Outlook: First Spouses

It's presidential campaign time, and that means we're turning the spotlight on... the candidates' wives. Yes, it's time for the quadrennial fuss over the would-be first ladies accompanying -- or in one recently famous case, pointedly not accompanying -- their husbands on the quest to capture the White House. Every four years, we minutely scrutinize the candidate's wives for their "acceptability" for the role of partner-in-chief. But what is that role? In year's past, women like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole challenged our traditional assumptions about what a first lady should be and do. This year, Judith Steinberg Dean has made us wonder if a first lady could or should have her own career, separate from her husband's. In Sunday's Outlook, Washington journalist Danielle Crittenden and gubernatorial spouse Dan Mulhern were among a panel of five experts on women and politics who debated whether Americans are ready for a new kind of first lady, or still want to stick with a more traditional model: Who's Best Suited for the Job?.

Crittenden and Mulhern were online Monday, Feb. 2 at 3 p.m. ET, to answer questions about their Sunday Outlook article.

Crittenden is a Washington journalist/commentator and the author of the novel "AmandaBright@Home." She is a former columnist for the New York Post and founding editor of the Women's Quarterly, published by the Independent Women's Forum.

Mulhern, a former executive coach and consultant in leadership development, is the first gentleman of Michigan, married to Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Mesa, Ariz.: It seems that Hillary Rodham Clinton gets criticized for being too involved, while Judith Steinberg Dean gets criticized for not being involved enough. However, those who have a problem with these two women have no problem with a conservative ideologue such as Lynne Cheney.

By the way, if Dan Mulhern were to be elected president, what kind of first lady would Jennifer Granholm be?

Dan Mulhern: Jennifer Granholm would be awesome and would certainly be fully active in the dialogue. I'm guessing that because I'm not a historian that some women have played that role from the very beginning. People only get anxious when it's a public role, a cabinet-type activity or elected official activity for which the spouse is not appropriately involved.

On the first half of the question, I agree with the writer that people from the right criticize first ladies from the left. I'm sure it is equally true that those from the left would criticize first ladies from the right for being too docile or traditional or whatever.

Danielle Crittenden: First, I would say that Lynne Cheney has been a very good example of someone who has managed to pursue her interest in education while maintaining her position as wife to the vice president. No one would have objected to Hillary Clinton carving out a purposeful role for herself, or a strong role for herself, so long as that role did not include grabs for unelected power. That's what irked the public, let alone the "conservatives." Lord knows we've had strong, career-minded women in the role before including Hillary's heroine, Eleanor Roosevelt.

_______________________

London, England: Which First Ladies -- say from Eleanor Roosevelt to the present day -- have most changed the role of First lady by the way they've fulfilled that role?

Dan Mulhern: The bookends are obvious -- Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton. I think Betty Ford's open and personal struggle, some of which was revealed while first lady, were a reflection of the culture and impacted the culture. I think often prior to that there was a pretence of perfection. She, by her candor, changed that and allowed other people in power and "normal" people to be real and deal with life's challenges. Otherwise, it's hard to think of anyone changing the role. One could certainly celebrate Jackie Kennedy's performance as well as well, Barbara Bush was so active in public -- but both of those fall pretty well within parameters of first-ladyness.

Danielle Crittenden: I think Jackie Kennedy epitomized, or was the ideal, of a first lady, who used it to make Americans aware of history, while using it to pursue good works, while at the same time celebrated the best of American culture. That's one of the reasons she was so beloved. She was like a fantasy of what it was possible to be and do as first lady.

The role has reflected the first ladies who have held it, their interests. In history, no one has attempted to change the scope as much as Hillary Clinton. Eleanor Roosevelt was involved and populist, but didn't use it to wield power. I guess Mrs. Truman tried that once. But Hillary Clinton made the most active grab to wield elected power of all first ladies. She set up an office in the West Wing, attempted to remake the healthcare system and wanted to be seen at the beginning as this co-president rather than a first lady.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The Outlook piece started out saying that every 4 years we minutely examine the first ladies. Certainly that's true in recent years, but do any of you know if it has always been that way in the U.S.? I'm wondering if at some point not too long ago people didn't have much interest in the wives of presidents.

washingtonpost.com: Outlook: Who's Best Suited for the Job? (Post, Feb. 1)

Dan Mulhern: I just want to say on the prior question, Danielle has twice talked about the "grab" for power of Hillary. I think it's more complicated than that. You have someone on the one hand who is extraordinarily talented and brilliant and who as the governor's wife had played a very active role.

