First Lady vs. First Gentleman

The long battle for a Democratic primary candidate has ended, much to my relief, probably because the candidate I support was named the Democratic contender in the presidential elections. Hillary Clinton’s supporters, however, are not very happy. Some of them contend that she deserved to be named the Democratic nominee for president, as though someone is born with the stamp of a presidential nominee. When Barack Obama won the nomination, Clinton’s supporters attributed his victory to sexism, alleging that Hillary had lost only because of her gender. (They conveniently forgot about her vote in favor of the war in Iraq; McCain may want to stay for another century in the violence-embroiled country, but Clinton was one of the people who authorized the invasion in the first place.)

Clinton’s supporters point to the inherent sexism in American politics as contributing to the downfall of their candidate, and I find myself agreeing with a portion of this statement. Yes, American politics has elements of sexism, but not in the way that so many Clinton supporters are getting riled about. While it is true that at times Clinton was scrutinized on certain things that were never an issue with Obama—such as one statement that her shirt was too low cut—by and large, sexism did not defeat Clinton; she herself created her demise. However, I noticed blatant sexism in another arena of the Democratic primaries: the controversy surrounding Michelle Obama.

I was watching Anderson Cooper on CNN at a heinously early hour last week when he and three political pundits commented on Michelle Obama’s role in her husband’s campaign. The press had labeled Michelle “an angry black woman” after her comments about being proud of her country for the first time, and this had put the Obama campaign on the defensive. Cooper and the political commentators spoke about Michelle Obama as a strong woman and how that image may hurt her husband’s political aspirations. It seemed that Michelle’s outspoken comments were detracting from her husband’s campaign, even though Barack’s outspoken comments on race only amplified the respect people had for him. People loved Michelle when she spoke last summer about her struggles growing up, how the campaign was affecting her family life, and what it was like to be a working mom. Yet the minute she ventured past the domestic sphere and commented on politics, the press attached an ugly racial epithet to her and the public’s perception of her changed, so much so that there are hints that the Obama campaign has hired a PR person to soften Michelle’s image.

One might point out the example of Bill Clinton as another outspoken spouse, and rightly so. Bill Clinton also came under fire from the press because of his egregious comments throughout the primary about Obama and why people were voting for him. The press went so far as to call him a potential liability for Hillary, but nobody called him “an angry white man.” There was no name calling after any of Bill’s gaffes, but when Michelle made a viable comment about the issue of race in America, the press vilified her.

It seems that America cannot handle strong, opinionated women unless they are running for office. Hillary’s opinions are well-known to all, and she was lauded for her political analyses, but this was acceptable because she was running for office. Yet because Michelle Obama’s husband is running for office, she is expected to remain silent while he expounds his political views to the public. The message that is being sent is that a woman is supposed to stand beside her husband and defer to his political acumen. She is supposed to present the soft side of her husband to the public; she is supposed to comment on their family life but not on her husband’s political beliefs. Despite Bill’s excessive commentary throughout the campaign—at one point, it seemed that Bill was running for office, he was campaigning so much—the attitude towards him was very different from the attitude towards Michelle. With Bill, people joked that what else was he going to do except campaign for his wife and present her views to the public? After all, he has had so much experience campaigning. But with Michelle, people questioned her right to even present, much less comment on, her husband’s views and to be outspoken.

What it came down to was that Michelle’s role, if Obama were elected, would be as First Lady, which has been shaped by centuries of tradition. Why must a potential First Lady be a domesticated wife, a woman who leaves politics to men to confine herself to the immediate circle of her family? Perhaps that role should be consigned to the past, and a new image of a First Lady, befitting the change that the Obama campaign advocates for, should be minted.