I didn’t watch Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention last night, and I don’t plan on watching Cindy McCain speak at the Republican National Convention.
Why ?
Well, Jazz Shaw at The Moderate Voice pretty much says what I’m thinking:
I did not stay up past my bedtime on a schoolnight on Monday, and thus missed out on the opportunity to hear Michelle Obama address the nation from the Democratic Convention in Denver. And, if I may give my apologies in advance, should Cindy McCain address the GOP convention in Minneapolis (as I assume she will) I will be busy washing my hair. Why? Because it simply doesn’t matter to me who the candidates are married to or, for that matter, if they are married at all. Spouses of presidents have no place in running the country, and when either Michelle or Cindy show up in the West Wing, I’d best not hear anything about them crafting legislation, making policy or getting their hands on the workings of our government. [Emphasis added]
Why? Because the voters have no control over them. You can’t remove them from the artifical “office” of First Lady (at term which does not appear anywhere in the constitution) nor can you control their ascension to such an “office.” What if the president gets a divorce while in office? Must he or she leave? No. It is not a position in our government, which is why I will always maintain that Hillary Clinton’s eight years of “experience” as First Lady does not count for diddly squat. Similarly, I see that Cindy McCain is heading to Georgia. Why? She is a private citizen and not running for any office. (John Cole is spot on to call this “absurd.”) I’m sure Chelsea Clinton had a grand time during her eight years in the White House, but I don’t want our next president nominating her for the Supreme Court. Does Michelle Obama have anti-American feelings? Was Cindy McCain involved in shady business deals? I don’t care. I’m not electing either one of them.
On the other side, one of Jazz’s co-bloggers at TMV argues that the “job” of First Lady (or should I say First Spouse to be politically correct) is important, as was Michelle Obama’s speech last night:
[T]he role of First Lady is important because of the second component of the Presidency: Head of State. This role is much more symbolic and requires a sort of visceral connection that can’t be planned on paper. It isn’t just that First Ladies have the ear of the President, or that they reflect on the values of her husband - though that’s important. It’s that they, themselves, are representatives of the nation to the world at large. Indeed, one of the few saving graces of the Bush Presidency is Laura, not because of any policy position she advances but because of her attractive persona.
And this is why Michelle Obama’s speech last night matters so much. American voters really do think about the future First Lady when voting for President. Theresa Heinz Kerry, for example, was a genuine drag on John Kerry’s ticket. Her speech in 2004 wasn’t just bad. She was downright weird. It projected a woman whom nobody could relate to, and it confirmed the worst stereotypes of the Kerrys as a family unrepresentative of the best of America.
But that was only because she was just as unrepresentative of America as her husband was. John Kerry lost because he couldn’t relate to the average American, the fact that he was married to a woman that came across as something of a shrew was only icing on the cake.
The problem with spending this much time obsessing over the wives, husbands, and children of Presidential candidates is that it reinforces the notion of the Presidency as something more than it was ever intended to be. The President is not a King, his wife is not a Queen, and the White House should not be considered Camelot.
Like I said yesterday, when it comes to First Ladies, Michelle and Cindy need to act more like Bess Truman and less like Hillary Clinton.
