Are you saying that Obama is all sizzle because of a racist assumption?

Bear with me for a moment, because I'm not trying to lose you. The assumption about women is that they have to be twice the man a man is to get half the credit. Now for a black man or woman, they have to do twice the work a white person does to get half the credit.

Now, consider that when Senator Clinton first decided to run in 2002 for the 2004 election (she decided against it, but considered) she had exactly the amount of experience in the Senate that Obama did. No one screamed about her not being experienced enough. If you want to count her time in the white house as a counselor to Bill, that's fine. But was she writing legislation? Other than health care? She has not given any specifics on what her experience consists of. She worked as a goodwill embassador. But where is her leadership experience?

Now if an African American woman were married to an African American man, say Michelle Obama, and she decided to run in 2016 for the Senate in a state she didn't originally live in (after eight years in the white house with Obama) do you think people would consider her qualified? Would she be trapped by the double bind of race and gender that Steinem seems to have overlooked in her discussion of race verses gender?

One more example. Say a white man had been a powerful speaker at the Democratic convention and was considered a rising star. Say that he had written himself (not ghost written like Hillary) two best selling and critically acclaimed books. Say that he had been a "phenom" in Illinois where he had electrified the party and pulled in voters independent and Democrat alike. Say he had a Harvard degree, had worked as a civil rights attorney, was tall, good-looking and knew how to electrify a crowd. Say that he had co-sponsored over 400 bills for Congress during his time in the Senate (those who are throwing poison darts at part of his record might be missing the fact that he's a talented and intelligent writer who is helping to write legislation--far more legislation that Edwards or Clinton. Clinton's record in the Senate primarily has consisted of serving on five committees and becoming more a part of the Washington establishment). Say he ran for President. Would people say "this man has no substance"? People don't say that about Edwards, and yet Edwards has only one term more in the U.S. Senate and less time in elected office. Could part of the assumption behind Obama's lack of credentials is that as a black man he has to have more credentials than either of his opponents--quite a few more--to be considered qualified?

Please note that I'm not saying that race has not also helped Obama. It has, for better or worse, garnered him more attention, just as for Clinton, her gender has garnered her more attention. But I think Clinton supporters need to recognize that outside of the hard-core base, Clinton's record doesn't really speak for itself. Her record, like Obama's, has flaws as well as accomplishments.

But those who throw the Obama has no substance argument, I wonder if you have considered all the ramifications of what you're saying, or if you are just repeating the talking points that may or may not be based on the assumption that a black man can't ever do enough to be recognized for his intellectual and leadership abilities?

Just a question.

I see two campaigns:

1. The campaign to smear Clinton and her husband while they were Washington outsiders in the 1990's and hate or dislike or distaste of a lot of people have for Mrs. Clinton without proportion to her position or her accomplishments. Not just anti-gender bias, but specific anti-Hillary and Bill bias. For reasons that most people will never fully comprehend. I, for one, don't understand it.

2. The campaign, perhaps in a good part in response, to designate Mrs. Clinton as the Victim-in-Chief, the suffering saint of a woman who was married to a good president, but a very bad husband. The Democratic base party wants to give her the same thing the Republicans are giving to John McCain, the nomination for President as a kind of life-achievement award, something that both have earned by long time party loyalty. It doesn't matter now how many times Mrs. Clinton sponsors anti-flag burning legislation or actively subverts a progressive agenda. She still expects to collect on this life-time achievement award as the party nominee. Unfortunately (or fortunately the cynic would say) negative media stories only feed into her vitimhood status and her sense of personal injury and entitlement.

I find both campaigns offensive and undesirable.