Ableism is when you exclude disorders which don’t have to be excluded, that is, which don’t negatively affect one’s capabilities in some particular role.

Disallowing blind people to drive cars is not ableism, unless there is a solid technology to convey to them all the necessary information with good enough latency.

So - for roles of judges and other responsibilities to make principled decisions, autistic people are generally better than “normal” people. Because they choose in favor of principle in “conflict of interest” situations usually, which is also why there are no autistic people in politics.

For roles requiring unbiased thinking, autistic people and people with ADHD are generally better than “normal” people. Due to former’s alienation from society (which is the most notable source of bias) and latter’s ability to grasp wider contexts.

For roles where pessimism is required, most people with disorders causing alienation are better than “normal” people, other things being equal. Simply because seeing the society break from its blind zones is a useful experience.

But that doesn’t mean not allowing an autistic person to command a fire squad is ableism.

Or that an ADHD person probably being a very bad bookkeeper is an ableist thought.

While assuming that someone is unfit to fulfill a social\decision-making role because they physically stink is ableist. He can have one of plenty non-mental conditions causing that. It’s simply impractical to take showers every hour.

While saying that him being a narcissist kinda disqualifies him is not ableist. And he definitely is a narcissist with dementia.

It’s just that both Obama and Harris and Biden behave very similarly to real people with ASPD whom I’ve met. See, ASPD is such a funny thing that people having it don’t behave weirdly. They actually are very sane and glossy in appearances, or at least normal. Except for morals and empathy.