The "First Lady" factor.

There's one element of this campaign that hasn't gotten as much attention as I'd expected, perhaps because it's viewed as not as important as the main issues (true) or perhaps because it's not considered polite (though I don't think it's impolite), and that is that the Democratic wives are a big drag on the ticket.

I'll grant you that both Elizabeth Edwards and Teresa Heinz Kerry are smart and independent. You might hear people say that Americans can't handle smart, independent women, but that's flat out false. It flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, at the personal level, where men are eager to marry smart women, and where fathers strive to raise daughters who are educated and independent; in the corporate sphere and academia, where smart women with advanced degrees achieve at high levels; and in self-employment and entrepreneurship, where women are well-represented.

Besides, Laura Bush and Lynne Chaney are equally as smart and independent as the Democratic candidates' wives, and they've obviously been accepted as appropriate First Lady types. Laura Bush's approval rating hovers above 70%. (Teresa Heinz-Kerry's is a shockingly low 35%).

A second possible factor is Teresa's outspokenness. But the problem is not just that Teresa "speaks her mind"; I think Americans are very comfortable with women who speak up. It's the way she does it. She is amazingly blunt; she's said things that most people would try not to say when in front of an open mike. If you're going to speak your mind as the First Lady, we'd like you to at least be polite about it, thank you. It would be nice if you didn't refer to those who disagree with you as "idiots", or use the word "scumbags" in any context.

A relevant quote from a profile of her in the New Yorker,

Despite her linguistic prowess and her worldliness, Heinz Kerry has, at times, a deaf ear for the nuances of slang, code, condescension, and vulgarity in English—for the emotion of the language.

This doesn't bode well for her role as a national spokeswoman, if she were First Lady.

I think Americans also want to at least have some reason to believe that the First Couple, as it were, has a stable, loving marriage. For the Heinz-Kerry's, given the report of a shouting match on the campaign trail, this report of the two during an interview, and my own observation of her body language during a snippet of the Dr. Phil interview (she was leaning away from John as she sat on the sofa with him, and had an oh-my-gosh-I'm-so-bored look on her face), I'm not so sure that's the case. Is it none of our business? Maybe. But I'm not arguing that we should consider this; I'm simply offering the observation that people probably do consider it, and that this may hurt the Kerry campaign.

To tell the truth, in spite of all this, I actually think I might like Teresa, if I knew her. I think she's like that somewhat eccentric aunt everyone should have, always fun to be with, perhaps a little unpredictable, outspoken, with an interesting life story. And I think she probably has a big heart. I read, in the Weekly Standard, that she once told an audience on the campaign trail that she had always wanted a big family, seven, eight kids. The audience laughed. Then she said she tried but couldn't do it. They laughed again... until it dawned on them that she was sharing a story of personal heartbreak. In my view, anyone who wanted to have a bunch of kids can't be all bad.

I even kind of like the fact that even though she's worth billions, she looks like she dresses not much better than I do, and her hair is definitely not upper-east-side "rich hair". It's sort of a nonchalant, I-don't-care look.

However. Put all these things together - the emotional tone-deafness, the world-be-damned bluntness, the casual approach to appearance - and I'm not sure that's what people are looking for when they think "First Lady". Eccentric, rich old aunt, maybe. First Lady of the United States of American, uh-uh. Is this the women we want representing our country at state dinners? Meeting with foreign dignitaries? Speaking out on her pet issue? (Speaking of which, what is her pet issue, anyway?)

Here's a theory from Industrial Psychology that applies. According to "Implicit Leadership Theory", people have beliefs, shaped in part by their culture, about what a leader should be (decisive, perhaps somewhat charmismatic, intelligent, not a loner, not egocentric, etc.) When we look for a new leader, every four years, we match up the potential candidates with our abstract, implicit prototype of a leader.

This is probably also true of First Ladies. We match up the candidates wives to our images of what a "First Lady" looks like. And that's where Teresa (and even, to some extent, Elizabeth Edwards) doesn't quite make the cut. I'm thinking she's going to cost the Dems at least 2% of the vote. Not much -- but maybe enough to affect the outcome.

UPDATE: After a lengthy online search, I found the Weekly Standard article that profiled Teresa and mentioned her love of children. Here's the quote (the article is available only to paid subscribers).

Her candor can be incredibly touching. "When I was 5 years old, or 6, I had just had a little baby sister, so I was really enchanted," she told the GLBT caucus during one of her digressions. "And people would say, 'Well, what are you going to be when you are big?' And I always said, 'I'm going to have 12 children.'" Here the audience broke out in laughter, but it was not a joke.

"I didn't," Teresa continued. "I tried, but I didn't." Not understanding what she meant, the audience laughed again, and started clapping.

Teresa paused for just a moment. "I lost three, okay? So I got up to six," she said gently. "But I have three wonderful children, and a grandchild." Her voice had real pain, and pride.

See why I like her? But I just don't want her as a First Lady, that's all.