Iamon lyme:

Oh, I agree with you. The reason why I wrote "I saw a claim" is because seeing a claim and proving it are entirely different matters.

What I am getting at is perception in the public. In our present era a candidate's true record is not reflected in how the media spins that record. Current campaigns are huge advertising campaigns rather than campaigns aimed at discussing real issues or portraying the truth. A candidate made a stupid comment 20 years ago, and his opponent will exploit that as much as he can. Let alone problems in a candidates personal life. Reagan's initial divorce would probably have been used against him, as might have been comments he might have made when he disagreed with left-wing views or some government policies.

We can compare this to Romney's "shipping jobs overseas". That became a weakness in his campaign, regardless of how true or how accurate the situation was, or the fact that Democrat businessmen do the same thing.

Modern democracy is a game of perception. It is popularity contest. It is not about chosing the most capable man for the job, but the most popular man for the job.

With regards to feminism, one must remember that "feminism" as movement was something that never quite captured the public's imagination. Otherwise every woman would be a feminist, and that is not true. Feminism has an important place in history as a reflection of women struggling to gain acceptance and respect as men's equals. We remember that feminists are human beings too and as such they are bound to have biases and prejudices like we all do. If claims of gender discrimination raised during the Reagan administration, it was because more women felt the courage to come forward and lodge complaints. I doubt the Reagan era was any worse for women than any era in the past, or sadly, our modern era. However, these days candidates are judged based on their record with women's issues. In that sense candidates can spin their opponents record to court women voters.