Right question, wrong answer

The BBC, which normally gets it right, says this: "Hillary Clinton's dashed hopes for the presidency come hand in hand with a dashed piece of history - it is not yet time for a woman to be President of the United States."
(Given that it was written by Molly Levinson, a political analyst and former CBS News political director, may explain the failure to grasp reality.)
"Age often marked the dividing line between the women who supported Mrs Clinton and the women who did not. Her core supporters were mostly older than 50, those who fought for and cheered on the rise of feminism, women her own age. Younger women, by contrast, were not as loyal to the potential first woman president.
"One thing is clear from their lack of support for the woman candidate: younger women do not feel the same urgency to elect women that their mothers and grandmothers do. Take, for example, 38-year-old former producer and writer for Sex and the City Elisa Zuritsky. A Clinton supporter at the beginning of the campaign, Zuritsky is now an Obama enthusiast - blaming what she calls Clinton's "cynical and divisive behaviour" during the course of the past several months. "To think that we'd vote for someone because they are a woman is too simplistic," she says.
"But perhaps, given what we have learned about young women voters' eagerness to embrace a new kind of politics in the course of this campaign, that bodes well for the next woman who wants to take a shot at the White House."

Rico says it's high time for a woman to be president; just not that woman...