Jackson Free Press

By now, practically everyone is familiar with Killer Mike's infamous comment at a Bernie Sanders rally in Atlanta: "A uterus doesn't qualify you to be president."

Indeed some, not all, men and women supporting Sen. Sanders for president have resorted to a lewd advocacy that often refers to the female body parts of presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Even actress Susan Sarandon informed us that she is supporting Sanders because she doesn't vote with her vagina.

This prologue of advocacy by some of Sanders' supporters has turned crass so often on social media that the Sanders campaign asked its supporters to tone down the genital references. Notably, there were no such bodily references between Sen. Sanders and Gov. O'Malley. And even as raucous as the Republican primary season has been, the male candidates aren't trading bodily references, though Mr. Trump has referred in a derogatory manner to Ms. Fiorina's face and indicated in crass terms that a reporter was having her monthly cycle.

Beginning to notice a pattern? Yeah, me too.

So gender-bashing is still playing a role in our politics but with a slight turn of the argument. While Killer Mike may be correct in his assertion that "a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president," it has been true for many years that having a uterus was indeed a disqualifying feature in the U.S., where no woman has ever been elected to the office of president.

In this particular race where only one woman remains in the running, it is clear who the "you" in Killer Mike's statement refers to: A uterus doesn't qualify Hillary Clinton to be president. And the sentiment is to not vote for her because she is a woman. We've come a long way, baby.

Killer Mike and other Sanders supporters, again not all, are making an oblique accusation of reverse sexism. The people they are accusing are Secretary Clinton's supporters. They are saying if she wins, it will only be because she was elected by sexist women and men who prefer a woman candidate. Secretary Clinton's supporters should not be dissuaded by this accusation.

In my mind, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate running for president in this season. She is known and respected by world leaders. Her foreign-policy experience is vast. She has been in the situation room. She knows diplomacy and military action. She has served two terms in the U.S. Senate.

The work she has done advocating for the rights of families, women and children for the past 40 years with the Children's Defense Fund, Legal Services Corporation, as first lady of Arkansas and first lady of the United States is well known and indisputable. She has been investigated by Ken Starr and his team of U.S. attorneys, and for years she was investigated by the U.S. House of Representatives' Benghazi Committee. She has been vetted for U.S. Senate, vetted for U.S. secretary of state and twice vetted to run for president.

In all those years of investigation and vetting, nothing was found to bring her character into question or to disqualify her from serving as president of the United States.

Clinton's supporters should not shy away from her distinguished list of qualifications to serve as president of the United States. But, in particular, Clinton's supporters should not shy away from pointing out and voting for the unique strengths that Secretary Clinton brings to the table as a woman.

A woman candidate brings a perspective to the office that can enhance the efficiency of the ways in which government serves people. It is women more so than men in this country who make most of the decisions in their families pertaining to nutrition, health care, education of children, day care for children, caretaking of the sick and elderly, purchasing of consumer products and safety, and a myriad of other every day life decisions.

A woman president's experience in these areas will help her to understand what will and will not work for families and children in this country and in the world.

Even though there are dads who are custodial primary caretakers of children and caretakers of the elderly, their numbers are few and far between. A woman's voice of experience in these same areas will help serve those dads who are too few in number to have any meaningful voice in government.

Any candidate can and should cite their life experiences to inform voters of their qualifications—even if those life experiences are as a woman. Voting for a candidate because of those life experiences is not reverse sexism, and for many voters, it just might be the right thing to do. It may be exactly what they want in a candidate—uterus notwithstanding.

Madison attorney Vicki Slater ran as a Democrat for governor of Mississippi last fall.