What's probably causing the problem here is that you think I am saying that women should restrict themselves to exercising power in a feminine style.  Or, in other words, women should avoid violating people's expectations about how women should act.  I am emphatically not saying that.

No.  I absolutely don't think you are saying that women should avoid violating people's expectations about how women should act.  But I think that society in general does have expectations about how women should act that are unrealistic and are limiting to women.  And I think that your labeling of Pelosi's style is perpetuating a stereotype that feeds those expectations and, therefore, you should be careful about using them.

My comment is all about the force of language.  Not all the biological stuff you all are discussing below.

Pointing something out is not the same as perpetuating something ...

Yes, it can be.  Language has force even when the intent is not the effect.

There is a distinctively feminine style of doing things, even if it does not apply to all women.  

No.  There is a general attitude in a society that has been largely shaped by male thought that there is a way of doing something that is deemed feminine.  And that general attitude carries a judgment with it (depending on the circumstances it can be good or bad). It is the judgment that goes along with the label that is often the problem.  For men and for women who are labeled feminine instead of being described by their characteristics.  

Clinton has a distinctively unfeminine style of politics, which is why she grates on a lot of people.

Leaving aside Clinton (who I don't want to talk about) does a man who has the same style of politics grate on a lot of people?   Maybe.  In which case the style is grating - it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman doing it.  Or in some cases is there a double standard when it comes to male and female politicians and is that double standard perpetuated when women politicians like Nancy Pelosi are complimented for having a "feminine" style?

I don't like Pelosi's style because it fulfills my ideal of femininity (it doesn't), but because she is effective.  

Then you should simply have written about how she found an effective style and strategy and not labeled it as feminine.  

Why doesn't Pelosi get due credit for her toughness?  Because people are used to the kind of toughness used by Tom DeLay and Karl Rove, not the kind of toughness that sneaks up on you or disarms you.   These two explanations are basically the same.  Yet, only the latter elicits charges of sexism, while the other is used extensively in the service of combating sexism.  Why is that?

I'm not sure I even understand what you are saying ( what do you mean by the latter and the former?) but I really don't understand why you complaining about whatever it is to me.  I didn't say that a statement that the kind of toughness that sneaks up on you or disarms you is sexist.  Some men use that kind of power too.    I know quite a few male lawyers who negotiate in a disarming, schmoozing way that is quite effective.   Nobody calls them feminine.   They call them smooth.   Maybe Nancy Pelosi is smooth.