Meanwhile, the Clinton folks operated under the conventional assumption that the race would be over on February 5th. This was obviously wrong and most anyone with a pulse could have seen that the race was headed towards a draw on Super Tuesday and would require a few more rounds. Thus, the Clinton campaign was wholly unprepared for the February primaries and caucuses (which regardless of their merit to the process do count).

What we have to this point is a Clinton campaign that is horribly managed, has created (at least initially) the wrong message for this election cycle, and failed to see the value of post-Super Tuesday states. Wouldn't this seem to account for why the Clinton campaign currently finds them far behind in the delegate count and basically assured of being unable to win the nomination? Sure, the media was tough on Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner, and they were glowing in their praise for Obama, the new face. But hasn't this been in the case in almost every media battle in recent history? The media likes to put people on pedestals and then rip them off, and this cycle is NO exception. Where was the gender basis for this type of coverage?

And, how can we blame Obama for the negative media attention that Clinton received? Should he have gone into a press conference and said, "Please, please, give my opponents more press time and more favorable coverage!"? Obviously that isn't the case. And whenever there was a below-the-belt media attack, such as the Schuster line about pimping out Chelsea, did Obama personally call to say do it? Did Obama call his priest friend and say, "Talk about how she's a white woman that feels entitled"? No! Just like Hillary Clinton didn't call her NH chair or Bob Johnson and say, "Bring up Obama's past drug use!"    

Onto the second development in blogthink reasoning recently is the concept that Obama has played the race card to get where he is. I really want to hear direct cases where he, the candidate himself, or his top staff decided to push the race card or make a race-based appeal. Perhaps because he said, "whenever your name is funny like Barack Obama, it's gonna be a little more difficult." How is this any different from Hillary's discussion about how difficult it is to be a woman and say that you are the best at anything? Is that considered playing the race card? Maybe it's because he refers to fellow African-Americans as brothers and sisters - isn't that a completely acceptable part of our American vernacular, especially amongst the African-American community? I seriously want to know - when, where, and how did Barack Obama make a race-based plea for his candidacy?

The Barack Obama that I have seen talks about bringing people together, whether they are brown, black, or white. He's talked about bringing together Democrats, Republicans, and independents to seek our common American dream. I've seen him talk about equal opportunity for all. How is this in any way a sexist race-based appeal?

I think that it's a fool's errand to argue amongst ourselves whether it's harder for a woman or a black man to succeed in places where they have not yet been provided the opportunity. This only distracts us from the real problem in America: that there is such a lack or opportunity in our nation. Both of our candidates had the cards stacked against them based on their gender and race. Both candidates have received negative coverage in the media and their surrogates/endorsers have gone far off the reservation in their statements.

It's clear that Hillary Clinton is not some weak, unknowledgable woman who belongs in a kitchen. It is also clear that Barack Obama is not some scary black radical. To engage in the algere-type "DENOUNCE DENOUNCE DENOUNCE" battles keeps us away from the real battles in this campaign and in the unending crusade for equal opportunity. Stop being so unreasonable and focus on what REALLY MATTERS.