You knew I wasn't going to let it die. This is the Week of Hillary. We will discuss Hillary. Then next week, we'll go back to your regularly scheduled little angel stories.
I have to thank Cynthia Samuels for sending along a link to an article I really liked. I want to quote it a bit now, because it underscores my sentiment in this "vote for Hillary because she's a woman" debate. Again, let me reiterate my position: Hillary is a moderate Dem, and I am a liberal Dem. If Hillary were a very staunch, right-wing Republican, I wouldn't vote for her, ovaries be damned. So my position, AGAIN, is this: in a field of moderate to liberal Democrats, two men and one woman, I'm taking the woman. I initiated my argument in an overt way meant to get conversation started. I knew it would have shock value. I did that on purpose. But I believe I clarified yesterday that this is about making a decision between similar candidates based on breaking a gender barrier.
But Liswood cautions against undervaluing what she calls "the power of the mirror, of knowing who it is we can be by who it is that we see." By becoming the first female President of the United States, Liswood says, Hillary would "change the whole memory scan of young people, in terms of ... what leaders look like." Even Condoleezza Rice, reviled as she may be for her conservative views, has done her bit for gender equality simply by virtue of the position she occupies. "It's an important social progression. You can't write these women off just because we highly disagree with them," says former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton, who now heads the Center for the Advancement of Women. "It moves us toward a time when we can attack someone like her because of what she stands for and not because she is black or a woman, because we already know that the country won't go up in smoke because we had an African-American woman from Alabama as Secretary of State."
If a women were running for president every year, my argument would be ludicrous and invalid. I agree with that. My point is: They're not. They haven't. And they won't, unless we vote with both our values and our desire to break the glass ceiling. When women are on the ballot every election cycle, then I'll agree it's inappropriate to vote on the basis of gender. We are not there yet. We are not there yet. This cycle, this election, is our opportunity to ensure there are always female choices.
Actions speak louder than words. As long as we have no female representation in the pictures of presidents ringing the classrooms of every elementary school in America, it DOES speak volumes about what women can and can't accomplish in America. Right now, any little girl staring at the wall will conclude she can't be president. I did. That we can and should have a female president in my lifetime is my expectation, but the truth is that there has to be a first. And that first has to be a pretty tough bitch to withstand the pressure of being the first. Hillary's the best opportunity we have.
Listen, if you hate Hillary's politics, then absolutely you shouldn't vote for her. But if you're up in the air, think hard about it. This is the opportunity of a lifetime, and one that may not come back for many years. How many more male faces have to be on the classroom walls before we vote in a woman? I'm being realistic. Sometimes things don't work out perfectly. Sometimes the woman running isn't exactly the way you'd want her to be -- but she's a woman capable of doing the job, and with precedents, you have to start somewhere.
From Daily Kos:
Updated to add: We will be civil and treat each other with respect. I just deleted a very disrespectful comment. It's fine to disagree with me and with each other, but we will treat each other with respect.
Plus having a female President will speak volumes about how we value women in this country, will do more to elevate women to first class citizenship than perhaps anything else.