… she’s also Hillary Clinton. That is why it is dangerous to make generalisations about women in American politics based on her experiences, as many people do according to a New York Times piece on women in American politics:
Many [women] feel dispirited by what they see as bias against Mrs. Clinton in the media — the “Fatal Attraction” comparisons and locker-room chortling on television panels.
Most people who oppose Clinton do so because of the kind of person and candidate she is, and to imply that her gender is a factor in that is unfair. Most of the derision she receives stems from personal flaws. For example, many people regard her as a “congenital liar”, as William Safire once called her, because she lies so often (such as here). Her possessing ovaries has nothing to do with this.
The NY Times piece also points out:
In December, a Gallup poll found that 86 percent of Americans said they would vote for a well-qualified candidate who was a woman (of course, that percentage has been in the 80s for much of the last three decades). Ninety-three percent said the same of a well-qualified candidate who was black; 93 percent of a Catholic candidate; and 91 percent of a Jewish one.
These figures, along with the massive support Barack Obama and Clinton have received during their primary campaigns, reveal that race and gender aren’t a disqualifying factor any more when it comes to the presidency. (They might matter somewhat, but certainly not to the extent that they will derail a candidacy before it begins.) That is terrific, but do you think there’ll ever be a time when a gay atheist has a shot at the presidency? Wouldn’t that be the day?