It's not odd that I didn't bring up Obama's race or Hillary's gender as part of the same evaluation, because those aren't (or at least shouldn't be) part of judging whether a given individual has the "right stuff" to be President.

It's the President-as-product-spokesperson angle that's most relevant here. Clinton or Obama would be living testimony to the American belief that race and gender are irrelevant to the worth of any human being. Thompson, on the other hand, would project what American values? Emotional disengagement? The value of a good nap every afternoon? Narcolepsy?

Given the general in-your-face attitude of Conservatives when it comes to those who represent America (from to Bush to Bolton to Rice and all the nasty temperaments in between), why would you think it could be disadvantageous to have a President who represents a core American value that other world leaders might not share? As long as we elect only old white guys to be President, our protestations of equality might seem a little hollow to those we hope will follow our good example. Clinton or Obama would be both evidence of the sincerity of our values, and a rebuke to those who disdain them. I'm all for that kind of in-your-face-ism.