2020 Ticket: 'Has to be a woman'

Do we owe it to a woman to make sure she's on the ticket to be President of the United States, or should we just concentrate on who is best qualified to lead -- be it man or woman?

Martin Luther King addressed racism when he articulated his dream that his "four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." I imagine he also would have wanted his two daughters to be judged by their character also, rather than their gender. People of integrity would agree. Give no place to either racism or sexism.

But there's a different way -- or maybe I should say an additional way -- of looking at King's dream: it's about character over color -- and if I may take my liberty, I'll say he would have agreed it's about character over gender also. So we desire a nation that rejects discriminating against someone based on those things -- people rising and falling based on anything superficial. But -- and don't miss this -- I believe he was also saying we do want people to rise and fall based on substance alone.

So how does this jibe with the presidential race in which candidates, women candidates in particular, have exited? This leads to the conversation -- the recurring conversation -- about women on the ticket, how much we need a woman president and why we haven't had one yet. This then begs the question: Do we want to judge candidates based on gender, or do we want to judge candidates based on qualifications? Seems some just want a woman, period. Lest I be misunderstood, I'm not shooting down the idea of a woman leading the country or saying a woman isn't as qualified as a man.

Finally having a woman president would be great, I imagine. The world has produced a plethora of women who are intelligent, energetic, engaging and eager, and some could do the job. Anyone who denies this has issues. We must reject, however, the notion that any ol' woman should be considered for president just because she espouses an "anything he can do, I can do better" mindset. The nation has too many challenges and threats, too great a purpose and promise to fiddle around with egos and agendas.

I remember a student saying to me in 2008, "Miss Ross, please vote for Obama." Why? Because Obama is [half] black. My response to him was this: "I'm just as much a woman as I am black. On one ticket, we have a black man running for president. On the other ticket, we have a woman running for vice president. Seems to me I'd better know the issues and vote accordingly, huh?" It was a learning experience for the seventh-grade student. See, I didn't want him to get sucked into the mess. I went into education to help young people think and reason and make wise decisions -- beyond the pandering and politicking. He was only about 12 years old, so he gets a bit of a pass for being caught up in the hoopla, but what about the grown folks? What's our excuse?

We've got Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood, saying after Sen. Elizabeth Warren suspended her campaign, "There has to be a woman on this ticket. That's a message that has to be heard loud and clear. Women will be the majority of voters in November. I think it's important these candidates understand how important it is that we move a woman on the ticket."

"Has to be a woman?" "Move a woman on the ticket." Huh? I've read the qualifications for president -- and being a woman isn't one of them.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made allegations of "a certain element of misogyny" in the election. She also said, "I so wish that we had a woman President of the United States, and we came so close to doing that." Close with this crop of candidates? I don't think so. Look, I understand wanting to see history made, wanting to combat any sexism that exists. But it ain't always discrimination. Every one of us has to look in the mirror and say at times, "Maybe it's just you." I mean, did Warren lose her home state of Massachusetts on Super Tuesday because those mean men (and women, even) don't like women? Not seriously assessing is a cop-out. It's sort of like Hillary Clinton blaming everyone else except her bad campaigning, email scandals and unlikability for her loss to a non-politician known by most as a reality TV guy.

Speaking of Clinton, she got in on it by referring to "unconscious bias" against "incredible candidate" Warren, suggesting she lost because she's a woman. First, the [two -- maybe] people who think Hillary Clinton really wanted Warren to win the nomination are off their rocker, and second, biases exist, yes, but so do bad candidates.

If we're going to invoke Dr. King's dream, as many do, let's not miss the full picture. It challenges us to judge, make decisions, based on what a person is made of -- and that goes deeper than skin tones and body parts. That goes to character and ability and even likability. As far as isms and schisms are concerned, I'm all about calling them out and rooting them out, but I'm not about manufacturing myths and choosing winners and losers based on gender or agenda. We're better than that as a nation. We'd better be -- because our future depends on it.

Adrienne Ross is owner of Adrienne Ross Communications and a former Southeast Missourian editorial board member.