I thought she was a very important and outspoken advocate for women globally, but as First Lady, not so much as Senator.

Her advocacy for children prior to marriage receives the most press, but she was an articulate feminist then, too. I don't know how nuanced she was in covering the range of subset issues that encompasses, but as she took up elective office, she's been a bit too embracing of the patriarchal constructs, not just in Senate structure but in her participation in that odd conservative fundie prayer group there, too.

Is that the necessary price of higher ambition?

Personally, I think there's a higher more authentic glass ceiling that can be broken that involves pursuit of change without surrendering key principles. But wtf do I know?