Erica Jong on Hillary Clinton

Community Comments

Since Bill Clinton had always been clear about his ambition to be a top Arkansas politician and then President, his path never changed. Hers changed constantly – and with it her hair, her eyes, her weight, her name. At some point she must have had to decide that all those changes were worth it. How else can a smart woman justify such a metamorphosis? She had to recommit herself over and over to life with him. No wonder she demanded paybacks, such as running health care reform and his public life. She would have felt demolished otherwise. One sympathizes with her strength to make demands. But the power struggle of the marriage inevitably influenced the power of politics of the nation, and that is what is so radically new about the Clinton presidency.

George Bush used his first day in the presidency to congratulate ‘right to life’ marchers, even while insinuating that First Lady Barbara Bush did not agree with him. No such stand for Bill Clinton. He and Hillary were joined at the hip politically, however much stress their marriage might be under. Their presidency has redefined public and private. Both Clintons’ policies are in lockstep, even though their marriage may be chronically on the rocks.

‘We cared deeply about a lot of the same things,’ Hillary told an interviewer for the campaign film The Man From Hope in 1992. This revealing quote, edited out of the final film, makes the deal of the marriage clear. ‘Bill and I really are bound together in part because we believe we have an obligation to give something back and to be part of making life better for other people,’ she went on (as quoted by Bob Woodward in The Choice). The tragedy of their story is that such idealism had to be replaced by a ruthless commitment to politics, and this deformation of principle came much harder to her than him. Hillary’s image problem has several root causes. One is undoubtedly the ineptness of her staff. Another is the undeniable fact that there is no way for a smart woman to be public without being seen as a treacherous Lady Macbeth figure or bitch goddess (our failing, more than Hillary’s).

The truth is that Bill is what he is – warm, tear-jerkingly populist, dying to please, woo and pander. He’s a born salesman, ‘riding on a smile,’ in the immortal words of Arthur Miller. Hillary, meanwhile, is a brainy girl trying to look like an Arkansas beauty queen, a corporate lawyer trying to look like a happy housewife, a fierce feminist who has submerged her identity in her husband’s ambitions. It doesn’t add up – too many contradictions – which is why we don’t believe it. The pearls and pink put on for the campaign – as well as the new, practiced smiling – are not totally convincing either. We expect Lady Macbeth to reappear, rubbing the blood from her hands.

We should weep for Hillary Clinton rather than revile her. She is a perfect example of why life is so tough for brainy women. The deformations of her public image reveal the terrible contortions expected of American women. Look pretty but be (secretly) smart. Conform in public; cry in private. Make the money but don’t seem to be aggressive. Swallow everything your husband asks you to swallow, but somehow keep your own identity. Hillary shows us just how impossible all these conflicting demands are to fulfill.

• Share
  • Digg This
  • del.icio.us
  • Newsvine
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Furl It
  • !Y My Web
  • Google
• Email
• Print

Recommend This

Community Comments