I'd Like My Standard Doubled, Please

This post is not about a particularly new topic, but at some point, a girl just can't take it anymore and has to rant a bit. So:

How is it, in the 21st century, that it can still be considered acceptable to critique a presidential candidate on their LOOKS?

Now, you were probably thinking that that was a rhetorical question, but because it's free gift with purchase day at Anna's House of Whatever, I'm going to answer that rhetorical question: Well, it's acceptable because she's a woman, of course! We can't have a bitch in the White House, can we?! My god! What if her female hormones go cuh-RAZY and she starts a war with some random country that doesn't even have WMD???

[crickets]

Okay, snark over, I promise. Here are some more rhetorical questions that I won't be answering, though:

1. Do you know how many pictures I've seen of Hillary Clinton making a strange face (like when the camera catches you unaware/off-guard) where something was said about her looks? Ha ha ha, Hillary Clinton's so ugly! Ha ha ha, aren't we funny!

2. Do I really have to care what color shirt a presidential candidate is wearing? And, what does that even have to do with how they'll do as president? "Ah, I see the President's wearing the blue shirt; important things will be done today!"

3. Why is it that no one's questioned whether Barack Obama, John McCain, or any other candidate in this election is 'too emotional' to lead a country? If one's gonads are on the outside, rather than the inside of one's body, does that bestow some sort of magical, country-leading power?

I haven't done a very good job of turning off the snark, have I? Alright.

I guess I get so worked up because I'm not even a Clinton supporter. There's a number of reasons why (after Dennis Kucinich dropped out, and I embarked on a rather long session of fence-sitting) I finally decided to support Barack Obama. I won't get into those reasons here, because this isn't a political blog, but I continue to find myself annoyed by the level of sexism present in much of the criticism leveled against Senator Clinton. I'm not saying she should be immune from criticism, just that her laugh or that blouse she was wearing that one time, or how 'old' she looks are not acceptable (nor are they particularly mature, for that matter). I'd love to see/hear/participate in dialogue about:

1. Whether a presidential candidate is intelligent (and willing to admit they're wrong, or to educate themselves on issues beyond the sound-byte level).

2. Whether they truly care about people who are poor, abused, enslaved, victimized by inequality, etc, throughout the whole world, and what they plan to do about it.

That question, the one everyone keeps asking, about if the United States is 'ready for a woman president'? It's offensive, and not just because of this. Every time I hear that question asked, or see it in print, I know that what it's really asking is, "Is a woman good enough to be President?", and we shouldn't need to ask that at all, not anymore. Maybe we should be asking, "What the hell is wrong with all these people who think only a white, straight male is capable of holding our nation's highest office?"