Inference to the explanation I already prefer

I normally like Tom Schaller's posts at TAPPED, but yesterday, in "The chauvinism that really hurt hillary", he concludes with a perfect example of a kind of reasoning that we would all be better off without.

The only top Clinton adviser who has taken a share of the blame is a woman: Patti Solis Doyle. More than a few women have pointed out to me that men are quick to shift blame, women quick to assume it. Did we really need a woman run for president to make this maxim plain to the entire country?

As a general rule, a single anecdote that goes as you would expect given a belief about essential gender differences that you formed by generalizing from your own self-image (or just accepted as conventional wisdom) does not constitute evidence for that belief. The story Schaller tells us about Clinton's campaign advisers may tell us something interesting about them, but it would be foolish to think that it "makes plain" anything at all about the relation of readiness to assume blame and gender.