On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> Speaking for myself, I think there are more than enough reasons to
> reject more Clintonism without addressing the gender of candidates. To
> imply or baldly state that too many whites are voting on strictly
> gender-based motives is to miss the larger point in all of this.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Yes, my use of "tainted" is not exact. Will the sexist motive of
> some of the votes for Obama be strong enough so that they won't go to
> Clinton if she's the nominee, as with the example "liberal" given by
> Jenny ?
But what *evidence* is there of any "sexist" motive in the Obama vote? If there was, they would be easy to find--for example Dumbocrats in Kansas who voted for Obama but boycotted Sebelius in the gubernatorial election. After all, Mrs. Clinton is anything but a feminist. What "threat" is there in a sexegenarian whose base is old ladies who see no anomaly in a woman running for president under her husband's name? There's nothing sexist in millions refusing to vote for another Clinton no matter what.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos