And then there's this!

The other day, I wrote about the Obama supporters and how they would perceive an Obama defeat as racially motivated and that, as a result, cities would burn.

Now, I read this; an article in the Wall Street Journal that basically says the same thing about Hillary and HER campaign, only from the gender-bias perspective.

Apparently, a lot of women support Clinton not because of what she stands for or does NOT stand for; what she says or does not say and not because of what she has accomplished or failed to accomplish. They're voting for her simply because she is female.

So, a really despicable female President is better than the alternative just because she would be perceived as a gain for female equality? How twisted is that?

I said the other day that I'd have no problem supporting a female Presidential candidate if it was the right woman who was running. I wouldn't have any problem supporting an African-American candidate either, as long as it was the right guy. I will NOT compromise my principles of just governance, however, just to advance some cause or worse, the PERCEIVED advancement of some cause!

Look, I know there's no arguing this. A Clinton supporter who backs her for the reasons described would support her regardless of how many lies she tells, what her stand is on this topic or that, or whatever. In their case, it's almost a religious conviction that we're dealing with. However, maybe, just maybe, there's a supporter or two who will read this and go, "You know what; he's right! It's ridiculous to support a liar and a cheat for President just because she's female. We'll get another female candidate one day and she'll be a candidate that we'll be proud of before the election AND during her term of office!"

Well....one can hope, can't one?