Will the Candidate's Wife Please Sit Down

I didn’t comment about Ann Romney’s speech before the Republican Convention last week. And I’m not going to comment about Michelle Obama’s speech last night before the Democratic Convention.
But, I would like to talk about the concept of the spouses of American presidential nominees taking the microphone to extol their husbands. One day, it will be a husband extolling his wife-nominee, but for now we have two women telling the world at large how super their husband-nominees are.
And why shouldn’t they, you may well ask.
Because, I would answer, they are not politicians - or candidates - or responsible for any political agenda - or vetted for honesty, integrity or intelligence, for that matter, in any sense of these words.
Politicians in America are all married, sometimes more than once. Their wives follow dutifully behind during election campaigns, or are sent off separately, to make speeches, shake hands, share recipes, give inklings of the state of their state of wedded bliss, and show photos of their children or drag them along to smile and look like all-American kids. Photo-op is the word that comes to mind.
But, what else can these wives really say? They should not be interferring in the political affairs their husbands are engaged in. They should not be front and center talking about how they changed their husband’s mind about Iraq or the Federal Reserve or the Taliban -- or anything else.
All they can say is, “He’s a great guy. I love him. Vote for him.”
Now it may be nice to know that there is marital peace within the presidential nominee’s home, but really, can’t we already see that? If there were war at the breakfast table, would the wife be tagging along, and even if she tried to put a good face on things, wouldn’t the truth be dug out by some enterprising reporter?
We in Europe know the answer to the last question. Cecilia Sarkozy did put a public face on for her husband, and she did follow dutifully, when they were already estranged and she had already bolted the marital bed once to literally flee to New York City with the man who would finally become her husband after she divorced Sarkozy. He was elected.
So, does that state of the marital union really make a difference? Maybe for those who have no better basis for deciding who to vote for, who either don’t care about or don’t understand the critical issues facing America - such as the state of the economy, the negative image of America in the world, the proper role of the White House in relation to the Congress, the unemployment catastrophe.
But, for a political wife to say, “I love him, vote for him,” is just about as useful and informative as a mother saying that she loves her son. Where’s the news? Where’s the political insight? Where is the glimmer of objectivity and informed opinion that we would normally expect from those who make political recommendations?
I prefer the old American view, which is still the European view of things. The wife dresses well, she sits quietly smiling while her hubby talks about the Big Issues, she visits hospitals and schools and talks about generally improving family life in America by being better parents.
If that role is not sufficient for the wife, I would say she has two options: (a) she can stay home and tell her husband that it’s his job to be elected or re-elected; or, (b) she can dive into the real political arena herself and become one of the candidates.
Like Hillary Clinton. You may disagree, as I do, with almost everything Hillary stands for politically, but at least she’s out front taking her licks and defending her own positions. She’s not smiling, as if above the fray, while saying, “I love my husband. He’s a good man. Vote for him.”
Ah-ha! The lightbulb just lit. How could Hillary Clinton ever say anything like that about Bill? She may be the exception that proves the rule. She had no choice but to separate herself and be her own person. After all, who would want to be forced to say Bill Clinton was a model husband.
It looks like Laura Bush still wins the day. Polite. Quiet. Non-political. Charming to everyone. Concerned about children’s futures.
As for Ann and Michelle, they ought to understand that when the conversation about their speeches inevitably turns to their dresses and hairdo’s, the content of their speeches was non-existent, or worse, offensive, as in Michelle’s case, because she pretended to be a politician and talk about policy issues.
Will the candidates' wives please sit down. We have enough trouble working through this election, without adding their dresses to the issue set.