Is Being Anti-Hillary Anti-Woman?

I've been giving this more thought than normal (memo to my more-youthful-by-the-day pal Diana: hold chuckle here, please) after today's media maelstrom following Hillary Clinton's "mis-speak" about a trip to Bosnia a dozen years ago. In the event you missed it -- YouTube's loaded chock-full of reports and clip postings from the CBS News coverage since the network dug up it's original footage to show the Senator's memory had a few holes in it. Of course, in today's computer age, that means everyone has video -- including this posting.



Why this comes to mind today is the conversation I had with some friends and fellow professionals in the communications business as we met the other night, performing our duties as screening judges for scholarships awarded to aspiring journalists. Among those present: two dudes and three ladies. My friend Sarah feels a loss by Clinton means a huge setback for the chances of a woman ever becoming President, which spurred a quick debate.

Is it really anti-woman to be anti-Hillary?

Sarah argues Hillary has to overcome the voters who won't vote for a woman, no matter who she is. I argue the decision in 2008 has as much, if not more, to do with Clinton's position as such a polarizing political force and that her candidacy actually clears the way for other women to succeed. Would voter reaction be just as swift and negative, for example, to an Elizabeth Dole (who can argue more executive experience at the cabinet level and while CEO of the Red Cross?) or a Kay Bailey Hutchinson among the Republicans? What about high-profile campaigning Governors Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) or the five other women top state executives who merged politics with experience as a CEO to win?
Switch the argument to race and chief executives of color show an even wider margin in terms of representation, a far wider chasm in representative politics than the gender gap.

Characterizing a no vote for Hillary as one solely based on chauvinism is a dangerous thing; is the parallel then to demand the litmus test for women in power needs to be this line in the sand of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for President? By this reckoning voters of African-American heritage are traitors for not voting for Obama; the same can be held true for Hispanic-Americans not holding bigger sway for Richardson. Does that mean McCain wins the United Kingdom roots by default? By this logic winning an election truly is a numbers game where only more seasoned (read: elderly) white candidates should win since that is the biggest block of voters heading to the polls. Where does this end?

The hope should be that each candidate -- all candidates -- are weighed not by gender, race, religion or age but because we think she or he will do the best job, as defined by what we think most important when we step into the booth.

Earlier Clinton family campaigns rode to victory on the strategy "it's the economy, stupid." Modern campaigns should take a page from that strategy and admit "it's the person, dummy" that build the foundation for what voters consider worthy of filling in the circle on Election Day.