Sen. Hillary Clinton’s more-than-formidable background, fundraising and political presence might well push her past all Democratic challengers in the presidential primary, and might even catapult her back into the White House, this time as the chief executive.

Women have run for President before, the most notable of which is probably former Red Cross president and Sen. Elizabeth Dole. As a frontrunner, though, Sen. Clinton is making the run in a big way.

Before placing their bets on any candidate, voters have to ask themselves what they want and what they expect from a candidate. Three years ago, the answer among many voters seemed to be “someone other than President Bush.” When November 2004 rolled around, though, some may have liked to rewind a few months to recast their votes in the primary. An “electable” John Kerry turned out to be a dull-speaking, flip-flopping, 48-percent-vote-winning candidate that couldn’t replace President Bush.

Some moderates are uncomfortable with how Sen. Clinton’s personality appears to the public. Many conservatives are not shy about framing her, to use blunt language, as a witch and a firebrand liberal. Is she a raving liberal, or are some uncomfortable with a female being assertive and uncompromising in her values?

Would a victory in the general election make her the woman who finally did it, or does she come into office thanks to her husband’s coattails and the immense fundraising and campaigning juggernaut he can command? If a woman wins an election because her husband had been a popular president and helped push her over the threshold, some might think that would detract from what her success says. Does that say women still need a man if they expect to be successful leaders?

Will the question of how she got elected matter should she perform well in office?

Certainly all of these questions are valid with regard to symbolism, but The Lantern is curious about her as an individual leader. Should we elect a candidate simply for the symbolism her campaign represents? Does the first realistic chance we get to elect a female for the sake of having a female leader attest to the seriousness of elections?

The Lantern believes electing a qualified candidate is the primary concern. Anything less might be counterproductive by sending the (mistaken and over-generalized) symbol that a woman cannot do the job. If the candidate happens to be a woman and can get it done, that might attest to equity between male and female leaders in American society.

But even if a Barack Obama or John Edwards comes out of the primary victorious, Clinton’s effort will have still had the most credibility and plausibility among female candidates – possibly ever. And that makes a statement about where female leadership is headed in this country.