via The Federalist:
by Holly Scheer | March 11, 2016
It’s not anti-woman to oppose Hillary Clinton. There’s rhetoric circling this election season that women who don’t support Hillary don’t support women.
I’m part of the demographic that should poll well with Clinton. I’m a woman. I’m lower middle class. I grew up lower middle class, and my family has plenty of union ties. Many of my relatives are proudly blue-collar. I’m not a college graduate. Further, I’m a millennial.
Yet I don’t support Clinton.
Is it a rejection of all of the progress women have made to not vote for a woman running for the highest office in our land? Should the sisterhood of all women dictate that when one of us steps up, the rest need to fall in line and support her?
Examine Hillary Clinton on Her Merits, Not Her Body Parts
Instead of touchy-feely pieces about how women ought to lean in, we should examine Clinton on her merits. On all of them, not just the fact that she’s a woman.
My distrust and dislike of Clinton have really nothing to do with the fact that she’s female. I’d dislike her policy ideas and plans just as much if a man was putting them forth. I don’t trust her, and it’s not because I have some deep-seated idea that it’d be more appropriate for her to spend her time in a kitchen somewhere, baking bread and arranging flowers. It’s because she lies, repeatedly, and for her own benefit.
Insisting the vote go to one candidate because of some shared anatomy is frankly demeaning. Policy and tough decisions aren’t and shouldn’t be decided by body parts but by the best qualified candidate. (Read More)
Read the full commentary at The Federalist