"For some women," reports The LA Times, "the rise of Obama rips open a persistent wound: an older, more experienced woman is pushed aside for a younger male colleague." I've heard that a lot this election. And I don't deny the reality of that dynamic in the workplace, or the validity of the fear. But it seems like an awkward fit. The presidency is not a seniority based position. And even if it were, Hillary Clinton would not be first in line. Biden, or Dodd, or even Richardson would have been far in front of her. Indeed, insofar as one of the subplots of the race has been for younger, more charismatic contenders to vault ahead of experienced workhorses, it's manifested in the prominence of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards over Biden, Richardson, and Dodd. Clinton has benefited from that dynamic, not been disadvantaged by it. When it's specifically applied to Clinton, however, it suggests a fundamentally strange view of how the presidency works. This is not an appointed position. The American people did not enter into a pact with Hillary Clinton promising her the White House in return for eight years of elected service, and decades more as the unelected half of a political team. When one of the underlying presumptions becomes that she was somehow owed this office, it creates a false sort of "equality blackmail" at the center of this election -- vote Clinton or you're fitting into a long history of misogyny. But there is nothing misogynistic, or unfair, about choosing the candidate whose politics you find most appealing, and whose political approach you find most compelling. That's how this presidency thing is, in theory, decided.
