I have asked this question before and still do not have a good handle on the answer.  Do women have an obligation to support a serious woman candidate? Or is gender now simply an interesting but ultimately irrelevant consideration?

The Grrrl Power position was staked out early on by Emily’s List. Less than one hour after Clinton announced her candidacy in January 2007, the group issued an endorsement statement from president Ellen Malcolm. “I am one of the millions of women who have waited all their lives to see the first woman sworn in as President of the United States,” wrote Malcolm. “And now we have our best opportunity to see that dream fulfilled.” Of course, given that Emily’s List exists for the express purpose of electing women, it’s no surprise that Malcolm would so quickly embrace Clinton, a candidate so strong she was hailed as the frontrunner from the moment she entered the race.

But Malcolm and others have upped the ante, declaring that Clinton’s candidacy not only compels their personal support, but also that of all feminists. After Clinton’s disappointing showing in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Malcolm even wrote an op-ed declaring that Clinton herself had a “responsibility” to stay in the race. She owed it to all women to prove that she wasn’t a quitter. The sentiment echoed Clinton’s own comments on the stump, her declaration that “I am not a quitter. I do not give up.”

But OBama’s support among women will probably be a long generational divide–younger more educated women will probably support Obama and older women will most likely switch to McCain.

But beyond that, to support a candidate because of gender and/or race is just plain dumb…what about issues?  Obama’s issues and stands are so similar to Clinton’s did little difference can be found between the two.  I feel that to not support a candidate because of gender is just as moronic as supporting one because of race.

Maybe the voter should evaluate the candidates on their stands and not one their plumbing.