I think a change in our expectations is long overdue. Most women whose husbands have any kind of professional job now are also professionals in some area. They should not have to put their life work on hold because their husband is a politician.
If Hilary Clinton should become president, does anyone think Bill is going to stay home and bake cookies? Or only make nice remarks about how he enjoys discussing the week's menus with the White House chef?
We have to grow up and recognize that women married to men who are in public life will want to continue with their own careers. We are going to increasingly limit our choices of people running for President to either men who are so overbearing they can browbeat their wife into going along with being 'the little lady' or couples with only a very old fashioned kind of relationship that the majority of us don't have and don't want. We need to quit pretending that politicians should still have 50's style marriages.
The Presidency is such a stressful job now, we should be glad if the spouse is able to provide support and advice that doesn't come with any expectation of a promotion or need to protect political 'turf.'

Sent by Janet Howe | 8:13 PM ET | 10-30-2007

I'm worried that in the United States we have this political element in which not only do we need to see the first lady, we must have the first lady. The American mindset is psychologically predisposed to acknowledge a presidential candidate as married or unmarried, and then mistakenly view the unmarried as somewhat inferior, maybe. Plato would have argued their union as a distraction, looking back at the past decade, I may have to agree. The idea of first ladies developing into opportunists is certainly relevant and should be considered more carefully. Across the world, you are going to find women who want to be that country's first female president- who better to fit this description than the wives of former/current presidents, women who obviously not only tolerate but serve as supporting roles in the political administration, if only ideally. Perhaps my next point is slightly far-fetched, but does it seem like maybe less qualified candidates, or those without a formal education in political science or personal experience in the civil/military arenas, are merely riding on their husband's credentials?

Sent by Trevor | 8:34 PM ET | 10-30-2007

For a King there has to be Queen. For a President there has to be a First lady or a "Lada"!!. We still have the mindset of colonial old times. In future we will have deal with and address gay and lesbian presidents and their living mates.

Sent by anser azim | 1:57 PM ET | 10-31-2007

I wonder how much Trevor knows about Plato. Here is a saying by Plato:
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.???
Sometimes men forget that women are smarter... so the Presidential Spouses role cannot be neglected. They know much more than just whispering sweet nothings in the Presidents ears.
Take the case of the Argentian just elected woman President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. She not only is just as bright as her husband was but possibly more.
American mindset is set to love gossip, your mindset is agreeing with Plato and trying to convince us that these unions are distractions. Many times these unions are unions of intellectuals, politicians just like HIllary and Clinton who are trying to do the best for our country. In the case of Sarkozy, he is a charlatan and his ex was just a model, and you must be a bitter divorced man.

Many times

Sent by Maniakos MItsos | 8:38 PM ET | 10-31-2007

I must apologize for what appears to be an inability to clearly express my thoughts, and also feel obligated to offer clarity, lest there are others who misinterpret my own opinions and in consequence, develop a less than stellar perception of the male intellect. My analogy to Plato's republic extended beyond the idea of governors ruling without spouses, be they husbands or wives, and alluded also to the necessity of presidential hopefuls boasting the proper credentials, perhaps a formal and expert education specifically in the realm of political science. These are not my ideas, and I intend to take no credit for them, or abuse for them. They are only my opinions, and my feeling is that we are electing from a number of pitiable candidates, who overshadow or at least serve to murk the waters in which well-qualified men and women may currently be wading in. Again, my apology.

Sent by Trevor | 3:18 PM ET | 11-02-2007

"stellar perception of the male intellect"?
I would replace that with the "dark side of a so called intellectual"?

Sent by Alex the astronomer | 5:21 PM ET | 11-02-2007