[Editor's note: This is the fifth of a six-part series by Paul Lukasiak on what polling reveals about how Americans will vote in the coming election. For more details, see parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. -- DN]

We've seen, over the course of the preceding data, the way that sexism and racism are affecting voter behavior in the 2008. And perhaps the most salient finding is a simple one: That when sexism or racism come into play, they each increase the power of the other to influence the outcome of the election.

That is, when Democrats indulge sexism, it enhances the influence of racism in the election, and vice versa. And when it comes to sexism, no figure in recent history has elicited as powerful a reaction as Hillary Clinton.

At the time SUSA data was gathered, the Jeremiah Wright controversy had not yet exploded on the national scene, and while “racism” was a factor, it wasn’t really an “issue.”

But when it comes to Hillary Clinton, it is clear that her gender isn’t just a “factor”, but an issue. If she “acts like a woman” and shows emotion, it becomes a topic for endless media discussion and speculation. If she gives a speech to a woman’s group, or she discusses the historic nature of her candidacy, she’s playing the “gender card”. How she looks, including what she is wearing, and how she sounds, are discussed in ways in which the media would never consider talking about a man. She is consistently defined in terms of her husband and marriage, and accused of not getting where she is on her own, but rather because of who her husband is.

The hostility toward Hillary Clinton is visceral, and is comparable to the hostility and hatred directed toward Eleanor Roosevelt in her day. Roosevelt was the first “modern” First Lady -- and the first truly post-woman’s suffrage one. While many First Ladies were women of sharp intelligence and political acumen, prior to Roosevelt they stayed behind the scenes. Eleanor Roosevelt completely rejected the then “traditional” role of First Lady, and became a public figure who was a strong advocate for civil rights and human rights, and played a significant role in her husband’s administration.

As a result of Roosevelt’s refusal to only play the “traditional” role of First Lady, both she and her husband were vilified during his Presidency -- it was clear that Franklin Roosevelt didn’t “permit” Eleanor to have a public persona separate and distinct from her husband, he “enabled” it. Tens of millions of Americans, unhappy with the changing role of women in society, saw that “enabling” in the same way that we perceive the enabling of alcoholics or drug abusers -- as a sign of weakness, corruption, and cravenness on Franklin Roosevelt’s part, and was as despised as Eleanor Roosevelt was feared, resented and hated by them.

And while most subsequent First Lady’s adopted/adapted the Eleanor Roosevelt model (although Bess Truman is best remembered for being “not Eleanor Roosevelt”), Hillary Clinton represents the first truly “post-women’s liberation” First Lady. Roosevelt and her successors adopted “causes” and “stood in for” their husbands as a representative of the Office of President. Hillary Clinton didn’t adopt causes, she took on issues, and wasn’t just a “stand in” for Bill Clinton, but his alter ego -- she represented The President.

Just as Eleanor Roosevelt was hated by millions because she represented the changing role of women, and just as Franklin Roosevelt was equally despised for his role as her “enabler”, so too are Hillary and Bill Clinton hated. It has nothing to do with policies, or politics – it’s a visceral reaction to avatars of change in the relationship between men and women.

As a result, Hillary Clinton is constantly criticized for showing traits that would be considered admirable in a man.

Hillary Clinton isn’t just “ambitious”, she is “too ambitious.” Nevermind the fact that she had spent 14 years in Washington, including 6 years in the Senate, before announcing for President, while Obama spent only two years in D.C. as a Senator before he announced, and is seldom described as “too ambitious.” Clinton “has spent the last seven years running for President”, a fact that is equally (if not more) true of John McCain, but no one seems to mention that McCain has had his own eye on the Presidency since at least 1999.

Hillary Clinton isn’t “smart,” she’s “too calculating.” She isn’t “assertive,” she’s “too controlling.” Clinton doesn’t “compromise,” she “betrays her principles.” And Hillary Clinton is incapable of righteous anger; instead, she is “shrill.”

And, of course, she’s a “bitch”. Even John McCain wouldn't deny that, would he?

And all this happens because Hillary Clinton isn’t just “a woman”, she is a symbol of the true equality for women that the women’s liberation movement sought to achieve, and as such represents a major threat to the subconscious assumption underlying male dominance of society.

As a woman, she isn’t equal TO men, she is equal WITH men; Hillary Clinton represents the rejection of “maleness” as the yardstick by which women are judged. And the moment the word “co-president” was uttered, Hillary Clinton became a threat to everything that men believe on a subconscious level about the “natural order of things”and the subconscious male assumption that men have the right to BESTOW equality upon women, and define the terms under which “equality” is exercised.

But perhaps Clinton’s biggest “crime” is her refusal to project any sense of sexual availability to men. By not engaging in “sexual politics”, by playing games of flirtation and seduction expected/demanded of women who seek power, she represents a threat to the very core of male identity itself, and a threat to core identity of many women as well.

Hillary Clinton’s gender is an issue, not just a factor, because she is no different from any male politician. She is no more (and no less) deserving, no more (and no less) ambitious, no more (and no less) “unprincipled”. It is her very demand that she be treated equally WITH men that makes it acceptable to talk about, describe, and attack her in ways that people in the media would never consider talking about a man.

Ultimately, the way in which people feel free to talk about Hillary Clinton is their way of asserting that women are "different" from men, and must be treated differently, and it is Clinton’s insistence upon equal treatment that makes it acceptable to establish that “difference” in negative terms.

The male-dominated media’s treatment of Clinton feeds into every fear that men (and many women) have of true female equality, and not merely allows sexism and misogyny to thrive, but practically demands it. And the huge differences between how men and women vote for Clinton and Obama – two remarkably similar politicians who are both overwhelmingly different from John McCain – shows that the demand is being met.

[Cross-posted at Corrente.]