The gender-based case for Hillary has been perfectly articulated by Jessica Valenti, a leading feminist author:
It seems strange that at a time when the country has the opportunity to elect the first female president, the idea that gender might be a factor is considered shallow in some circles. Only in a sexist society would women be told that caring about representation at the highest levels of government is wrong. Only in a sexist society would women believe it.
Suzanna Walters also makes an eloquent case for supporting Hillary with gender in mind:
I want a woman president—and, no, not any woman president. Hillary is not, as her detractors would have it, Margaret Thatcher or Carly Fiorina—or Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, or some other female candidate whose platform rests on antipathy to any feminist concerns. Like most in the Democratic Party, she is a centrist. In her political orientation, deep intelligence, and policy wonkishness, she is similar to Obama—and not as dissimilar to Bernie as one might imagine.
No progressive opinion leader we can think of claims Hillary should be elected JUST because she’s a woman, but because she’s a woman who is the most qualified to be president.
With that in mind, Bernie surrogate Killer Mike’s comment is way off base:
“But I talked to Jane Elliot a few weeks ago and asked who she was supporting and Jane said ‘Michael, a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be the President of the United States. You have to have policy that’s reflective of social justice.”
And the applause that followed the words “United States” was hard to stomach.
Let’s remember Bernie’s own words:
“I think for a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton has been under all kinds of attack for many, many years. In fact, I can’t think of many personalities who have been attacked for more reasons than Hillary Clinton. And by the way, let me be frank and I’m running against her: Some of it is sexist … I don’t know that a man would be treated the same way that Hillary is.”