George Will makes the obnoxious argument that if Democrats were serious about winning in 2016, they'd nominate Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown over Hillary Clinton, but they won't because he's a white guy, and Democrats hate white guys.
If Ohio’s senior senator were named Sharon Brown instead of Sherrod Brown, progressives would have a plausible political pin-up and a serious alternative to the tawdry boredom of Hillary Clinton’s joyless plod toward her party’s presidential nomination. Drop one of Brown’s consonants and change another and a vowel, and we might be spared the infatuation of what Howard Dean called “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” for Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Sherrod Brown won’t be considered because the Democratic Party’s activist core is incurably devoted to identity politics — the proposition that people are whatever their gender is (or their race or ethnicity or sexual orientation or whatever seems stupendously important at the moment). And the party’s base seems determined to nominate and elect a woman, thereby proving that what has occurred in Britain, Germany, Israel, India, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other nations can happen here. Feel the excitement.
This is classic projection here, as George Will assumes Democrats have the same thought processes as Republicans would in the same situation. Of course Republicans would nominate the white guy, and of course Hillary Clinton and Liz Warren are only being considered because they are women.
Will proceeds to rattle off Brown's pretty decent record as a progressive, and then ends with this:
Are progressives so preoccupied with gender that they prefer Clinton’s risk-averse careerism, or Warren’s astonished tantrums about the obvious dynamics of big government, to Brown’s authentic progressivism? Yes.
See, if Democrats don't nominate the clearly more qualified white guy, it's because of affirmative action or something. It's almost like Will knows nothing about the party, or politics, or anything.