Why the smarmy comment about Tancredo's kids being white as the driven snow, but no criticism of Obama's chocolately brown offspring. Obama could have married lighter or darker, having the same choices as Tancredo, but he chose the dark side, while Tancredo chose the light side; so either point your innuendos of latent racism at both, or none.

And as you likely know from Google, Rebecca (AKA, I have my standards and they're all double) Traister, Tancredo was speaking against the LIBERAL version of multiculturalism, a "siren song" which mandates contempt for American culture, but praise for every one else's, no matter how tyrannical and barbaric.

The story claims Mrs. Giuliani killed puppies for a living. How does this square with reporting by the New York Post, that paragon of journalstic punctilio, that she had worked at a company where "salesclerks" ... "often demonstrated staplers on dogs that were then put to death."--?? Was Mrs. Giuliani then employed as a "salesclerk"??

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/11/13/candidate_wives_guide/index.html

"But it is the fact that Judi Giuliani once held a job in which she demonstrated medical equipment on puppy dogs who often died after or during the demonstrations that really kicks her up a notch and puts her head and shoulders above the rest of the pack."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7D8173DF934A35752C1A9619C8B63

"....In April, The New York Post reported that salesclerks at a company where Mrs. Giuliani had worked, U.S. Surgical, had often demonstrated staplers on dogs that were then put to death...."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found

She killed puppies????

Why is a man always strong while a woman is brassy? Why can a guy be intelligent while a woman is opinionated? Why can a man be controversial but a woman is 'difficult'? And 'plumb crazy', unless it's a medical diagnosis, is just repulsive.

Traister's use of historically genderized pejoratives to describe the 'unfeminine' traits of intelligence and spark in the candidate's spouses is, unfortunately, a nice illustration of Maureen Dowd's Op Ed in the Times today. I guess if they were all attractive flight attendants, it would be easier to write about them, huh?

Although this probably won't be corrected (similarly, the article still uses the phrase "plum-crazy" despite several posts that point out the spelling error), I still thought it worth mentioning. Traister writes that "Janet Huckabee joins Hillary Clinton in demonstrating that they grow girl ambition as big as the watermelons in Arkansas." Hillary Clinton, of course, did not grow up in Arkansas, but in Park Ridge, Illinois. The lazy editing is somewhat frustrating.

...for cliches doesn't move us forward.

It strikes me as a formulaic article that took standard wink-n'-grin snickers (the "elfin" Kucinich, could you STOP?) and added cutesiness.

I consider Salon precious real estate that should always carry thoughtfulness. Truth in jest is okay too. I didn't detect much truth-mining here, though...just facts tossed up like entertainment slaw. If part of the Salon mission is to HELP voters make wise choices...how about articles that display wisdom? ("He's a boy.") Criminy.

A spouse's personality and interests are one revealing piece of information about a candidate. Given their likely influence on and access to the president, I'd like a grownup take on them. To that end, I'd have savored some informed conjecture on what aspects of a candidate might be reflected in the person they chose to marry.

Perhaps a guest writer, with some expertise in psychology?ANYTHING that helps us make the right choice would be welcome.

If we go international, we find the real winner, Cecilia Sarkozy, who refused to campaign, announced she wasn't sure she would be willing to act as Premiere Femme, stood up George and Laura; and then we come to find out she left Nicolas and lived with some American in New York, went back to Nicolas for the campaign, and then got a divorce. That has to top the list.

Madame Kehn is a Twinkie. I grew up in Naperville; she's a few years younger than me. Her stepdad was my band teacher. Lovely guy. Unfortunately Jeri gives every indication of being a toxic Twinkie and a dangerous deadbeat. She cut across 3 lanes of traffic, totalling another car and owing 10,000 dollars.At last report she still hasn't paid hospital bills going back 10 years. she let people think she was a lawyer when she's not. Here again--big deal about private lives--unless one appoints themselves the arbiter of everyone else's private lives!...

(Apparently Ms Kehn's mom thought marriage to Night of the Living Fred would "calm her down". Surprised she's not in a coma! Watching Freddie bloviate, all I can think is, Someone didn't nail the coffin tight enough!)

Really? Cool!

Boy, if the person one picks to be one's life mate (or in the case of -- well -- ALL of the Republican candidates, the second or third person one picks for the job) doesn't speak volumes about the candidate, I don't know what does. I can think of few other issues more relevant to my vote, save maybe the candidates' hairdos and what they pay for them.

Thanks for this absolutely hilarious piece!

My money's on Judith Giuliani as the spouse most likely to drag her husband into political oblivion once the mud slinging starts with gusto. Divorcing your wife in a news conference....you just can't make this stuff up!

In strong marriages, a First Spouse may be the #1 confidante, the person the President turns to when sorting out difficult issues. Rosalyn Carter played that role, and did it well while under close public scrutiny for doing so. She was smart, savvy, and strong. First Spouses also often take on significant work, such as LBJ's wife Lady Bird for example, or Hillary's ill-fated but well-meant attempts to overhaul the health care system.

However, I think the chosen tone and focus of this article sacrificed an oppportunity to give us some true insight into just how helpful these women might be in the role of First Spouse, or what they might tell us about the character of the spouse who is running for the position of Most Powerful Person on the Planet. The author chose instead to be cheeky and look for every opportunity to poke fun at the spouses instead, or to drag skeletons out of their closets.

While I could just take the article at face value, in that it carries little pretense of delivering useful information, it does a dis-service to these women (and man) who are sacrificing so much time, energy and personal privacy to support their spouses.

How often does such an article get written and go to press? When it does, is it insightful and does it raise the level of social and political discourse? I find it ironic that this article provides links to the confrontation between Sen. Edwards wife Elizabeth and Ann Coulter, where E.E. very politely asks Coulter to keep her speech and writing to the issues and to back off on the personal attacks. Yet (ironically) this piece passes close to the same drain that Coulter typically circles with its references to the subjects' physical characteristics, religion, etc.

To wit: I had my first opportunity to hear Elizabeth Kucinich speak last weekend, in person at a local venue. She is charming, disarmingly modest, insightful, composed, and brilliant. She shares with those who will listen a clear vision of what America could be if it wanted to. While not everyone would agree with the goals she and her husband espouse, it was immediately evident that she is a being of crystal clear quality, sincerity and compassion, and I can say first hand that she deserves better coverage than this article delivers. The writing about her is lazy and reinforces an inaccurate and mean caricature being curculated by the mainstream press. I imagine the others might also deserve more accurate depictions.

How many people will get their first (and lasting?) impressions of these people from this article? I think Salon can do better than printing a gossip piece like this.