger of the last eight years: Dick Cheney - only better accessorized.

With Hillary we're talking about a woman who added assassination to possibilities of the early summer political season; who threatened to "obliterate" Iran; who declared herself the candidate of "hard working Americans - white Americans."

As for her concern for women's issues, Hillary has made promises on choice, reproductive services, expanded women's health care and pay parity. Where in her Senate career do we see any serious tenure-defining effort to protect or achieve any of that?

In fact, Hillary is not nearly as progressive as some might hope. She supported the Defense of Marriage Act, she co-sponsored a flag burning amendment, she voted to send our sons and daughters into the meat grinder of an unnecessary war. And with close to 70 percent of women in most polls favoring stricter gun control laws, what are we to make of her snuggling up to the NRA with tales of her childhood shooting lessons?

You can argue that Hillary would roll back George Bush's assaults on humanity - like denying US aid to any organization that even talks about abortion as birth rates of the world's desperately poor explode. But I would answer: so would any other rational human being not in the talons of the lunatic right.

I would also kind of like to vote for a woman who earned it. It's true that a woman with Barack Obama's skimpy bona fides could never have launched a campaign. (I can't name another man who could have pulled it off either.) But you can just as easily argue that Hillary Clinton would not be where she is without a Senate seat gained largely on the fact that she was married to the former leader of the free world.

As Kate Zernike pointed out recently in the New York Times, there are more women in the pipeline than the last-chancers fear: in the Senate, in the House, in governors offices. Three years ago, who knew the name Obama? One of them might, in fact, find their way onto the ticket. I hope so.

I really do believe that America is ready - more than ready after eight years in hell - to elect a woman. But we can't simply pick the one who happens to be available, especially when she is so divisive and brings along a time bomb of a husband. Instead of moving us forward, it could set us back decades.

Our women president is out there. And I believe we'll find her sooner than we think.

Let's wait and get it right.

Comments

[RobtBrock]

If you are waiting around for the Perfect Woman the wait will seem like an eternity.

[MinerSam]

I VOTED FOR HILLARY BECAUSE:

(1) SHE WOULD HAVE MADE A THE BEST 5 STAR CEO for turning the Ship of State around

(2) HERWORK HAS POSTIVELY EFFECTE IN CHANGING THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
BOTH IN THE US AND AROUND THE WORLD *** LIVES OF WOMEN IN PARTICULAR**

(3) As a Policy Wonk with 8 years in the West Wing Would have ALLOWED HER TO CHANGE THE SHIP OF STATE AROUND FROM THE REPUBLICAN OBLITIRATION OF THE 12 Million Emplployee Executive Branch!

NOW it will be 2 YEARS IF WE ARE LUCKY by then more damage done,
And since Obama remains a wild card with McCain the march towards Fascism and Depression continues.

[Bearangaria]

It's the "in my lifetime" part that is so skewed.
The emphasis is not even on Hillary.
She's just the one running. The emphasis is on "a woman."
So many women need to see this happen for THEMSELVES.
"in MY lifetime." Not necessarily the best woman. ANY woman.
As if this will compensate somehow for all the glass ceilings
women have hit and all the horrible hits they've taken.
As if Hillary is THEM.
And Hillary Clinton plays on this notion as if her agenda is for
anyone other than herself. She might very well do some good things
for women but those acts will come about only if they directly benefit
herself. She has shown this pattern on MANY issues over and over.
We ALL deserve better than that.

[CrankyGal]

Amen Peggy.

Hillary is no feminist. All her power comes from being married to a compulsive cheater who made it to the presidency. She was willing to overlook it over and over to get his power.

Now let me be clear, I don't care that he cheated, or that she overlooked it; that's their business, not mine.

But knowing their history makes it impossible to consider her a feminist icon. If she had kicked his lying cheating ass out and run on her own, then she'd be in the running for that title.

I'm a 48 year old white woman, and I want a competent person in the WH. Male, female, black or white makes no difference to me.

The right woman would be great. Hillary is not that woman

[haleywins]

Are you kidding? How many more decades or centuries do we have to wait if not this year? I'll bet you your grandchildren will not see a woman elected in their lifetimes. You are naive.

[TheHoobie]

Well said, Ms. Drexler!

