Despite my fair share of moody, teenage bellyaching, I realize that I am very fortunate for a variety of reasons.  I think that one of the best aspects of my background is that I know so many strong women. My mother, grandmothers, aunts, and many others influenced my life with their unwavering and dutiful ethics, as well as their bountiful stores of wisdom. I guess that’s why it’s impossible for me to comprehend sexism or any argument that is justified because of a person’s sex.

Given that, I get really annoyed when I hear people crusading on the Internet and the streets, claiming it to be unfair that there has yet to be a woman in the White House.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with a woman holding the highest office in the land, but I do have a problem with everyone’s reasoning about why we should have such a social breakthrough. That’s because the majority of the justifications are along the lines of “it is about time.”

Surely there must be  more to it than that. There must be more to this political hierarchy than making sure a prospective commander in chief fits in the “it’s about time we had a (insert demographic here) president.”

This brings me to a female politico who has been highly publicized over the decades for her work both as a first lady as well as her own thriving political career.

Is there anyone out there who thinks I am not talking about Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Rodham Clinton is, I believe, a rather interesting case. I remember her attempt to run for the presidency, when I was a preteen. Throughout those agonizing months, I saw the Democrats argue among themselves over whether to support then-Sen. Barack Obama or Rodham Clinton.

Throughout this time, that same annoying phrase would pop up like a ragweed infestation.

“It is about time …”

Frankly, I’m still surprised Obama beat her out.

I get the appeal. He was charming, personable, and he and his family looked so happy together. I suspect that, in comparison, Rodham Clinton must have looked less approachable in comparison. What she had to offer though, was far more impressive.

In comparison, she severely outweighed Obama in experience. Not only did she spend more years as a senator than her rival turned ally, but her rather controversial residency in the White House has hardened her so that she was better equipped to handle the media swarm and the inevitable criticisms that come with job.

Now, because this is Iowa, there is already talk about the 2016 presidential election. Rodham Clinton has all of these awesome qualifications; I am just baffled when I hear that people want her to run just because she is a woman. Personally, I hope she runs, but my reason is because I want to see what she can offer the executive branch.

If Rodham Clinton or any woman decides to run, that’s great. If she is qualified and seems like a good fit for the Oval Office, then vote for her. If there is an opposing candidate that is more qualified, then don’t. When the day comes that America has a Madame President, a day that is in no way an impossibility, then let it be because she is the leader we truly need.