Teresa Heinz Kerry

January 26, 2004 1:56 PM

Heinz Meanz Beanz:Is America ready for a sassy, intelligent, outspoken, wilful, foul-mouthed, irreverent, garrulous, domineering, flamboyant, freethinking and utterly charming First Lady?* Portugal certainly is - as Teresa Heinz Kerry, born Teresa Simoes Ferreira, is Portuguese and it would be nice to have a secret agent such a close ally in the White House. But there's also a lot of hate about. Do most American voters really take candidates' wives, husbands or partners into account? *Heh. The "utterly charming" was added at the last minute when I realized that all these adjectives could apply to Hilary Clinton.
posted by MiguelCardoso (57 comments total)

Miguel, you certainly must realize that no one here can answer what "most American voters" do or do not take into account, yes? That having been said, I would like to affirm that Hillary Clinton is one of the reasons that I voted for Bill ... twice even. An intelligent, strong willed, socially and politically active and legally minded first lady is, IMO, an asset to the White House and the country. Kind of a two-for-one deal, as far as I was concerned.

No potentially first lady has ever, or likely will ever, cause me to vote against a candidate, however. Unless its Laura Bush. I just don't like her beady eyes ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:09 PM on January 26, 2004

Do most American voters really take candidates' wives, husbands or partners into account?

Well, it was an issue with Hillary. The truth is it depends. Jackie certainly didn't hurt Jack Kennedy any.
posted by konolia at 2:09 PM on January 26, 2004

Well, it was an issue with Hillary.

Please elaborate why it should be an issue with Hillary and not another.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:12 PM on January 26, 2004

Do we care about potential first ladies? Well, the press was (for a little while) making a huge deal that Dr. Dean (Howard's wife) was staying at home and, you know, taking care of her patients rather than being on the campaign trail...
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:20 PM on January 26, 2004

My take on konolia is that her point was an observation that for (some number of) Americans Hillary was an issue, which is pretty indisputable. I agree with Wulfgar! that she was an asset to the ticket and I've had the privilege of voting for her as Senator.
posted by Seth_Messinger at 2:20 PM on January 26, 2004

with Laura, it's that anti-depressant look going on in her eyes....with Heinz, I see her as opportunistic, hopping from one senator to another...why doesn't she just do for herself? Hilary I had the same problem with--smart intelligent women should become what they want to be, not attach themselves to powerful men. (They're not from Elizabeth Dole's generation, where women didn't have as much choice)

People do take the spouses into account--that's why Judy Dean is being forced to spend more time on the campaign trail. (I love her by the way--an ex-hippie doctor with her own life--yay!)
posted by amberglow at 2:25 PM on January 26, 2004

(I'm invoking the equal time for candidate's wives rule--anyone have Gert Clark info? or Elizabeth Edwards?)
posted by amberglow at 2:25 PM on January 26, 2004

what is this post about?
posted by folktrash at 2:37 PM on January 26, 2004

amberglow, just for the record, I don't think your giving Hillary 1 iota of the credit she deserves. She has her own identity, and always has. She had her own legal career, her own investments, and obviously, her own ambitions. She has consistently out-earned her husband in their married lives. William Jefferson Clinton is her husband, not her master, meal-ticket, or power attachment.

Perhaps you're confusing her with Nancy Reagan, or Barbara Bush, or even Laura Bush (whose beady eyes creep me out!).
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:44 PM on January 26, 2004

Does anyone actually take into account, you know, their friggin policies? As far as I, as an outsider, can gather, Americans are furiously debating personality, ideological pureness, spouses, whether they're "angry", whether they're "real". Have you all forgotten that one man will represent both the external face of your country as the head of state, and the internal direction of your country as the head of the executive? Whether this is an ideal system I'll leave up to your own consideration, but in reality I don't give a shit if the wife of the candidate for head of government in my own country has two heads and penchant for little boys. It should be completely irrelevant to them doing their job properly.
posted by Jimbob at 2:47 PM on January 26, 2004

what is this post about?

It's about some Portuguese Mata Hari trying to make woopy in the Lincoln bedroom. I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:49 PM on January 26, 2004

Since you asked, Miguel, speaking for all Americans* (at least the journalista-type from the Klamath region of Oregon) I don't think politicos wives matter very much in the primary process. This whole "let's have Dean's wife in on the campaign to appeal to NH female voters at the last minute" is utterly bogus, imho. Voters, male or female, are gonna choose from a sea of candidates by who the candidates are, not who they're married to.

