What should you have said? Depends on what you meant. Amp said “Every woman should support the notion of Hillary Clinton.”

1. Maybe you meant that you didn’t find his argument persuasive. Then you might say “I’m not persuaded that every woman should support the notion of Hillary Clinton.”

2. Maybe you meant that there exists at least one woman who should not support the notion of Hillary Clinton. Then you might say “NOT every woman should support the notion of Hillary Clinton.”

3. Or maybe you meant that there exists no woman (or anyone else for that matter) who should support the notion of Hillary Clinton. In that case, your statement “Every Person Should NOT Support the Notion of Hillary Clinton” would seem to fit.

Tangentially related: According to Wiki Books, the negation of the statement “All men have hair” is “No man has hair,” rather than “Not all men have hair.” See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Geometry/Inductive_and_Deductive_Reasoning
Yet the statements”All men have hair” and “No man has hair” are both false. This concept of negation, therefore, conflicts with classical notions of deductive logic whereby the opposite of any true statement is a false statement, and vice versa (and conflicts with the truth tables found at the bottom of that page).

What, O Wise One, should my phrasing have been, then?

The statement “Every Person Should NOT Support the Notion of Hillary Clinton” translates to “if you are a person, then you should not support the notion of Hillary Clinton.” The converse would be “If you should not support the notion of Hillary Clinton, then you are a person.” An interesting proposition in its own right, but probably not one espoused by Ampersand.

Instead, Amp said “Every woman should support the notion of Hillary Clinton,” which translates to “if you are a woman, then you should support the notion of Hillary Clinton.” The converse would be “If you support Hillary Clinton, then you are a woman.” Again an interesting proposition in its own right, but probably not one espoused by Amp.

The fact of her candidacy has made the point that a woman can run for, and be, President. But to elect her on the basis of gender only, does a disservice to women. It implies that the only reason she succeeds, is some sort of nation-wide affirmative action. History has shown that affirmative action programs sometimes work against their intended beneficiaries by fueling the perception that, but for the program, the beneficiary wouldn’t have qualified for the position.

Personally I see no record of achievement for Senator Clinton that would support my vote for her. Were she a man, I’d feel the same.