You may have read that women are voting for Hillary Clinton only because she has a vagina and that people of color are voting for Barack Obama only because of his skin color. The conclusion is that these voting groups are illogical.
So who is logical then? Hmmm.
The pundits, perhaps? Those who say things like this:
Summary: On his radio program, after airing comments by Sen. Barack Obama, in which he stated, "Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," Rush Limbaugh said: "Can I translate that for you? 'I don't know why the B-I-itch is staying in. I feel like a damn hostage here. But I can't say it because she's a woman. And if I say that, they're going to jump down in my throat for being a sexist.'"
Or things like this:
Summary: On Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist repeatedly mocked Sen. Barack Obama's bowling performance -- which Scarborough called "dainty" -- at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania. Deriding Obama's score, Scarborough said: "You know Willie, the thing is, Americans want their president, if it's a man, to be a real man." He added, "You get 150, you're a man, or a good woman," to which Geist replied, "Out of my president, I want a 150, at least." After guest Harold Ford Jr. said that Obama's bowling showed a "humble" and "human" side to him, Scarborough replied, "A very human side? A prissy side."
Note how the latter summary not only argues that Obama is effeminate; it also argues that "you get 150, you're a man, or a good woman." Dainty and prissy, indeed. And these are the guys who vote only on very rational grounds. Such as how a person bowls, because there is nothing as similar to prezdenting than bowling.
Funny, innit? Did they pick bowling because that is one of the few sports where a septagenarian might do ok?