Well, this must be true because it is in the New York Effing Times. No one else is to blame for her failing to have already put away her only opponent for the Democratic nomination, a little known Democratic Socialist with no media coverage and no support from the Democratic establishment.

White men narrowly backed Hillary Clinton in her 2008 race for president, but they are resisting her candidacy this time around in major battleground states, rattling some Democrats about her general-election strategy.

While Mrs. Clinton swept the five major primaries on Tuesday, she lost white men in all of them, and by double-digit margins in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, exit polls showed — a sharp turnabout from 2008, when she won double-digit victories among white male voters in all three states.

She also performed poorly on Tuesday with independents, who have never been among her core supporters. But white men were, at least when Mrs. Clinton was running against a black opponent: She explicitly appealed to them in 2008, extolling the Second Amendment, mocking Barack Obama’s comment that working-class voters “cling to guns or religion” and even needling him at one point over his difficulties with “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”

You know, there are certainly white men who probably are not voting for her because she is a woman, just as there were white men who voted for her in 2008 because her primary opponent was a black man. But to make the leap that her main problem with Democratic primary voters is all due to the sexism of white men, is a pretty big leap. Especially when she polls so poorly among young women, especially young white women. These young women are even writing open letters explaining to their parents why they do support Hillary over Bernie.

You taught me about being a baby boomer, about the Vietnam war, about being "freaks" instead of "hippies", about getting drafted, and about not being someone's "chick." You taught me that music & art are political tools. That your parents generation just didn't understand. That equality is more important than security. That political action is imperative as a citizen of this country. That it was cool to vote for Ralph Nader. That change doesn't need a precedent to be viable. That the establishment has rarely, if ever, been right. That we serve those less fortunate and we never, ever, ever stop debating.

Most importantly, you taught me that women should never be under anyone's thumb.

So, why are you voting for Hilary Clinton?

Clinton biggest supporters, regardless of gender, are older voters, and among older voters, older women are her strongest supporters, though a majority of older Democratic men also support her over Sanders.

Clinton commands majorities over Sanders among those 50 and older (65 percent to 32 percent), those who are not white (63 percent to 34 percent), self-identified Democrats (60 percent to 38 percent) and women (61 percent to 37 percent). Among women 50 and older, Clinton leads Sanders by 48 points—73 percent to 25 percent.

So, for the New York Times to claim that it is mostly white men who oppose her candidacy, with the implication that they will not vote for a woman, is misleading, at best. She has tremendous name recognition, a ton of money raised in 2015 in the invisible primary and the Clintons' developed long term political relationships over the last two decades with leaders in the African American community.

Bernie came into the race a virtual unknown with no money, and no backing from the Democratic establishment. In any other year he would have been a fringe candidate who dropped out after only a few months, at best. But this year played out differently. Far more of Sanders' support comes from people under the age of 50, with his largest group of support among those under 30.

That is the defining difference between Hillary's supporters and Bernie's: it's generational, not gender.