Once a Dem is selected in the primary, however, I think the issue does become more important. And maybe then, we'll have some compare and contrast between the potential first ladies. (I agree, Laura Bush's eyes creep me out.)

*In college at the University of Oregon, I knew this girl from Kenya who got infuriated everytime someone asked her a question about "what black people think," since she was one of the few African Americans in the journalism program. Now I know how she feels, except there's probably 18,000 of us on Metafilter.
posted by Happydaz at 2:50 PM on January 26, 2004

all these adjectives could apply to Hilary Clinton.
foul-mouthed,???
domineering, flamboyant,
She is a very smart woman whom is a "mover & shaker", not a fan of her but will condescend to her intelligence and perseverance. But we elect a President not a First spouse, whom should hold the position with honor.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:51 PM on January 26, 2004

Does Portugal need a spy? Also, I've never understood the reasoning of those people who hate Hilary Clinton. Does anyone have a grasp on that? As for Teresa Heinz Kerry, she seemed pretty wry on 60 Minutes last night - she made him seem more human and warm somehow. Al Gore could have used someone like her.
posted by stevis at 2:55 PM on January 26, 2004

Jimbob, I would argue that first ladies are a matter of comparative advantage. As long as they are not somehow traitorous (or cannabals ... that wouldn't do) they should have littel bearing on a chosen candidate. However, if they can add to the Presidency by their social presence (Jackie O.), their social commitment (Betty Ford, Rosaline Carter), and/or their education and abilities (Hillary Clinton) then they can influence a voter's decision of who and how the country will be run.

And if you want to assume that the First Lady has no bearing on decision making that might scare the populace, I suggest you google Nancy Reagan and Astrology.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:58 PM on January 26, 2004

wow! now that's what I call a First Lady.
great post
posted by ruelle at 2:59 PM on January 26, 2004

i am an american who does not care about the first lady, unless she becomes a member of the cabinet.

or has a really big head.

then i worry.
posted by crush-onastick at 3:04 PM on January 26, 2004

I couldn't care less about a candidate's/president's spouse. Certainly you can tell a lot about ANYONE by the people they choose to have around them, and never more so than in their choice of spouse and the type of relationship that they (appear to) have, but being president is a JOB, and I really don't care about anyone but the person who is going to do it. If I were interviewing for any other job I was hiring for, I would not interview the spouse of the applicant; ditto for choosing a president. The whole trend to deify the position sickens me, to be frank.

With luck, we won't need to rely on another Eleanor Roosevelt to carry the load (since that's unconstitutional anyway).
posted by rushmc at 3:06 PM on January 26, 2004

So, rushmc, what you're saying is: it doesn't matter unless it matters (but that would be wrong anyway so it doesn't matter)?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:13 PM on January 26, 2004

she seems pretty cool - and is all about protecting the enviroment. bring her on!~ :)
posted by specialk420 at 3:25 PM on January 26, 2004

While I consider having an intelligent, autonomous spouse an asset for any President (first, for having a good adviser present when nobody else is, and second, for showing that you are secure enough to live with an intelligent, autonomous spouse), I still have trouble with a First Significant Other whose best career move was "marrying well" (it was a problem for me with Hillary - an even BIGGER problem for me with Elizabeth Dole).
posted by wendell at 3:26 PM on January 26, 2004

Please elaborate why it should be an issue with Hillary and not another.

If memory serves she said something along the lines of getting two for the price of one if Bill got elected. She certainly had very strong ideas on a number of issues, and obviously had some power of influence with her husband.

Actually I think even the quiet First Ladies have a tremendous amount of influence, and as such I can see why voters would take that into consideration. It's simply that the "louder" ones are more noticeable, and give better sound bites.
posted by konolia at 3:32 PM on January 26, 2004

I still have trouble with a First Significant Other whose best career move was "marrying well" (it was a problem for me with Hillary - an even BIGGER problem for me with Elizabeth Dole).
What wendell said..I excuse Elizabeth Dole because she's pre-feminism, and ancient already : >

