You Go, Girl.

Today is Washington's Primary Election Day. If I hadn't already sent in my absentee ballot, it would be exhilirating to go to the polls and celebrate my suffrage on the same day that the Thai government is being overthrown by a military coup because its democracy is failing. I was going to mention last week that the most inspiring thing I heard Ann Richards speak about was the right to vote and run for office -- that she was elected governor only a mere generation after women had to fight for the right to cast a ballot. It's a privilege to vote. Not because, as a woman, I ever needed special permission. But just because we live in a safe and free country, and voting is what ever and always can make it so. Even the abuses, failures and weakness of our electoral process serve to remind us of this -- to not be complacent, keep our standards high, and remember that we value democracy.

The results of the Primaries matter in quite a few races -- in legislative districts, such as the 43rd, that are so dominated by a single party that the primary winner is guaranteed the seat in the House of Representatives. In reading the Stranger's endorsement of Stephanie Pure, I've only recently learned about the "Feminine Critique" controversy: This past summer, The Stranger reported that Lynne Dodson -- the other female frontrunner -- along with representatives from NARAL and the National Women's Political Caucus -- approached Stephanie and asked her to drop out of the race. Not because Stephanie is a lesser champion for women's rights or, if elected, she would be any kind of threat to their platform. But because, as the candidate with (in their assessment) a lesser chance of winning, Stephanie should step aside -- so that the "women's vote" is undivided among multiple qualified candidates, and a woman is more likely to win.

In theory, I comprehend the rationale. As NWPC's Mitchell said: "I want to see a woman win that seat. And when voters are offered a choice of two great women, then it limits each woman's chances of winning." Political strategy makes sense in certain contexts: For instance, in the Nader v. Gore v. Bush 2000 Presidential race, there were long-ranging implications of Nader staying in the race (and voters voting for him), instead of strategically backing Gore to provide him undivided support in defeating Bush. But Nader, and many of his 2000 supporters, will still argue that a person must stand by their position, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

I'd say that was a close moral and political call. But Stephanie Pure isn't Ralph Nader, and Lynne Dodson is no Vice President Gore. Oh, and "women" aren't comparable to the nationwide 2000 Electorate. We're not a troop of girl scouts all marching in uniform, either. We're a diverse and dynamic array of voters who simply have in common our XX chromosome. To act as if women are an interest group, who only deserve one qualified candidate to choose from, stinks with the cheap perfume of quotas and tokenism. Would a "wait your turn, little girl" attitude be tolerable in reviewing applications for medical school or NEA grants? Electing law firm partners or Union Presidents? It would be annoying if it didn't chill me to the bone.

I would agree that Stephanie had an obligation to assess her chance of winning and consider the strategic impact of her candidacy. And believe me, she did -- and she is as serious and responsible a candidate as you'll find. Opposition candidate Jamie Pedersen has been criticized for trying to make the 43rd Representative position a "gay seat" -- but the Dodson coalition has done us one worse -- acting as if there's only one "pink seat" in the legislature. Apparently the ladies of the 43rd must politely wait in line until Ms. Dodson has finished her term, washed her hands, and moved on.

As a 30-something professional woman running for the House of Representatives (who I have, as a disclaimer, known since college), Stephanie has courage, conviction, and energy that are nothing but admirable -- unless you are her opponent, in which case I imagine you'd find it all threatening. Her candidacy is a reminder that a Democrat-only district deserves choice and diversity in a race (and everyone running, for the record, appears to agree on the substantive issues of gay marriage, women's choice, and civil rights -- there's no G.W. Bush to be found). Another bright, qualified woman on the ballot can only serve women. And a greater number of qualified candidates, in this situation, can only further the democratic process.

Stephanie, you go, girl. May the best woman win.

Update: Today's results indicate that Stephanie Pure received 13.1% of the votes cast among all six candidates. The frontrunners are battling for the seat between 23.9% and 22.8%. And yes, if the votes for Dodson (with 11.5%) and Pure were combined together, it would be enough to win the seat . So if Dodson's logic was correct, she should have withdrawn -- and Stephanie might have won.