[kudzudemon]

In times of relative stability, we tend to elect our presidents based on our idealized selves and twisted to form by the era in which we live. We elected Ronald Reagan because he represented the maturation, solidity and stability we sought to affect after the idealism of the sixties and the subsequent crash and burn into Vietnam and Watergate. We elected Bush 1 purely because of the comfort level and continuity he represented. We elected Bill Clinton (over the stuffier but arguably more "electable" challengers) as cultural blowback against conservatism's inherent social repression; we wanted to party like Bubba obviously partied. We elected Gore (look it up, people) because it was time to grow back up.

We will probably elect Hillary, because we see where the blind, uber-patriotic rah-rah has gotten us, and now need the cold rationale of the stern but fair school marm to focus our energies.

That said, in none of the men mentioned, even though their chief character definition was ambition, was calculation and manipulation considered a bad thing. In fact, it was subtly celebrated. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was male, and dislike her policies as well as her aura. But the negatives that keep being brought up? Yeah, it is lingering sexism. Hell, I don't even think that's a newsflash as much as an underlying theme.

And I will stand against sexism whenever possible, because it's a great way to impress the babes....

Oh, and Low Key? Great post, but once you quote Morrissey, the credibility goes bye-bye.