Susan Sarandon on why she will not vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman: "that's very patronizing to women to think we all just follow our genitalia to candidates"

Having lived for 35 years under the so-called socialism in the Soviet Union/Russia, I, of course, will never vote for Bernie Sanders - not for a person with no sound economic plan other than how to raise taxes to 90% and "invest into the infrastructure" which is usually financed by municipal bonds backed by "full faith and credit" of property taxes - so jobs created by such an "investment" can cause massive tax foreclosures and people losing their homes.

As Margaret Thatcher once said:

Yet, recently, a Sanders supporter, actress Susan Sarandon reportedly made a statement at one of the "Bernie" rallies that reflects on the so-called "gender-specific" voting in elections.

Susan Sarandon said that "it would be patronizing to vote for front-runner Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman", and that it is "very patronizing to women to think we all just follow our genitalia to candidates."

Is that right?

But - didn't a female judge in the State of New York, most recently, made her gender her biggest election campaign "marketing" point?  That's Judges Lisa Fisher of the Greene County Supreme Court, see here and here.

Wasn't the fraudulent election of Judge Christina Ryba of the Albany County Supreme Court, celebrated as "historic" because she is an African-American WOMAN, see here and here?

And, didn't New York State Senate congratulate the "confirmed" Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore - who was confirmed after a licensed attorney, Senator Bonacic, who was disqualified from voting on her confirmation due to his financial interest in pleasing her as a future regulator of the legal profession (see John Oliver's show on conflicts of interest in state legislatures):

blocked any opponents of her "confirmation" from testifying and refused to conduct any meaningful investigation of her potentially criminal conduct well covered for years by the press - didn't New York Senate congratulate he as the "second WOMAN" appointed to that position?

As I said before on this blog, we should not be picking our candidates for governmental positions by their genitalia as qualifications.

And, yes, I agree with Susan Sarandon 100% on the point that it is demeaning to think that women will "follow their genitalia" in their voting decisions, even though it is not unheard of for women to vote for a handsome man or for men voters to vote for a pretty woman - let's call it "the Sarah Palin syndrome".

But - patronizing or not, the only thing those "honorable" public officials crave is the ultimate prize, to get elected, for a long term, for a huge salary with benefits and with the benefit of doing practically nothing and having zero accountability and unlimited power over people's lives.

Isn't it self-demeaning to promote yourself to a position of public trust only because of your gender?

Right, Judge Lisa Fisher?

Right, Judge Christina Ryba?

Right, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore?

Should we celebrate "historical developments" where these women were elected (Fisher, Ryba) or appointed (DiFiore), or should we mourn that we will be ruled by incompetent control freaks (Fisher), unethical (Ryba) and/or criminally corrupt public officials (DiFiore)?