This is confusing.

If one observes women endorsing Hillary Clinton with references to how historic a woman President would be and if one reads that women in a given State preponderantly favor Hillary Clinton (by implication) because she's a woman, then cannot one reasonably conclude that Hillary Clinton benefits from being a woman?

Would a male with Hillary Clinton's policy positions and a personality similar to that of Hillary Clinton be as competitve in the Presidential primaries?

It's difficult to think why that sort of statement is a problem, except perhaps that someone might take it as an implication that the individual described would not be competent enough to run well without the aspect identified.

Isn't there a difference between how competent someone is and the reasons for which that person receives votes?

It is unfortunate I suppose that Hillary Clinton receives votes because she is a woman and Barack Obama receives votes because he's black. We should not have such considerations. The consolation may be that anyone who votes for either of these candidates without concern for these aspects is proving himself advanced beyond such concerns. And probably many if not most people do so.

Let's not forget that Hillary Clinton HAD the black vote. The polls found that she'd had it for years before the election but lost it when she and her husband made a few really stupid, offensive remarks. Obama didn't become blacker, but the Clintons revealed how white they really are.

Thanks Philidor. Exactly. Obama's and Clinton's race and gender are obviously part of who they are, but people are pretending that there is really nothing more to them than this.

I think that it is fixating on race and gender at the expense of looking at the whole person, that is causing many of these fights/problems.

Thank you for this sane response.

History shows that when Bill Clinton was in office, he did a lot for blacks. That is the reason they liked him so much. I don't think he said anything that would have dissuaded black people from voting for him if Obama were not running. They still know that he is not anti-black. History shows a lot and Obama's history shows that he supports a church and minister for 20 years that preaches anti-white sermons and anti-American sermons. I saw the sermons and on numerous occasions Rev. Wright did just that. He also stated that the USA brought on the terrorists attacks themselves. I am a proud American and I do not believe that this great country deserves that kind of attack. Obama even got married in this church. Why would Obama stay in a church like that for 20 years?