Race or gender - take your pick.
Both are at issue, and they're not going away. Two so-called 'disadvantaged' people categories are duking it out to take on the 'established' power-person category, but are in danger of fighting against themselves, rather than ever making a real run for the presidency of the United States.
Only half the people voting in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries thought that Jeremiah Wright was still an issue? Well, guess what? The voting was pretty close to that, certainly in Indiana - a bit less so in NC.
We're going fight race vs. gender now, then we get to focus on just one of them - either race or gender - again in the fall.
The most destructive battle will be if we face the race battle. Black man versus white man. White woman against black man just hasn't brought out all the nuances that the black man vs. white man battle would bring out.
Does that opinion make me sexist?
Possibly. According to some definitions, anyway. I think there is a difference between men and women, a difference that is not to be bridged. This difference does not make one gender "better" than another; it is "different" than the other.
They don't call it the "opposite" sex for nothing!
On the other hand, there is a 'sameness' about two men, regardless of skin colour. This 'sameness' will focus the difference like a laser beam, with similar potential for destruction. Let's admit it: we don't focus on the different 'platforms' of Presidential candidates anymore - although we pretend to - we're all about appearances; soundbites; slogans.
In both Indiana and North Carolina, exit polls showed Clinton receiving 6 out of 10 white votes; Obama received 9 out 10 black votes. I didn't see any numbers based on gender.
I think the fault-line runs along race. . . .
sigh. It's gonna get ugly.