I am proud to be a Democrat this year. The party finally found a clear voice of criticism against President Bush's management of the economy (or lack thereof) and the war in Iraq, and the two remaining candidates are people Democrats actually like. Unlike 2004 - when we had to convince others (and ourselves) that Kerry was the right man for the job - most people genuinely approve of this year's presidential choices. We do not have to pick between a gaggle of flawed and mediocre candidates. Instead, we are choosing between two ground-breaking senators (even with their flaws, we find something to admire).
By whittling down the options, we are left with a black man and a white woman, and we have never had viable candidates with these sorts of adjectives. I embrace the level of diversity in the Democratic leadership, but I worry about the effect those same adjectives have on the electorate, especially when it comes to gender.
I sincerely believe that the number of voters who pick Sen. Barack Obama simply because he is not a woman is very small. I refuse to shed my young and idealistic na'veté, but as a blanket statement, I do not believe Americans in the 21st century think Hillary is unfit to serve as president because she is a woman. Yet, there is a portion of the electorate that selects Clinton because she is a woman, and this worries me.
In what I think is an unintended side effect, voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton has become synonymous with embracing women's rights. No matter Obama's stance on women's equality, health or rights, the "true" feminist must vote for Hillary. It is a "you are either with us or against us" mentality, and such divisiveness certainly will not help the Democrats win in November.
I do not want to feel defensive if I decide to support someone other than Sen. Clinton. I can support fair pay, strict sexual discrimination laws, reproductive rights and the breaking of the glass ceiling without assuming that electing a woman solves all of these problems.
I do not think the Clinton campaign deliberately created this side effect, but I think the campaign plays into it. Clinton's core constituency is women; they are the reason she won New Hampshire and did so well on Super Tuesday. When over half of the U.S. population is female, it is a solid strategy - get the women, and you get the White House. But Hillary needs still needs to convince me that she is right for women based on the issues, and not just because she wears a skirt, too.
To all the male readers of this column, I apologize. My frustration comes mainly because I am a woman, and for obvious anatomical reasons, this may not be such an issue to you.
But my sex should not pigeonhole me into voting for someone simply because we share the same chromosomes. With that mentality, does that mean I am required to vote for someone if they share my religious views or my party affiliation, too? I should not be compelled to pick sides based on surface statements. I look at the issues just as much as the next person, and I will pick whichever adjectives I want for my candidate. Being female is not a guarantee of my vote, and I should be proud of my strong feminist views without feeling guilty for passing up the chance to vote for a female president.
I want to see a woman as commander-in-chief in my lifetime as much as the next progressively minded woman, but I will not jump on the chance to vote for a woman just because it is there. Yes, I want a woman in the White House, but maybe I just do not want Hillary.
Lisa Petak is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and the College of Arts and Sciences and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
