I agree about John Adams, although my agreement is based entirely on his portrayal in 1776, where he's totally brash and disliked by everyone, but doesn't give a damn, because INDEPENDENCE DAMN IT. THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN MERE SOCIAL SUCCESS. Hearts in my eyes.
I think Slytherins can have moral sense (despite the fact that they never are portrayed that way in canon. Even Snape is apparently acting entirely on a high school crush, not an actual moral realization that Voldemort is evil. Whatever, canon is made to be ignored.) But they are, perhaps, less likely to have it as a central aspect of character than the other types? It fits all right with bravery or intelligence or a desire to be liked/dutiful (I find it hard to get a handle on the core of Hufflepuff identity), but it's hard to reconcile with burning ambition.
no subject
I think Slytherins can have moral sense (despite the fact that they never are portrayed that way in canon. Even Snape is apparently acting entirely on a high school crush, not an actual moral realization that Voldemort is evil. Whatever, canon is made to be ignored.) But they are, perhaps, less likely to have it as a central aspect of character than the other types? It fits all right with bravery or intelligence or a desire to be liked/dutiful (I find it hard to get a handle on the core of Hufflepuff identity), but it's hard to reconcile with burning ambition.
And I agree about Bush junior.