I don't think there's such a bright line between a "elected" role and an unelected role. There are plenty of people who are not confirmed by the Senate who play a critical vital role, so when does advocacy on an education issue or leadership of pulling people together discuss healthcare cross the line.

Al Gore likewise had a huge role as vice president. I think both role enlargements are a reflection of both the president's confidence of Hillary and his vice president as well as the confidence of other key people on the team.

Danielle Crittenden: THere really is a line around elected and unelected power. There are presidential appointments, yes, but Hillary Clinton was unique in that she tried to have it both ways. That when she was criticized in her healthcare role, she would retreat behind the mantle of first lady and also try to hold herself to different standards. On the one hand she would claim at the time that she was not subject to certain ethical rules as a private person and then later such as when she received her large book advance, before she was officially sworn in as Senator, she would use the defense that she was a private citizen. So that was the problem with Hillary Clinton. You can still be a first lady who is bright and talented and had many, many ways of putting that brightness and those talents to use before you have to muddy or cross ethical lines.

To the reader's question, I think because the whole role of women has been under such minute dissection for the past 30 years or so, there is much more scrutiny given to the first lady. And while I think that people have always been interested in the president's wife, or as it may be in some cases lack of wife, it was less of an issue in our pre-celebrity, pre-feminist culture.

Dan Mulhern: All public life is much more highly scrutinized -- whether you're an athlete, an actor or in political life. Second, to add to Danielle's point, the more apparently publicly powerful the first spouse is -- I use "spouse" advisedly because one day we'll have a man -- the more attention there will be. There hasn't been that much written about Laura Bush. But Hillary's involvement, and I might add the majority of it unrelated to "ethical" issues was directly due to her public power.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Cherie Blair has had her own career as a trial lawyer during her husband's term as PM and the U.K. has not come to a screeching halt.

I hope Americans can take a lesson from the British.

Danielle Crittenden: When her husband was elected, Cherie Blair took a job as a judge dealing with cases that would have no conflict with her husband's government work. That being said, her outside business dealings most recently have caused controversy because they turned out to be with rather unscrupulous and eccentric figures. I think generally speaking most people do not object to a first lady having an outside career for sexist reason. What they object to is the inevitable potential for conflicts of interest. That even the most scrupulous first lady could not avoid. Any outside career can expose the presidency to corruption. If the first lady is working how does she make sure that every interaction she has is above board, because so many people will be seeking to influence her and obtain favors from the administration.

I think, actually Dan speaking of first gentlemen, Dennis Thatcher embodied the ideal in this sense. When his wife was elected PM of England he gave up a very lucrative career and played golf for the next few years because he understood how easily compromised his wife's position could be by any outside business dealings.

Dan Mulhern: It's hard not listen to Danielle and think about the vice president and Halliburton. The point being it is difficult in a cynical society and in a highly public role to hold on to anything that is private. It's a bit logically silly to say that during the four years of an administration one can pretend that one has no connections. Cheney's connections with Halliburton are deeper and stronger than a single client that a first lady might have. But, in essence, I think I agree with Danielle on this. That a prudent first spouse should probably stay away because the populous and the media are cynical and there certainly are people who would -- vendors, lobbyists, clients -- would would love to prey on private relationships. So, when we're talking about the sanctity of the constitutional relationship to Congress, the judiciary and the people. The president and spouse should hew to the highest road.

_______________________

Danielle Crittenden: With all do respect to Dan, comparing the role of first lady to vice president is very silly. The VP gave up all that when he stepped into office, all business connections. And if he didn't he is subject to the ethical rules that bind every other civil servant. The trouble is, the first lady is not and this is why it gets so muddy with the first lady. There is no political recourse and that who is closer and more able to influence the president than his wife. You can't impeach the first lady or ask her to resign. And I doubt very few presidents would divorce the first lady in the event of political scandal. That being said, too, I think it is critical for the president to have an impartial, loving person to turn to during what can be very four very lonely and isolated years and to have advice from someone who cares about you, that has no vested or political interest in you.

Dan Mulhern: I think that the notion that Cheney "gave up all that," if I'm getting Danielle right, misses the point. You don't give up a history of relationships. You may not have a dollar coming in during a four year period, but you have an entanglement of relationships past and potentially future. So, the ethical question and the potential for cynicism lurk there as much or so much more. And the notion that someone like Dick Cheney, who supposedly had significant meetings with the CIA, is somewhat less significant than the first spouse seems implausible to me.

