Shallow brooks for Hillary

There’s an old proverb that goes, “shallow brooks are noisy,” meaning that those who often talk too much also think too little about which they are speaking. It is a warning against those who speak before they think.
No offense to Hillary-backers with a brain, but a lot of the people I have heard speak out in support of Hillary Clinton for President seem pretty shallow to me.
During the Sean Hannity Show’s “Man on the Street” segment, Tuesday, July 3, 2007, I heard multiple people being interviewed at random say that they support Hillary because she’s a woman. No one gave any other reason for their support other than because Hillary is a woman. When asked if they’d support Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is a woman, if she were running for President, those same people hem and hawed before finally saying they’d support Hillary; but they were unable to come up with a reason why. When asked to name one specific thing Hillary has done as a U.S. Senator from New York, nobody was able to cite an example.
Furthermore, the same people were asked to answer the following questions: “What do we celebrate on July 4, and why do we celebrate it?” “What war did we fight to win our independence?” “From whom did we win our independence?” and “Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?”
Answers varied from the Civil War to World War I, John Hancock, George Washington, France, “some place overseas,” and a lot of “I-don’t-knows.” To their credit, a few got some of the answers right; but this is basic elementary and junior high school history. Every one of these respondents said they support Hillary for President.
I feel bad for Hillary supporters who actually buy into her ideas, because these are not the people being heard in support of their candidate. Rather, it is the uninformed voter.
But perhaps that is how Hillary wants it. Maybe she would rather have a majority of uninformed voters elect her than be defeated at the polls with an informed electorate.
Who in their right mind would vote for a person solely because of physical appearance? Hillary’s gender may occupy the oval office, but it won’t govern. Would you rather have a White House occupant or somebody who actually governs from it? I put my money on the person, not their outer skin.
The same presumptions can be made about some of Barack Obama’s supporters, too. I wonder how many of them are voting for him simply because of his skin color?
I thought we were supposed to look beyond a person’s gender, skin color, ethnicity, religion and sexual preference, and instead measure his/her worth on the merits of his/her ideas?
Isn’t that what people like Hillary, Barack, the NAACP and the gals at NOW have been trying to hammer into our skulls since the 1960s? If so, then why are so many of Hillary and Barack supporters failing to do so? Why are they choosing to support a candidate on such trivial matters as gender and skin color?
If I, as a white guy, were to say that I am casting my vote for a white male candidate because he is white and male, then I am automatically branded a racist, sexist bigot.
But apparently it is okay for women to say they are voting for Hillary just because of her gender; or for a black American to say he/she is voting for Barack because he is black.
I don’t get the shallowness or the double standard. Do you?