I am willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but my null hypothesis (my mind was warped by reading _War and Peace_ at a tender age) is that the individual who happens to be president is so much in the power of his or her sources of advice & information that it scarcely matters who he or she is. What matters is the gang surrounds the president; and for me, getting the present gang out is of immensely greater importance than any of the stigmata of any of the candidates. The fact that neither of the leading candidates takes that attitude is, for me, a reason to disrespect both. What would bring me out cheering would be for them to get together with their advisers and decide, as dispassionately as possible, who (one of the two, or someone else) has the best chance of winning, and back that one.

As it is, I had to make that decision myself (unqualified as I am to do so), and so I voted for Clinton, with the idea that more yahoos despise blacks than despise women, and even the latter can view her as a stand-in for Bill. (It is notable that even in the peasant countries a president's widow can sometimes get elected.)