She does not. Stop lying.

You sound absurd when you "tell the obvious truth" because you're making absurd generalizations. That's what usually happens.

Are some blacks voting for Obama because he's black? Sure. Just like some blacks are voting for him because he's the best candidate.

Are some women voting for Hillary because she's a woman? Sure. Just like some women are voting for her because she represents the interests of them, their families, neighborhoods, cities, states, etc.

If your "white people dance like this, black people dance like this"-style analysis was foolproof, wouldn't John Edwards still be in the race? Because let's "tell the obvious truth" here: There are more white men in this country than black men.

If your analysis was true, would Barack Obama have won in Iowa? Because let's "tell the obvious truth" here: There are very few black people in Iowa.

If your analysis is so awesomely accurate, shouldn't Hillary Clinton be winning every head to head match up with Obama? Because let's "tell the obvious truth" here: More women vote than men, and there are more white people than black people in America. Even if every single eligible black voter came out for Obama, 100% African-American voter turnout, Hillary Clinton should be picking a Vice President right now. Luckily, your scholarly analysis has more than a few holes in it. Luckily, black people and white people and brown people are a little better than you're willing to credit them. And judging from what we've been hearing leaking out of the Clinton Camp in the last few weeks, luckily we've been able to see the folly of having advisors and consultants who only see the world through the narrow constructs that you do before we got saddled with an awful, awful candidate.

If I didn't make this clear enough, I both reject and denounce your stereotypes, generalizations, and assumptions on race and gender, and the impact that either of those factors have had on this campaign.