re: OK
Uh... so what?
You asked.
It seems you got everything I said exactly backward. Describing the reality of human nature as produced by evolution, and the recent addition of moral systems that, at heart, consist of fighting against human nature, in no respect advocates one side or the other. Facts are facts, gb, and sniffing haughtily in moral condemnation won't change that. It's how people are.
you do agree that you see Clinton is an alpha. That was the main thing I was interested in. Can we also assume for the future discussions that most if not all Presidents will be seen by the public as alpha- and therefore is rather useless as a term describing any one of them as way distinguishing them?
It's rather a trivial point. Being perceived as an alpha is a precondition for even being considered for the office of alpha-of-all-alphas in America. It's so obvious as to be almost meaningless that to be an alpha one must be an alpha.
The basic agenda of a presidential election is to demonstrate alpha credentials. That's why there's so much chest-pounding and loud roaring and stereotypical primate grimacing and posturing and grunting. That's why Republicans in particular, more attuned to the primitive patterns of force and authority, try to make each presidential campaign a referendum on toughness and willingness to resort to violence.
Where your question goes astray is focusing on how a President is perceived. It's too late once the person's in office. It's the candidates we judge on alphaness; we judge Presidents by how well they maintain the alpha qualities they projected during the campaign.