My mother is a staunch Clinton supporter, and has been since the beginning of the primaries. She once told me more or less point blank that I should vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman. I responded, "Mom, you might as well tell me that I should vote for her because she and I are both white." No thank you.

If I am obligated and expected to vote for a candidate merely because she has the same kind of genitals I do, how far have we really come?

[thisoldbroad]

ditto!

[mredder4]

With at least one full term under her belt, at least Clinton HAS a Senate career. Personally, to avoid opportunists like Barack Obama, I think you should have to finish your first term to even earn the title "Senator". After all, would this campaign have been the same with Sen. Clinton vs. Sen. Dodd, vs. Sen Biden vs. former Sen Edwards vs. Gov Richardson vs. Mister Obama? No. Quit ignoring the elephant in the room and accept that Barack Obama is using his Senate title only for his presidential campaign advantage.

And enough with the Iraq War vote already. Do you or I know any of the information that was shoved in front of the Senate by Bush and his neocon agensts in the CIA and NSA? No, we don't, so stop arm-chair quarterbacking through the lense of hindsight and continuing to criticize that decision. When you're responsible for making a decision that will affect 300 million people, let me know and I'll be sure to analyze every square inch of it with reckless abandon, and we'll see how you feel about it.

And as some lower posts have pointed out, when I see your article encouraging blacks to vote not based on race, I'll have a little more respect for your argument. Until then, it's just another anti-Clinton hit piece trying to point out why you, as an Obama supporter, don't like her. We've heard plenty of that already.

[thisoldbroad]

By your rules we wouldn't have seen Bill in the White House either.. & without Bill, she wouldn't have any experience at all.

[thisoldbroad]

.. and neither does Senator Clinton, since she elected to NOT read the report before casting the most important vote of her career. If that wasn't enough, then she gave a rousing statement in the Senate quoting all the White House talking points as the basis for everyone authorizing the Iraq war.

To keep citing Obama's lack of experience while ignoring Clinton's poor choices in spite of all her experience is inexcusable.

There's no one to blame for the repeated & ever growing Bosnia lie except the one who told it.
There's no one to blame for threatening to obliterate a sovereign country except the one who did it.
There's no one to blame for the endless campaign mistakes except the leader of the team.
Her husband did as much damage to her campaign as she did.

To keep citing blacks voting for blacks as justification for women voting for women is ridiculous.

Hillary had all of our votes - all races & both sexes. Nobody stole us from her, she ran us off. I started out in Hillary's camp, but kept seeing reminders of what I didn't like about the Clinton brand of politics.

[CubanPete]

How about this title instead - Don't vote Race: The First African - American man must be the RIGHT African - American man.

[dadw5boys]

Women are so EVIL to other women we will never see an American Woman President!!!!!!

So many divided so easily no American Woman could ever get more than 35% of the votes.

[northeast73]

DONT VOTE FOR CHROMOSOMES....


Your black guy is out there somewhere....just not THIS black guy....who is so divisive, whos wife is an abhorrent monster,, who has no qualifications, whose campaign has been run by the Axelrod of Evil.....

[Arachnae]

You are (probably unwittingly) echoing the rationale used to keep women out of positions of power since the sixties. "We're not against women in this position per se, and if the right woman came along, of course she would get it."

Never mind that hundreds of women applied for the position and were rejected for hundreds of different reasons. This one is too 'aggressive' and that one is too 'mousy' and the other one just doesn't 'look right' (trans: isn't skinny).

I'm sure you are sincere. I'm also sure that the men who have rejected women for promotions they deserved were similarly sincere.

It frightens me that after decades of 'consciousness raising', people cannot recognize bias when they see it.

[aofh]

You know, with a different set of parameters your argument just as easily applies to Obama. The wonderful thing about his campaign and supporters is that they don't use that argument. If they did, you would feel as alienated as the rest of us who don't fit the ascribed parameters. I want a President who is willing to speak to and for everyone.

[TheBPP]

Agreed, Kathleen Sebelius rocks!

[txshldm0007]

Amen Sister !!!!

[SEQUOIABISON]

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO.

Finally a female who is intellectually honest.

[KarateKid]

She's not Jackie Robinson. Not close.