Much of the recent focus of Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she is running for President (aren’t we all so shocked!) seems to be on her gender. Apparently the brand-new public relations and messaging crew forgot to puts some new polish on the approach, because this time around, it smacks of the exact same inevitable “it’s her time” approach to the race. Adding “because she’s a she” doesn’t take the old, dull sheen off. That may run afoul of one of the many words not allowed for use about her as well.

A quick browse of her website lists no clear policy goals. Her biography conveniently omits her unceremonious exit from the Nixon investigation. The conclusion to her 2008 run for the presidency supplies the famous “highest, hardest glass ceiling” quotation. What stands out the most? If one was to point out anything, it would be the statement or implication of the word “woman” throughout the pages.

Much as with the rejection of racial quotas as by definition racist, this line of thinking that simply being a woman when no other females are making Presidential runs is a qualifier is similarly sexist. But let’s back up a second, and examine the past.

Barack Obama arrived on the presidential race scene as a prospective racial savior. “Look everyone, if we elect Obama, we will have proven that we are not a country of racist white people, and heal the racial divide!” It would seem that racial animosity has not taken a turn for the better in the past 7 years.

Should we then, answer the similar siren call from another direction, and heal our gender equality gap? Of course, the method of doing this would be to install another hard left President who has absolutely no interest in actually closing gaps. Perhaps there would even be an interest in driving additional wedges between the sexes, as Democrats are wont to do with their many categories. Can our society stand to have even more strife between members? Much as the free election has spurned an ever louder cacophony of “Racists!” are we ready to endure 8 years of “Sexists!” at any suggestion that a Hillary Clinton policy is undesirable? Note that this is true also for criticism even from allies.

While brandishing a fairly impressive resume on its face, the Democrats have already shown they care very little for experience. Whatever a Hillary Clinton presidency does will always be “historic!” Therefore, the crux of Hillary’s argument to represent the US is that she is a woman. There are without a doubt numerous women “qualified” to the job. If this is entirety of the substance of the Democrat’s campaign, have on hand a few choice selections of your own from the Republican ranks, who also share the XX qualification for the presidency that Mrs. Clinton is brandishing. And remember that your suggestion most likely does not have a history of lying and evading scrutiny…

Jon Weber is a political junkie, Navy submarine veteran, and Nuclear power plant operator. Comments welcomed at dreamseekerta@hotmail.com