Why we are skeptical of Hillary Clinton

When I read Katharine Seelye's NY Times article titled, Women Supportive of Clinton, But Skeptical, I found myself wondering....

Why?

Why do so many want to want to vote for Hillary Clinton, but won't?

Is it a question of competence?

Most would agree she's quite capable. So -- No.

Is it because we don't agree with her politics?

Within a few seconds, I rattled off the names of several women for whom I would vote despite our differing political views. So again -- No.

If it's neither a question of competence, nor of political views, then why are we skeptical?

1) We don't identify with Senator Clinton's hero's journey -- As with Katie Couric, there's an archetypal mismatch, though for an entirely different reason.

While we don't doubt that Senator Clinton can successfully take on Psyche's four overwhelmingly difficult tasks, it feels like she's taking on the adventure for herself, not for us. That she's ready and willing to do some genuine head-butting, rather than to wait and pick up the fleece off the fence once the rams have gone home. In other words, she seems to want power, not for us, but for her. That's not the female hero's journey that resonates with us, so we can't quite get comfortable.

Ok, she's not perfect, but isn't there a double standard here?

Absolutely.

Most of us feel quite comfortable if men are ambitious and even a little bit 'naughty' -- after all, 'boys will be boys' (remember Arnold Schwarzenegger smoking his cigar in the tent near his office), but with women....

2) We want a fairy godmother -- The Princess Diaries, provides a great look at this archetype. The film stars Julie Andrews as Queen Clarisse (for anyone over the age of 40, she is the practically perfect fairy godmother Mary Poppins) preparing her granddaughter Princess Mia, played by Anne Hathaway, to ascend to the throne of the imaginary kingdom Genovia.

Princess Mia is qualified to be a princess because she's "bright, sensitive and caring," says Queen Clarisse. (Imagine Senator Clinton, let alone the male presidential candidates, described as such!) Further reinforcing the fairy godmother archetype, Queen Clarisse sings to Princess Mia:

When they tell your story,
They'll call your heart of gold your crowning glory,
The most glorious part of you

In other words, inscribed in our minds and in our hearts, is the view that a woman who leads us must be smart and capable, and most especially good and kind.

That her hero's journey, no matter how difficult, is ultimately undertaken on our behalf.

And that whether Princess Mia, Mary Poppins, or Psyche -- she'll be our fairy godmother.

If you are comfortable with Hillary Clinton, what are your thoughts on archetypes? Is there one that fits?

There was an interesting article in the Australian papers not too long ago titled When one man's ambition is another woman's evil curse, comparing and contrasting how people respond to ambition in women versus men.

Given how beloved Bill Clinton is, and what I understand to be an uncanny ability to make people feel that it is all about them, could he be the key to her winning?

What are your thoughts on other presidential candidates? Which archetypes are working for or against them?

P.S. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times published an Op-Ed piece (Oct 31 2007) titled Hilary La Francaise, Cherchez la Femme? which certainly underscores the comments (see below) made by Margaret Busse and Elizabeth Harmer-Dionne. Also interesting to read Ms. Dowd's comment, "Maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary — her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness — are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman." May this not be true.

Comments

[Sharon]

It is my belief that America at large *does* want to elect a female president, but the female candidate will not suffer the likability issues that Hillary Clinton continues to struggle with. I can't think of a more divisive public figure than Hillary Clinton. Okay maybe Nancy Pelosi, but the two are alarmingly close in their power to polarize voters. One obstacle that Hillary faces is that the United States has undergone a transformation with respect to women's rights that happened in the absense of there ever being a female president. Women today are CEOs, governors, and leaders in industry, academia, government, and more. I have yet to hear the argument that American women would be somehow better off with a President Hillary Clinton. IMO, Hillary is most effective as a tenacious and persevering legislator, but she unfortunately lacks the personality and leadership ability to get elected president.

[tracy Ho]

I think she take great courage to go for US presidential election 2008,this could be her journey of life.

I just wish her best of luck , she derseved to try , we will never know ,if god willing who knows she will served her best.

to everyone success,
Tracy Ho
www.wisdomgettingloaded.com/

[Whitney Johnson]

Dear Elizabeth, Barbara and Margaret --

Thank you, thank you for engaging on this topic, and sharing your insight with us.

Elizabeth -- I thought your comment about Senator Clinton's marriage certainly reinforced the idea that it's not about the relationship (in this case her marriage) as it was with Psyche, but about the power. And it is sad.

Barbara -- You made the comment that you believe we need a fresh start. I'm wondering who in your mind best fits the archetype of a fresh face, fresh start?

Margaret -- It was interesting how you built on Elizabeth's point around Hillary's marriage (again the irony is fascinating because for Psyche it was all about the marriage), and that as a feminist it shouldn't have been ok for her husband to be with vulnerable women.

And, I especially liked your reinforcing the point of personal integrity. One of my professional colleagues was surprised to hear me say that I would vote for someone, differing political views notwithstanding, if I felt they had integrity. But I would.

Again, my thanks to all of you for your comments. Keep 'em coming.

Whitney

[Margaret Busse]

In the latest edition of the Atlantic Monthly, Caitlin Flanagan has a really interesting article on why she, along with many other liberally-minded women, don't support Hillary. She basically concludes that she feels that Hillary long ago abandoned principle in favor of politics, and that that is most clearly demonstrated by her staying in her marriage, which is clearly only for political expediency, but at the same time, for liberal, strong women, projects the image that it's OK to be "walked all over" by a man who is a complete womanizer, even a womanizer who famously targets those vastly less powerful and smart than he. ANd this is something, she argues, that many feminists just can't live with.
For me, I am ambivalent about her. I like that she is strong, smart, and competent, and doesn't feel the need to portray a traditional "feminine" caricature, and yet, I too feel that the very woman who should represent a feminist's dream, demonstrated exactly the opposite, by sticking by a husband who is slimey. Even if she personally doesn't care a whit that he cheats on her, she should care that he cheats on her with the type of vulnerable women that he does, for the woman's sake.
Maybe it is a double standard for some. But I feel that personal integrity, however rare it is amongst politicians these days, is of utmost importance to me. And I just don't think Hilary has it.

[Barbara Torris]

You know what Whitney, I don't think this is about competence or will or ego or marriage or even ambition. I somehow feel that this is about world opinion and how we will survive after the worst president of all time. We truly need a super star, a true intellect but most importantly, someone with no luggage. We above all need a fresh start. I would love to have someone a smart as Hillary Clinton in the White House but I somehow am afraid that she is not the one. Only time will tell.

[Elizabeth Harmer Dionne]

We are skeptical about Hillary for the same reason that many are skeptical about Mitt Romney. Who is she? She is smart and a very adept politician, but she is also a chameleon and has changed her positions over time. Everyone should have the right to reconsider past stances, but we become nervous when changes proceed from political convenience, not personal principle. Her marriage is also a huge issue for both conservative and liberal women. On the one hand, in this day of easy divorce we should admire anyone who is willing to stick with marriage through thick and thin. On the other hand, many believe (with painfully obvious justification) that the Clintons' marriage is one of convenience, from which she has benefitted mightily (professionally, not personally). I don't know that embracing marriages of convenience for the sake of political power will necessarily advance either the cause of civilization generally or of women specifically. So, we remain skeptical, despite the intelligence, drive, and fearsome organization.