The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Hillary's "Electability"

On Hillary's electability: What had Ronald Reagan, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, done to make them "electable" before they became governors of California? Sure, maybe Hillary hadn't "accomplished" as much as some male candidates out there. But even that seems a vague criterion when it comes to American politics. For better or for worse, voters look to a whole host of things in electing senators, representatives, and presidents: Life experience, poise, intelligence, charisma, and so on. So I don't think Hillary should be overly dissed because she didn't do a lot early on in her life; in fact, you might say, as Dahlia even suggests, that the empty spots on her CV stems from what might actually be termed a rational division of labor in a modern marriage: She supported him till the time came for him to support her. Yeah, I'd probably prefer that the first female candidate for president had blazed her own trail. But I'm not going to insist that Hillary should have made a different set of choices.

This is partly why Chris Matthews' statement seemed so egregious to me: Of all the people who've been elected to the Senate, Hillary is clearly one of smarter and more intellectually rigorous -- and she knows a thing or two about how the White House works, even if she learned that vicariously. Maybe voters warmed to her after the Monica Lewinsky affair cast her in a vulnerable light. But it's not the only reason they elected her.