You're darned hard to please, Joan....if they were excluded from the stage, you'd complain that they were ignored and treated as subjugated inferiors; if they spoke on foreign policy, you'd warn that they were silent partners in governance, and that we were really getting a stealth president in the form of an active spouse; and if they were unattractive, or wore common clothes, you'd criticize them for not taking the time and money (which they both have an abundance of)to preen for the occasion. The fact is that these are both powerful partners of men running for office; they are both intelligent, and will undoubtedly have some influence over their husbands' decision-making processes. I WANT to see who they are, how they express themselves, and what, in their eyes, makes their husbands the right choice. And I want to see them present themselves as they will be seen by others around the world - not in jeans and a T shirt. Ease up, Joan; there are important issues to address - like how either man, even with their wives' help, will find a way out of this debacle we call an economy. Enough on the fashion critique.

Not only do you get history wrong, you are wrong.  Hillary Clinton, Nancy Reagan, Lady Bird Johnson, Bess Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt somehow did not come into your messaging.  Lincoln's wife was a source of derision by the press and for most of our history wives had little or no political role.  Ann Romney has a history of some concern for her community and Michelle Obama was an administrator of a large hospital.  Joan, what in the world are you saying?  If the issue is that we are over-mediarized and everything becomes a peeing contest today, there is a small point there.  However to hollow out these women who have a history of contribution is to denigrate your own sex.  For most people the First Lady should represent the smarts, the dignity of their spouse's office, and what efforts they support or do to contribute to the betterment of this country.  If they cut a striking figure and love their husband that is just a plus.  Elizabeth Edwards stood on her own and people admired her not because she was John Edward's wife but in the limelight showed what this country had fostered and that she had accomplised much.  Joan, get a grip.  You are off the reservation today.

An interesting piece Joan although one gets the feeling you had to stretch to give it some meaning.  Let's face it for the average American voter the decision on who to vote for comes down to a very small movement in voting trends.  For most Repubs or Dems you could have someone on the ticket who's policies would leave them without aid, without work, without hope and they'd vote for the guy as long as he didn't lay it out there.  That portion of the public really doesn't listen, they merely root for the team.  We have maybe 2 or 3 percent of truly independent voters and data suggests we generally don't decide anything until the debates are finished.  Then we have the low info voters perhaps 5 percent and these are the voters the wives speak too.  These are the "aren't they a handsome couple", "I don't know there is something I just like about him or her", these voters are the ones to which appearance is everything.  Having been in politics a long time, not in this data age so much, but even before selling a candidate is like selling a car, bright and shiny, people seldom look into how the engine runs. 

The "very traditional role" is considered necessary politically because of the intense criticism Hillary... and Nancy and Laura, in their own way... have received from those to whom a woman's power is frightening.  I am sure it is difficult for accomplished, intelligent women to play a softer role.  But let's face it, most of us have been raised to navigate that minefield.

We live in such interesting times. Why does the media still reduce women to this? The times have changed, but reading an OpEd piece like this, you'd never know it.

Joan, I am surprised that you chose a cynical versus celebratory approach. Isnt it progress that these high profile, successful, powerful men have chosen beautiful, intelligent, accomplished, powerful women as life companions versus a trophy wivesHistorically, and still too often, powerful men choose pretty, buxom, dutiful, bejeweled, silently suffering, perfect-mother, smart-enough women to accessorize their powerful manhood. Now, men in the US are more comfortable with and even prouder of being strong enough to share the spotlight and responsibilities with a wife equal to themselves. In fact, one of those first ladies still might become president someday; dont count Hilary out. Wouldnt it be something is someday the role of first lady became a more reliable road to the Presidency than that of Vice President?  Your article was a bit sexist and judgemental and missed an opportunity to share in the spirit of the Democratic Conventions showcase of women's strength and potential.

Because Mitt Romney is a person who does not brag about the charity work he does because to him is something to be done in private. But the democrats have pictured him as a cold calculating individual, which he is not. I am glad that Ann Romney brings out his kindness and thoughtfullness to others. Remember he did not take a salary as governor or president of the Olympics. Also he gave away all his inheritence and when he was first married, didn't have that trust fund and therefore lived in that basement apartment and not in luxury that the democrats love to portray in doing. Mitt Romney earned his wealth not like the Kennedy's or John Kerry who married his and they never did without anything and certainly didn't give it away. Remember Michelle Obama when her husband became a senator she was promoted to an executive job doubling her salary to $317 thousand per year and that was such an important job they have never fill it after she left (yeah right after all they received a $1 million dollar grant after that). First ladies do play a role in helping their husbands and both will with the grace and class they have.

I don't understand why a wife supporting her husband by making a speech is demeaning to women. I don't see it as any different than a son or daughter, or a cousin, or a non-related friend.

Why does cynicism permeate so many of your columns? You seem to find something negative in every subject you write about, and often it's a purposeful stretch.

I am glad to hear someone else saying it.

I will admit all biases here. I am pro-Obama. But even I do not care that he "negotiates middle school relationships".

I thought Michelle Obama stuck to policy for the most part. I did not hear Ann Romney's speech but from what I heard about it, I was disapointed that she could not stick to policies. I dont care whether they are willing to say they love one another. I wouldn't expect them to say anything else.

Maybe we should require that those who speak stick to policy, no matter who they are.

Michelle Obama is more popular than her husband. She has her own causes: fitness, healthy food, education, etc. Her speech, unlike Ann Romney's, linked her husband's character to his policies. Michelle Obama is the best first lady in my memory.  

Anyone else curious about where Joan got this story?

Mrs. Obama led the pleading, sniveling, game of asking for another term for her husband, and the Democrats are following her pattern of excuses, pleading for more chances!!!! However, this is not a game of chances because this is our lives and the future of this country that the Democrats want to mess with in an every continuing quest to hold onto power.