I do not presume to speak for other Obama supporters - certainly we are not an ideological monolith. But, if you conducted a test where you:

1.) Presented two political candidates, with their gender AND race blinded to me

2.) Presented to me their political background, voting record, political affiliations (e.g. Candidate "X" has close ties to right-of-center Terry McAuliffe and the DLC, while Candidate "Y" does not) and political histories, scandals et al.

3.) Presented to me their campaign platforms, speeches (with sections on gender and/or race ommitted or neutralized) and so on.

I believe I would choose the candidate that happens to have Barack Obama's political "characteristics", if you will...regardless of what this blinded candidate's race and gender was later revealed to be.

****************

You have essentially asserted in your post that "I would support a woman nominee, but not Hillary" meme is a tired, false cliche used by Obama supporters to justify their misogyny.

My blinded test example above is my attempt to rebut this. As a real-world example, if it were Nancy Pelosi running against Obama, I can honestly say that I would be very torn - and based on experience, in all likelihood I would support Pelosi as my nominee of choice.

The difference to me between Pelosi and Clinton? There are many, of course...but the most key one is that Nancy earned her political capital the old-fashioned way. She battled for it on her own terms...not by careful selection of a husband based on his political potential (with an intent to ride on his coattails until she picked up enough speed to go it alone.)

***********

One more thing about your "cliche" assertion: it does not take much deftness of word for me to easily turn it around to focus on white Clinton supporters (female or male):

"I would support a minority nominee, just not Obama."

Mmm-hmmm. Tired. Cliche. Rationalization.

Ya gotta love identity politics...

*******

P.S : Interesting take on the role/treatment of "working class women" in this political climate. But I believe - as Hillary herself might remind you - that you forgot to put "white" in front of "working class women" in your comments...

Let's be clear about this - Dubya may be, shall we say, developmentally challenged...

But Darth Cheney is NOT. Evil? Yes. Stupid? No.

Cheney is a dyed-in-the-wool neocon, but even he realizes that an attack on Iran before the election (and inauguration) will really f*ck McCain over. The country disapproves of the Iraq War in record numbers, and even the hardiest GOP supporters in the red states are weary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

How do ya think the country will thus respond to a new war/quagmire with Iran from an administration McCain has chosen to saddle up next to??

That's right...they will turn against the Republican nominee McCain in droves; even worse for ol Johnny, if somehow he wins in Novemeber and Cheney pulls the trigger on Iran between then and the inauguration in January, President McCain will enter office with probably the lowest approval rating in American history.

****************

The bottom line: Attacking Iran will screw over nobody as much as it will McCain. Does Dubya know this? Maybe...but Cheney surely does.

Step 1: Take a marriage with a healthy sexual atmosphere

Step 2: Add one baby to the mix (add one or two more later...conceived from annual b-day sex, at best...for full effect)

Step 3: Observe as the arrival of kid leads to complete bed death...both short-term and long-term.

I have seen this/heard this from my married guy friends sooooo many times...very tragic

While living in Minnesota/ attending U of MN, I dated a few local Lutheran girls who did not give oral. Mind you, they did have coital sex and had no problem with me going down on them (which I love to do anyway) - but BJs were something they did not do. [One of them - who I actually fell in love with at some point - blamed it on a 'sensitive jaw'. Umm, yeah.]

By contrast, ALL the girls raised Catholic (whether they still practice or not) who I have been intimate with have not only been willing to give oral, but most actually relish/are turned on by it themselves!

Now of course, I'm by no means saying - based on my anecdotal sampling of women - that Catholic girls automatically = BJ queens, or that Lutheran girls automatically = no head. My point is that there are still cultural/religious dynamics at play here when we talk about sexual preferences...

And FWIW: yes, based on my sexual experiences I would be more interested in dating a Catholic-raised woman than one who was not. =)

We guys agree to not be threatened in any way by girls' vibrators, magic wands, overgrown cucumbers etc. (never was an issue for me personally, anyway)...

If you girls agree not to be threatened by the notion that a lonely guy (who might be very introverted, or not sufficiently attractive enough to interest "real" women) might seek out a sexual aid/ pair bonding substitute.

Seems fair, no?

*****************

I'd have to believe that if a male columnist wrote an article ridiculing and attacking women for using "fake-boyfriend" technology (like the legendary Hitachi) - and giving an implicit take-home message of 'Just get a REAL guy already, losers!' - that he would be (rightfully) criticized by sexually liberated women everywhere.

As a sexually liberated man, I feel that the criticism works both ways. Would I, umm, make use of a 2-D female? Nope. But I fail to see the harm (except to feminist egos) in using one!