And don't get me wrong--it's because I DO think highly of Hillary that I hold that against her--I voted with pride for her as Senator, and I think she should have done that from the beginning--she may have become the president herself by now. Now, she's forever tainted as both a bossy bitch who tried to be co-pres, and as a corrupt behind-the-scenes powerbroker. Those of us who grew up with feminists as moms automatically expect all people--men and women--to do for themselves, and not "marry well", as wendell so aptly put it. Mrs. Kerry seems to be the "marrying well" type, no matter what her other assets and accomplishments.
posted by amberglow at 3:43 PM on January 26, 2004

I'm from iowa, so none of this even maters anymore.
posted by delmoi at 3:44 PM on January 26, 2004

Shame she's from Portugal; it sounds like I'd vote for her before I'd vote for Kerry. As it stands, honestly, learning about her just made me feel a little bit better about the prospect of having him as the Democratic candidate... thanks for the great post.
posted by logovisual at 4:08 PM on January 26, 2004

Mrs. Kerry was on C-Span, holding court somewhere or other over the weekend. She's way smart.

If Kerry wins, I predict the cons will Hillarize her instantly.
posted by Fupped Duck at 4:14 PM on January 26, 2004

If Kerry wins, I predict the cons will Hillarize her instantly.

I hope it won't be because she's Portuguese. Unfortunately, Portugal is a member of the "coalition of the willing."
posted by MiG at 4:23 PM on January 26, 2004

amberglow, I would consider this off topic, but yet its a Miguel post so there is no such critter. I really don't understand your reasoning, here. Hillary Clinton married well, if you consider all the things that happened to them as a couple after they married. Before all that, she married a well educated, ambitious man, her equal in strength and will. They both wished to work for the common good, he in his way, as she chose hers, (guess that sucks in the feminist world , huh?).

What you've said is that you blame Hillary because she didn't choose the same paths as the man who she chose as husband. Hmmm, that's just not very sensical, is it? You wish that she would have pursued a political career before, or perhaps in spite of, her husband. That's a nice wish, but it appears that you're blaming her for not having fulfilled it.

Hillary has had a terrific career, and it just keeps building. Please, I would really like to know why you hold that career against her because it doesn't meet your expectations?
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:32 PM on January 26, 2004

She's on Hardball right this second--I wonder if her accent will cause probs?
posted by amberglow at 4:33 PM on January 26, 2004

I hope it won't be because she's Portuguese. Unfortunately, Portugal is a member of the "coalition of the willing."

*slaps MiG's tender cheeks with a stiff, gigantic salted cod*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:40 PM on January 26, 2004

Wulfgar, I hold it against Hillary exactly because it doesn't meet my expectations (or the expectations of most women her age, or wendell, or many others, etc). I see it as wasted talent--talent we could have used in the senate or house all thru the 70s and 80s and 90s, or as governor somewhere, or as advocate for all the causes she espouses...It's just my personal judgement, and it doesn't stop me voting for her now (finally--after how many years of never running for anything). She's a political natural, and i see it as a shame. (I also see her past life as Mrs. Clinton as subjugating her own desires and ambitions, and not getting what she wanted out of it--either personally, with Bill's cheating, or professionally.) It's also why I love Judy Dean, for keeping her patients and practice and making her life and goals and desires just as important as Howard's.
I think it's foolish to play at being the "stand by your man" kind of woman...no matter who does it.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on January 26, 2004

damn. her hardball appearance was great - she might seem a little aloof - but her response to the question: do you think george w. deserves another term ... was excellent
posted by specialk420 at 4:53 PM on January 26, 2004

It was certainly fair to incorporate one's opinion of Hillary into one's decision whether or not to support the Clinton candidacy. They did bill themselves as "buy one, get one free." It's hard to hate Laura Bush (unless you're just a total meanie) because she literally has not done one thing worthy of scrutiny since the campaign started in 1999.

