Watching the coverage of the Democratic National Convention, I was pained to see Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) chance at presidency go down the drain.

I always thought about what it would be like to have a woman as president. Needless to say, judging by the way history played out, Clinton won’t have the chance at the highest office in the land for this election.

Now her chances are obsolete, and Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) campaign is a force to contend with. After Obama’s powerful and visionary acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for president, Republicans were no doubt shaking in their boots.

It’s obvious this election is a first for many things, but Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) decision to pick Palin as a running mate, specifically to swindle votes from Clinton supporters, makes my head spin.

I find the choice of bringing the Alaskan governor to the Republican ticket a serious case of exploitation.

Palin, the self-proclaimed “hockey mom,” seems to be a walking contradiction. The vice presidential hopeful is an adamant pro-life supporter, opposing abortion, even when a woman is the victim of rape.

How can someone that doesn’t support a woman’s right to choose vow to break the glass ceiling women still find themselves encased in? According to polls from the Los Angeles Times, working-class women make up the majority of swing voters in America. However, history has shown that women’s votes aren’t completely based on gender.

Not only did Clinton lose the nomination for presidency, but in the 1984 Democratic ticket, with vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, lost the female vote by 12 percentage points to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Every time I turn on the TV and see Palin, I am reminded of the group of women who fought for civil rights. Palin’s views don’t support those women.

Granted, her campaign is rooted firmly in her family values, but first she’s a mother, then a politician. Palin’s decision to capitalize on her status as a mother reinforces the double standard.

No one sees Obama promising his allegiance to his daughters during his campaigning.

His devotion to fatherhood is expected. Is it right for a woman to gain women voters based on their biological status over children?

A woman running for vice president should represent more than a transparent appeal to demographics. She needs to appeal to women’s interests, like the right to choose. A female candidate shouldn’t knock women back to the ’60s by taking away their voices and their liberties.

I’d rather be stuck in one of Clinton’s 18 million glass ceiling cracks than vote for a woman who doesn’t represent me politically.