my apology for any confusion…. I had meant that the only thing I could possibly see potential sexism attached to would be the lack of substance, but that would only apply if the person talking attaches gender and a lack of substance, which is not only sexist but dumb.
I should have stayed with the point that finding substantive planning and knowledge in the campaign was difficult. While outlining a number of issues on Rachel’s site indicates some knowledge of key issues, there is no longer explanation or discussion on her part. The plans don’t point out some actual things that would help….. decisive things that we could get behind.
I’m sorry I tried to help. I think my intentions are misunderstood. I wish you luck in your work.