Balancing the Equation

I'm sure you've heard this before--after all, in the heated race for the Democratic party's nomination, both sides of this argument are being argued. Undoubtedly, we are at a milestone in United States history--two viable candidates (I apologize to Mike Gravel for excluding him, as most major media outlets do, but alas, his candidacy is not nearly as strong as the two main contenders in this race)--both landmarks. One, a white woman--a powerful, strong, decisive figure--who carries the banner of "experience". The other? A young man of mixed heritage who brings the message of "change".

Now, I will state quite bluntly that I am a female and am intending to vote for Barack Obama in the 2008 General Election if he wins the nomination of the Democratic Party. I am undecided on further action if he does not win the nomination. However, this post is not directed towards "converting the masses". I am not hear to preach to others, but I am here to argue my point (which I am still getting to, I apologize for my continual vacillations). This point is simply this: IF we [referring to any sort of movement positing itself as a movement for freedom] are to say that we are for "equality"--whether it be "race" or "gender," we should actually understand what "equality" means.

Courtesy of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: equal·i·ty
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being equal
2 : equation
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equality)

Now, of course, when we do use this term, we are referring to the first definition. Yet, if we are fighting to be "equal", why do groups and people that are normally respectful, sensitive individuals argue that to vote against our gender is to be a "traitor"? People are lauded for voting for the "woman candidate" if they are a woman--as that is there gender and finally we are to have a woman president. It is a "long time coming"--no one dares to write away such a victory. Make it trite by saying that "A majority of the voters were women, thus it is inconsequential". No, instead we reward this blatant degradation of the 'equality' that many of us strive for.

This is not to say that Hillary Clinton is an unworthy candidate. I do not believe that. Although I disagree with her on some points and do not choose her as my personal candidate, I respect her for her strength and her skill in politics, among other things. I do not believe that those who support Hillary Clinton are "evil" or "wrong". I simply disagree with the tactics that some of these supporters employ (as they do in all campaigns--unfortunately, the bad apples are the most difficult to avoid). I disagree with the points they attempt to make in justifying their choice to myself.

I (and I believe "you," as well) should not vote for a candidate because of a simple difference in chromosome or gene-- what gender and race essentially are. We are given that at birth by chance--by lottery, in fact, and to choose by this same essential "luck" is to waste that freedom of choice. Voting by gender or by race does not make us more "equal". it does not provide the final victory that people so desperately crave against the persistent evils of racism and discrimination.

No, we are finally equal when we have a choice between two strong, worthy candidates and have the choice to say, "No, this is not the right candidate for me."

We are finally equal when we are not a traitor to our gender, our race, or our nation by voting not by our own biological inheritance, but by our own thoughts and feelings. When we can look beyond our own selves--our organs and epidermis--to look at the issues and support whole-heartedly who we believe is the best for our nation.

Only then will we finally be 'equal'.