There's nothing wrong with being a ceremonial first lady. But it is fair to expect her to take advantage of her prominence to advance issues particular to her profession or prior volunteer work. To this end, I admire Laura Bush's attention to issues of literacy (shared also by her mother-in-law.) And I admire Hillary Clinton's work on policy issues in 42's administration. Judy Dean would be a strong voice for universal healthcare. And Teresa Kerry - well, there's probably a position open on the ketchup advisory board. It's fair to give potential FL's scrutiny proportional to the role that they plan to assume in the campaign and/or the presidency.
posted by PrinceValium at 5:02 PM on January 26, 2004

konolia, sadly, has a point.
it's all about being vocal.
you can be Edith Wilson, running the country while your husband lays in bed incapacited by a massive stroke, and everything's fine and dandy as long as nobody finds out.
Truman cheerily called his wife "the Boss" -- but it was clear good old Bess wasn't the one actually taking decisions.

on the other hand if you have a career and a kind of "just don't fuck with me" attitude like 1991-1992 Hillary, and maybe even shoot a "I could have stayed home and baked cookies" remark -- well, you're going to become a serious issue. no matter what your actual influence on hubby's decision-making process is. do any of you guys remember the noise in '88 about Kitty Dukakis being pro-Palestinian? (she also was a recovering alcoholic, but since Presidents -- well, Republicans at least -- can now have that little problem, it shouldn't be an issue for First Ladies, one would guess)

as konolia pointed out, jacqueline helped JFK a lot -- because she was stunning AND silent. God forbid she actually expressed some kind of an opinion.

me, I just dream about an openly gay person running for President (running for real, not a vanity candidacy). we'll see how the press deals with his/her companion.



"what is this post about?"

Miguel. what else?
posted by matteo at 5:25 PM on January 26, 2004

Laura Bush...whose beady eyes creep me out

Charlie's Father: “Oh, I hated [Laura Bush] with [her] wee BEADY eyes! And that smug look on [her] face, 'Oh! You're gonna buy my chicken, OHHH!”
Charlie: “Dad, how can you hate... [Laura Bush]?”
Charlie's Father: “Because [she] puts an addictive chemical in [her] chicken that makes you crave it nightly!”
posted by namespan at 5:53 PM on January 26, 2004

Wulfgar, I hold it against Hillary exactly because it doesn't meet my expectations (or the expectations of most women her age, or wendell, or many others, etc).

Look out below! Arrogance running rampant. Do you actually aspire to the belief that you know what most women her age, or the nebulous many others expect? I think you're full of it, here.

I see it as wasted talent--talent we could have used in the senate or house all thru the 70s and 80s and 90s, or as governor somewhere, or as advocate

Goddamn you amberglow. I see that you have talent (seriously) and you haven't become a Senator or governor or nothin. You're wasted and that pisses me off because you haven't done what I want you to do. (Are you seeing the problem with expecting others to live to your expectations yet, or shall I be even more blatant? Now leave, or I shall taunt you a second time!

for all the causes she espouses...

Now this is just silly. Few women ever have done more to promote the causes they believe in than Hillary Rodham Clinton, both before and after she attained the title of First Lady.

It's just my personal judgement, and it doesn't stop me voting for her now (finally--after how many years of never running for anything). She's a political natural, and i see it as a shame.

This is the part that riles me up. I see no shame here at all. I see a woman who follows her course as she sees fit. The people who admonish her for not following there will are just ... silly. When did you wake up and find yourself in bed with Rush Limbaugh, amberglow?

(I also see her past life as Mrs. Clinton as subjugating her own desires and ambitions, and not getting what she wanted out of it--either personally, with Bill's cheating, or professionally.)

Have you bothered to ask her? Seriously, I think you're slaggin' on the woman for some kind of feminist ideal, based not on what she has said or believes, but rather on what you believe she should believe. I've read several people who espouse the idea that people can't abide Hillary because they can't adjust to the idea that a woman could forgive a man for infidelity. Is that what's going on here, amberglow? If it is, kindly remember that it was and is her choice not yours.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:07 PM on January 26, 2004

It's hard to hate Laura Bush (unless you're just a total meanie)

The eyes, man, look at the eyes!!! (souless brainsuckin' zombie eyes of dreary deathladen doom!)
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:13 PM on January 26, 2004

Cash and Kerry. too funny.
posted by paleocon at 6:24 PM on January 26, 2004

me, I just dream about an openly gay person running for President...

It won't be much of a change, most of us have been getting sodomized by Washington for years now.
posted by jonmc at 6:38 PM on January 26, 2004

When did you wake up and find yourself in bed with Rush Limbaugh, amberglow?
He was just selling me oxys, wulf ; >

And thanks for the compliment, but if i spent years espousing causes publicly, and calling for national health insurance, and writing books on social issues, etc...then you can say to me, "amberglow, why don't you run for office yourself?" Until then, you can't. Hillary did just that, so I ask. I still don't hear a satisfactory answer (but i haven't read her book yet).

