I'm having a hard time balancing my distaste for familial succession while desiring a woman for the Oval Office.

Not to be harsh, but I think you've missed the point on both counts. First, this goes way beyond familial succession. Not to suggest that most candidates for high office are necessarily qualified, but Hillary's career has to be among the most illegitimate in the history of US politics. She essentially parlayed good will over her husband's marital indiscretions into a political career. At the time I was a fierce Democrat and Hillary supporter, despite whitewater, but even then I couldn't understand how people could be so base as to think she should suddenly be a governor. To me, it was the Democrat version of Arnold: a total sideshow. Since then she's proven to be a chameleon through and through, to borrow the term from the article. Simply put, she's fake and corrupt.

Second, how is it reasonable to want to elect someone based on gender? Isn't that counter to everything that should go into deciding on one's vote? Isn't that exactly the base thinking that political insiders want, so they can use her to push the agendas of corporatists? I want equality for women in all regards, and I'll be the first to vote for a woman candidate whose agenda jives with mine, but I absolutely will not vote for someone based on something unrelated to how they will perform in office.

Let's vote based on policy and private interests (or preferably a lack thereof), and let's not, under any circumstances vote for a candidate we know represents corporate interests. To me, that means there's no scenario where Hillary ever gets my vote.