As a self-professed political junkie, I have been rabidly following the 2008 Presidential primary season since, well, early 2007. This year's election is exhilarating for many reasons, not the least of which is that, for the first time in our nation's history, the Democratic nominee for President will be either a woman or an African American.

But the 2008 election is groundbreaking for another reason: the last time that neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President ran for our nation's highest office was in 1928, when President Calvin Coolidge did not seek reelection.

So, the last time that neither party had a presumptive nominee was 60 years ago. That election was considered to be the first "modern" presidential race, as candidates Herbert Hoover and Alfred E. Smith not only crisscrossed the nation campaigning, but also employed the media - in the form of radio commercials and sound newsreels - to get their messages out to voters. But what strikes me as more significant is that women earned the right to vote only eight years before.

It was a long road for suffragists, with Frances Wright raising the issue in the late 1820s, and Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others carrying the torch during the later half of the century. During every Congressional session from 1869 through 1919, the National American Woman Suffrage Association testified before Congress. That's 50 years - a half-century! In 1915, 1918, and early 1919, national legislation granting women the right to vote was defeated. It wasn't until President Woodrow Wilson called a special session of Congress in May 1919 that a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote passed and was ratified by the states in time for the 1920 presidential election.

Against the backdrop of this year's primary season, the suffragists' accomplishment is all the more significant. I can't help but reflect on the fact that my grandmother was already 25 years old before she was granted the right to vote. I can't help but wonder what she would think if she were here to see that a woman has a 50-50 chance of being her party's nominee. And, I can't help but question why Hillary Clinton's support comes overwhelmingly from women who are over the age of 50.

The flip side of that question is why Barack Obama has the overwhelming support of the white men and younger women in the Democratic Party. Senator Obama obviously has created a movement with his inspirational and aspirational message, and I don't want to discount his accomplishments and qualifications for his party's nomination. But since the candidates don't substantially differ on the issues, there must be something else going on here. After looking at it from many different angles, and after listening to pundits pontificate until my eyes cross, I can draw only one conclusion about male Democratic voters: that the river of sexism runs more deeply through this country than I ever imagined. The voting booth is a very private place, but numbers and demographics do add up.

As for Senator Clinton not pulling in younger women's votes, I imagine that it's in some measure due to our generation's success in breaking glass ceilings for our daughters and granddaughters. I'm curious to know if, as is often the case with feminist battles we've fought and won, gender politics doesn't play a role in the lives of younger women.

Looking back to Susan B. Anthony, and even to my own grandmother, I wonder how far we've truly come. Since 1945, around the world 39 women have been Prime Minister and 38 women have held the office of President. One of these days - perhaps even this year - the U.S. will catch up to Sri Lanka, Iceland, Chile, and Liberia, among others.