And being first lady of Arkansas--or of the United States--is not at all comparable to being a lawmaker in your own right...at most, first ladies can encourage and promote, but cannot write laws, sponsor bills, etc etc etc...There's a vast difference, and one is not at all the practical or efficient way to effect change in this country.

No one is saying that she should live her life by my rules (you really keep forgetting that, and shouldn't).
We all judge public figures according to whatever standards we think they should have (movie stars and politicians especially--Would you be having this reaction if i spoke of what a mistake it was for Mike Myers to do Cat in the Hat? and how he ran the Austin Powers thing into the ground and shit on it?) I have problems with Hillary. Many people have problems with how many public figures live their lives (don't get me started on Dubya). She doesn't care what i think, except when it comes to my vote. I gave that to her.
posted by amberglow at 6:57 PM on January 26, 2004

So, rushmc, what you're saying is: it doesn't matter unless it matters (but that would be wrong anyway so it doesn't matter)?

Almost. I'm saying it doesn't matter.

I think you're slaggin' on the woman for some kind of feminist ideal, based not on what she has said or believes, but rather on what you believe she should believe.

Reads that way to me, too. I think it would be best if we let everyone lead their lives as they see fit, within the laws we establish as a society.
posted by rushmc at 7:04 PM on January 26, 2004

I think it would be best if we let everyone lead their lives as they see fit, within the laws we establish as a society.
Guess what? We do. Slagging on anyone for any reason is what humans do. (Holds mirror up.)
posted by amberglow at 7:11 PM on January 26, 2004

(Holds mirror up.)

Stack overflow.
posted by namespan at 7:40 PM on January 26, 2004

amberglow, thank you very much for taking my ribbing with a light heart. 'Just wanted to say that. ;-)
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:48 PM on January 26, 2004

...it doesn't meet my expectations (or the expectations of most women her age, or wendell...
The expectations I have for public figures are pretty low. The only person who regularly fails to meet my expectations is me.

(Holds mirror up.)
Bad hair day.
posted by wendell at 7:53 PM on January 26, 2004

it's the oxys rush limbaugh gave me, wulf
(but i don't get your hillary thing--do you know her or something?)
posted by amberglow at 7:53 PM on January 26, 2004

(Holds mirror up.) ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:56 PM on January 26, 2004

oh, back on topic, or one of them at least (re: an openly gay pres): Did Bush Make Pass At Canadian Male Political Aide?
The President chuckled. Well, you got a pretty face," he told the surprised Reid. 
And, the president wasn't done. "You got a pretty face," he said again. "You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway."
posted by amberglow at 8:13 PM on January 26, 2004

She was born and raised in Mozambique... doesn't that actually make her African-American? :)
posted by SenshiNeko at 8:21 PM on January 26, 2004

Slagging on anyone for any reason is what humans do.

Only those who choose to stoop to it.
posted by rushmc at 8:51 PM on January 26, 2004

It's hard to hate Laura Bush (unless you're just a total meanie)

are you kidding - what did laura do after 9-11 ..?? she went back to reading her paperback novels she's fond of... no curiosity about the world, why the attacks had happened? the rift between moderate and radical islam, the role of women in the middle east .... nope. john grisham for laura.

teresa nailed bush for his lack of curiosity about the world and willingness to learn/think about it's complexities tonight on chris matthews.
posted by specialk420 at 10:03 PM on January 26, 2004

"It's hard to hate Laura Bush (unless you're just a total meanie)"

It's the eyes...
Laura / Damien Seperated at birth?
posted by arse_hat at 12:02 AM on January 27, 2004

Miguel: Metafilter's very own first lady.
posted by johnny novak at 2:04 AM on January 27, 2004

"It's the eyes..."

As nothing compared to the crazed, "I'm screaming inside" glare of Cherie Blair.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 4:52 AM on January 27, 2004

cnn on the candidates' wives

and Cherie is weird too...but she's not stupid
posted by amberglow at 5:16 AM on January 27, 2004

Is this who you are talking about, Miguel?
posted by konolia at 8:21 AM on January 28, 2004

I didn't vote for Gore because of Tipper and her PMRC days.
I didn't vote for Bush though either, but I did vote.
posted by Dome-O-Rama at 12:09 AM on January 29, 2004