I express my dislike for cheaters. Hillary rode her husband's coattails into a Senate seat. That seat would have been held by a woman anyway. Nita Lowey had worked her way up in New York politics and was finally going to run for Senate. The Clintons used Bill's political power to get her to step aside. So Hillary started off her political career by depriving another woman of a hard-earned opportunity.

Wikipedia has a different story:

New York Congresswoman Nita Lowey was the candidate first expected to be the Democratic nominee,[4] while other mentioned possible candidates included Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo, New York State Comptroller Carl McCall, and New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. State Democratic figures were concerned that neither Lowey nor the others had the star power to rival Giuliani, and that the seat would be lost. Late in 1998, prominent Democratic politicians and advisors, including New York Representative Charles Rangel, urged First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for the New York Senate seat. An unprecedented action if she did it, Clinton spent considerable time mulling over the idea while Lowey waited in the wings. Her political advisors told her the race would be difficult and some of them told her she would lose. She waited for the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton to conclude, which it did with his acquittal on February 12, 1999.

Apparently, you falsely accused Hillary of cheating. Cheating means using deceit to get something. Lowey was not deceived, she was not cheated. Wikipedia says the determining factor was that Hillary had more star power and thus was considered more likely to win for the Democrats. As for Hillary riding on her husband’s coattails that’s standard practice during congressional elections. Winning presidents often have coattails that help party candidates down the ticket.

as long as she [woman president] were seen primarily as a function of her sex, elected for her sex, and expections for her based on supposed virtues of her sex, she would not be able to be an effective president for everyone.

I disagree. Regardless of what people think of a woman president, if she's good she's good. If people think a woman was elected for her sex that doesn't lessen her ability to fix the budget. If people think she's primarily a function of her sex (not sure what that means) and she wins a war then that is an achievement undiminished by people's perception of her as a "function of her sex." And if she creates new jobs it makes no difference if people think she was able to create jobs because that's a virtue of her sex-the jobs exist and that is good and that's all that matters.

Your over-idealized expectations of a female president are every bit as objectifying of her sex as any negative assessment of a woman based primarily on her womanhood rather than her competence is.

That's a false accusation. Read my posts carefully. I never expressed "over-idealized expectations" of a woman president.

What you say a "woman president" would be able to do--we simply can't know that based on her sex alone. What any person is capable of is a sum of far more than their sexual identity. You're simplifying an individual woman down to her sex just as effectively as any misogynist is.

There's a difference between the word can and would. Can means possibility. Would means absolute certainty. I said, "a woman can end sexism, fix the economy and win two wars." I didn't mention any specific woman, only that it is humanly possible for a woman to do that.

Also, I'm offended that you said I said that what a woman can do is a sum of her sexual identilty. That's a false accusation.

In Obama's case for instance, I think one of the reasons we're so happy to have him as the first black president is that we didn't elect him to be the first black president

Are you joking? I have read many accounts of people saying they voted for Obama because he's black. Ninety-five percent of blacks voted for Obama but 55% of White votes went to McCain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html

Do you really think that no one voted for Obama to make him the first black president? And you say "we're so happy" regarding Obama's win, but millions of people are unhappy he won. Who is "we." It's offensive to ignore giant blocks of people as if they don't exist.

Please tell me precisely which horrors of patriarchy you think that Barack Obama is going to assure the continuance of.

This is not specifically about Obama, it is about male dominance in general. Men dominate women politically, economical/y and socially. There's a huge power gap between men and women. Every time a woman becomes president, of any country, it lessens the power gap. Regarding the horrors of patriarchy rape is one. Peggy Reeves Sanday found that rape is virtually non-existent in societies where women and men have equal power.

Patriarchy is a whole lot more than the sex of the President,

I agree, the ratio of women/men presidents is one factor, a very important factor. Balance of power is the most important thing. Even if women dominate in one profession and men dominate in another profession, the overall power of men and women should be roughly equal when you combine economic, political and social power. Men have overwhelming dominance in all three spheres.

I also believe that any enlightened, compassionate male president is just as able as a female one to take action to make quality of life better and more fair for both men and women.

That depends. Men in general are just as able, but less willing, to implement policies to reduce the power gap between women and men. However, a male president cannot benefit women by being a woman role model. Only a woman can do that.