Playing the gender card to excuse Shrillary's manish approach to, well.....everything, is like playing the black card for Obama. They don't matter!!!!!! If truth ever became part of a presidential campaign, then we'd have a nominee by now instead of a race to sling mud and engage in dirty politics. (Or is that the only kind of politids there is?) If Shrillary and Obama don't get to concentrating on issues soon, I'm afraid McBush might win the election in November, and we simply can NOT allow that to happen.

Fortitude or "balls"? Call it what you want but it is clear we have only one candidate that has "it". "It" is what we need to turn this country around. "It" is what we need a person to have to stand up and fight America.

This election has beamed with sexism and racism. The sad thing is you can not call it what it is because you are called racist or sexist if you disgree with popular opinion.

Jack Cafferty seems to want to scare folks from making the right choice for fears of major race riot. How many times does he put fear in the minds of his viewers when he calls out "I hate to see what will happen if the democrats steal the nomination from a black man". Jack, stop with the boogie man

tactic. I am not afraid of the black man. I am afraid our country is falling apart.

I do not care that Obama is black. What I care about is he the right person for the job. I do not care Hillary is a woman. What I care about is she right person for the job.

The Democrats have done this to themselves. If we were a democracy, we would not use a tactic to make votes not count. If Michigan and Florida counted when the votes were in, we would not have these discussion today. We would talk about the issues not racism and sexism.

Let's call it what "it" is. Hillary has "it". If Obama had "it" he would have taken second chair and then had enough "it" for 8 years of change.

U r an obvious Hillary supporter but i dont think it shows fortitude going on there at all. she on the scorthed earth campaign as u cant see. I dont agree with most of what u say but come on. U think that gas tax thing is not pandering? U r smarter than that please. That will not get a sniff in congress and u know. So does she. U r on the feminist as usual.

I wrote from the point of view of a woman. I am white, and unsure if it is entirely appropriate for me to tell you how a black person weighs or ought to weigh race in this election. But you raise a very worthwhile point which I overlooked, so I will do my best to try to consider how black voters might view this contest.

Black voters do overwhelmingly support Obama and some share of that support must be based solely on race. For this segment of black voters I agree with the argument I think you inadvertently make: they are as wrong as you would be if you voted for Clinton simply because she is a woman.

Where your argument does not quite succeed, I think, is in the assumption that virtually all of the black vote is race-based.

Let's neutralize race by assuming both Clinton and Obama are black, or both white. Let's also assume both candidates run on their real platforms, real careers, and real lives. Who is more likely to appeal to the greater number of black voters?

With respect to his early opposition to the war, I think Obama has an enormous advantage. The military is a traditional path out of poverty with few barriers to entrance. Blacks are disproportionately poor, and therefore disproportionately at risk when the country is at war. If I were black, and if I believed Obama was less likely than Clinton to support another "dumb war", I would vote for him. I suspect this would resonate more loudly with you, too, if you were black.

Concerning his early decision to reject corporate law and work as a community organizer, Obama must have a second and rather considerable advantage with the black voter. Think of what it must say to black voters that a man (or woman) with this education and those prospects would choose to work on behalf of the poor.

Clinton's early career might appeal less. Her work with the Yale Child Study Center is under-publicized, and while it would appeal to this population (and to many others) this is just not an aspect of Clinton that has gained traction. In the case of the black voter that might be something Clinton wishes she had emphasized more.

Clinton's other early career choices might be somewhat more problematic for the black voter. Her interest in defense work for the radical left, even when the defendants are Black Panthers, strikes me as somehow not quite as immediate or as real for this group as Obama's community organizing. I have to say that I am uncomfortable in speaking for blacks about their views of 60's radical activists, but I am under the impression the black community has a more pragmatic view of the issues. (All black Salon readers are invited to tell me I'm an idiot. You're welcome.)

Clinton's legal work in Arkansas, her years as First Lady there and in Washington, her WalMart board seat all, I think, communicate nothing much to the black voter (black Salon readers, see above...). Her health care proposal as First Lady is one of the things I do not admire, so I am not going to make a case for why it should impress anyone else.

Their marriages are part of their identities as candidates, and while as a Clinton supporter you may feel the subject is off-limits I suspect these voters are apt to consider it anyway. Who do you think is more likely to prevail here?

So, to your question: if the black vote is based on race alone, it is not an especially well-considered vote. But I don't think the outcome would be very much different if race were not a factor.

Concerning race in general, Obama is such an exotic mixture of genes and influences that I wonder if we are both guilty of assuming the black voter sees him as belonging exclusively to them in the first place. Perhaps the black voter sees him, as I do, as a sui generis.

Concerning your hypothetical to me: what is wrong with voting for someone simply because she is a woman? Well, apart from the reciprocal obligation we each have a citizens of a democracy to vote for the candidate we believe to be best, I must answer I am opposed to bias. If it is wrong to vote against someone (only) because she is a woman, it must also be wrong to vote for someone (only) because she is a woman.

But I think you might really mean to ask why it isn't worthwhile to want a woman. Why don't I respond to the emotional appeal of a woman president? I don't know why this doesn't register with me as it does with you. I don't consider gender when I choose a doctor or a lawyer, and I have never noticed much of a difference in performance, so the best answer I can give you is that if it doesn't matter to me in any other profession, I can't imagine why it would matter to me in a president. When I hear that it is important to others, I afraid I am simply uncomprehending.