This column is for all my sexy ladies out there. The last few weeks of interviews and polling have shown there is a large potential for one of us to be in the White House this term.

The bad news is, it’s Sarah Palin. Although in the beginning it seemed as if John McCain chose her to attract Hillary’s leftovers, it has become clearer that it is to make up for the values of the extreme right that he lacks.

But Palin doesn’t see it that way. During her interview with Charlie Gibson, she said herself she thought Barack Obama probably was regretting not adding Hillary Clinton to his ticket. Does she really think women are going to vote for their gender rather than their beliefs? It’s insulting to her fellow females.

This is not 1921, when women celebrated the first female to receive a Pulitzer Prize, Edith Wharton. This is not 1983, when women celebrated Sally Ride as the first American female to enter outer space.

A woman in the White House would be cause for celebration only if we could trust she was representing women. Nancy Gibbs, a copy editor and columnist for TIME magazine, makes a good point – “It’s hard to watch an accomplished woman walk the tightrope under lights this bright and with stakes this high; we don’t want it to look too easy, but we don’t want to see her fall.”

But Gloria Steinem, one of American feminists’ most prized posessions makes an even better point about the issue in her column published in the LA Times:

“Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.”

So why is this woman mobilizing female voters? There seems to be this bizarre mindset plaguing many American women: Palin is inching closer to an achievement in which all women can take pride.

Do they think Palin represents them? Do her five children, one being a behavioral issue turned military son, one an impregnated teen, represent every American family? Does her moose-slaughtering hobby and knack for $300 heels appeal to several kinds of women? Have they had to deal with “good ol’ boys” too?

Let’s set something straight: Palin does not represent the advancement of women or femininity in any way. She exposes an ugly truth about the way some things work in this country: having a vagina does not make you a crusader for female advocacy.

The woman opposes government regulation on the firearms that she owns by choice, yet supports government regulation on her God-given womb. Even more terrifying, she has publicly stated she would not approve an abortion in the event of rape or incest, even if it were her own daughters who were affected.

I am crossing my fingers that during the vice presidential debate on Thursday, she is asked if abortions were outlawed, what she would do about all of the inevitable illegitimate, self-administered abortions that would occur.

I want someone to ask her why her Third Wave Evangelical church held a special conference early this month promising to convert gays and lesbians through the power of prayer. (Did they pray for Mary Cheney?)

I want someone to ask her before she was mayor, before she was governor, if it ever occurred to her she was a part of a sex that makes 15 cents less for every dollar than her male coworkers, and why she then agreed with McCain to oppose the (Obama-sponsored) S. 1843: Fair Pay Restoration Act.

First female Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once said, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

I won’t say there’s a place in hell for Mrs. Palin, but I will say, there isn’t a place in the White House.

- Chelsea Cook is the Variety Editor of The Red & Black.