Respondents to a recent poll are divided on whether Hillary Clinton’s being of the female persuasion will help or hurt her chances. I think that it ought, in any case, to help her. Yes, I know there’s the idea out there that we shouldn’t vote for a woman candidate just because of gender, any more than we were supposed to vote for Obama because of race. There should be no “affirmative action” voting: vote on the merits.
But I admit it: a big part of what turned me on about Obama’s candidacy in 2008 was not just that Obama was African-American but that he would be the first African-American president. I believed he would make an extra effort—in a progressive direction— because of being first. And I believe that, on the whole, a vote on race has proven to have been a vote on the merits.
Same with the “woman making history” factor. Color me naïve, I believe that Hillary, despite her seeming, after decades toughened by the rough and tumble, more political than female, will be inspired by the unique opportunity of being the first woman president, and that inspiration will be a big factor in what sort of president she turns out to be. She will, once installed, be motivated to transcend her compromised political past, her reputation among many young and progressive people of being most notably not Bernie, and not Elizabeth Warren, and become the Clinton that history will most remember.
A vote on the gender of the candidate is in fact a vote on the merits.
Or, when it comes to hormonal firsts: you could always vote for the first macho, racist, fascistic bully-boy we’ve had a chance to vote for in quite a while.
No Comments