The truth is, we expect nothing from our First Ladies. Nothing except to look nice but not too nice - clothes should be tasteful but not too expensive or she'll have an air of privilege for which we must take her to task; face and figure must be attractive but never overly sexy or we must take her down. She must be intelligent but not demonstrably so - a good degree, but no accomplishments that outshine the husband or make her seem like a 'ballbuster' She must be articulate but not opinionated, and she must be involved but not in anything with any kind of moral complexity. If the causes she chooses are for "The Children" that is all to the good. If she does not have children of her own, she is suspect. If she has been married before, she is suspect. If she has ever behaved immoderately - done cocained, inhaled marijuana, had sex in college with someone not her long-term mongamous boyfriend -forget about it..in fact, her husband might not have a chance at President if such information were made available.

We are not only uninterested in her accomplishments, we prefer she not have any, lest they overshadow her husband, or the men who voted for him.

The ridiculously low and ambiguous expectations we have for First Ladies reflects our continuing discomfort, as a country, in seeing women in positions of power that have nothing to do with motherhood. Had Bill Clinton attended the conference, the inanity of what we want/don't want from a First Lady would have been all too uncomfortably apparent: Bill is quite publicly accomplished and we have no choice but to assess his role as prospective First Gentleman in the context of those accomplishments, and not for the color of his suit or the style of his hair. He would have stood out as a person of substance expecting to be recognized as such, and because he's a man we would of course concede to this expectation...but then be flummoxed in trying to do the same for the other Prospective First Mates, because we're accustomed to judging/admiring them on how they appear vs. what they've accomplished.

Bills' attendance would have upended the entire conference; no one would have been able to 'compete' on the level he would expect to compete on. While Michele Obama is undeniably accomplished, we are simply not accustomed to looking at a First Lady first and foremost in those terms. What we'd gladly give to Bill, a man, we would reluctantly, resentfully give Michele. Hilary knows a little something about this, of course.

when we have more than one female candidate, and preferably at least one whose husband was not one of the most popular presidents of the last century.

The word "scootch" just sent me into fits of laughter. Great pc. on the wives and making sure they are not doing "anything interesting". Heaven forbid she has a pulse, a few words about something meaningful or spirited discourse.

How inappropriate to show passion!

misses the limelight.

also "figure" she is the most qualified for reasons including being First Lady of AR and the USA, being on the campaign trail starting in 1977 and being in the Senate. My politics lie with Dodd and Kuchinich, but Hilary's my choice!

The problem is that being on the campaign trail since 1977 and being First Lady makes her qualified to run for president, but not necessarily to be president. For that we need to look at her work as an elected official and, as much as I admire her, I think she's made some very bad decisions as a senator.

I wonder how the election would go if Hillary suddenly dumped Bill for a 25-year-old pool boy named Roberto....

I think it would bring her a lot more votes, particularly among married women.

I agree with you 100%. By defining them as "spouses," it's like saying:

"Here are the Mrs. We promise, they do important work, too!"

While it may be true (or not, whatever) that these "spouses" do important work, it's not a recognition of their abilities as WOMEN or PEOPLE, but rather as women and people MARRIED TO SUCCESSFUL HIGH PROFILE MEN.

Blech. Promote those women based on their merit, not based on who they're married to.

I would just love it if he showed up at one of these things, and the media brought in some stone butch dykes to nastily critique his outfit and bearing. Snark.

"First Lady Maria Shriver"? Not exactly. "California's first lady", if Californians call her that.

"Presidential Spouses"? Not one on that list is a presidential spouse. "Presidential Spouse Wannabes" is more like it.

Just sayin'

I agree.

Did anyone catch Bill Clinton's interview last month on what he'd be like as First Gentleman?

From the interview with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo:

Bartiromo: Can you compare yourself to any other first partner or first lady as it would be?

Clinton: Not exactly. Because I was president it will be different. But I don't think will be any different in some ways then she or Eleanor Roosevelt. They both went over the world there were the two most-active ones I think. But in the sense that they didn't make policy, they just give their advice when they were asked for I think that is what I should do. But I can probably do more to help simply because of the life that I have had.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/20997452/site/14081545/page/3/

would want nothing to do with an old sow like that.

Lynn,

It would be so clearly more interesting if Bill was at one of these things. Hillary already upended the first spouse paradigm, and Bill would flip it totally on its head. I want to know how he'd interact with other political spouses. Of course, he's a unique case, too.

The bottom line is that I've never been terribly interested in the spouses unless they're bat-shit crazy or something else notable. I'm not really even saying that as a judgment, I'm just stating the truth about myself.

-Jen