Danielle Crittenden: You have political recourse to deal with a vice president, that you don't with a first lady.

Dan Mulhern: To Danielle's second point, we are largely in agreement. The best of all worlds is to have a spouse free to be a purely public ally. The notion that anyone is objective and impartial -- I have yet to meet that person.

_______________________

Tucson, Ariz.: With all due respect to Dr. Dean's wife's career as a physician, it seems to me that she should be more engaged in his campaign for the highest office in our land. The logistics of her having a practice in D.C. (although I doubt he will be the nominee or eventual president)while under Secret Service protection are difficult at best. I could see such a spouse working closely with the Surgeon General, however. And, perhaps going out to schools nationwide to encourage children to eat more healthily.

Enjoyed your book, Danielle!

Danielle Crittenden: Thank you and I completely agree with you. My thought upon the absence of Mrs. Dean was not yet about how was her career going to work with a potential Dean presidency so much as it was about how seriously was she taking his bid for the presidency. And while I'm completely sympathetic to Mrs. Dean's desire to keep her practice while her husband runs for presidency it also gave the impression that she didn't feel his run was fully serious or at least not serious enough for her to consider taking a sabbatical. I think when your husband runs for the presidency you both better be in it heart and soul from the beginning because that's what it's going to demand from you if he wins.

Dan Mulhern: Three quick things. First, I imagine she did consider it very deeply and thought about it. IT may be an overstatement to say she never considered it. Her being a doctor never gave me the impression that he wasn't serious. This is my impression of the Rorschach, people see with their own eyes. My impression is that someone is an MD, or a salesman, if they love to sell. To have someone like that in the White House isn't a bad thing. Jobs like that, governor, tend to remove you from real life and the daily things people face. And one aspect of being the great spouse that Danielle described so well is both a detachment and an attachment, to bring to the marital situation is important. Having said that, the next Dr. Steinberg is going to think twice or three times. Not that that did his career in. Heart and soul in the campaign, pretty good advice. So if they consider his and her careers as very important. It's a lot easier for her to do hers by herself than for him to do his by himself.

_______________________

Danielle Crittenden: Yes, but the role of first lady really is unlike any other political role. It would be nice to imagine the first lady going to the classroom or the clinic. But frankly, forget conflicts of interest -- what about security. And the minute a couple moves into the White House, for many number of reasons they have to accept giving up outside normal life as they knew it. That is the price of the presidency. No first lady would want to put her clients or patients to such a risk of that.

Just as an aside, I did find it funny that this time it was feminist critics who jumped by and large on Dr. Steinberg for not being up front and giving up her career (like Maureen Dowd) and not the conservatives.

Dan Mulhern: I think much of the critique is a conservative critique, even on Danielle, that Jackie Kennedy was the ideal. Much of that is locked up in the behind the scenes, quiet very highly defined quasi-public role. So I think it is not entirely feminists criticizing. Many conservatives are critical as well.

_______________________

Somewhere, USA: It seemed on the surface that Nancy Reagan was a "traditional' first lady, yet didn't she have a lot of influence over her husband; such as getting one of his aides (Regan) fired; contacting astrologers; wasn't she a much in-control First Lady, but this was hidden by the fact that she didn't have a career? So how do we know who we are getting as a First Lady.

Dan Mulhern: It's a great question. And anybody who's worked on campaigns -- and I've heard this often of business execs as well -- know there are some spouses who exert enormous hidden and often frequently malignant power and it is nearly impossible to know who functions in that way and exactly how they function in that way. I'm not a Reagan scholar. This is certainly a place, though, where people had that suspicion. It mirrored things they'd seen in life or in movies, a genuine life template. I think to Danielle's point earlier. SOme of the legitimate questions about Hillary had to do with the non-public quality that may or may not have been there. In my much smaller role I try to have my strategic or political thoughts aired in front of the cabinet of Michigan or the governor's close circle of advisers. It doesn't seem right that I should influence in places others see or don't see. They should see me as they see the chief of staff or budget director. I shouldn't be hiding. So a very thoroughly modern Hillary or a button-down Nancy. Either can run that risk that threatens the credibility or openness of government.

Danielle Crittenden: I'll take a simpler view of the situation than Dan. I think that power as first lady entirely rests on your relationship with your husband and some of the most powerful first ladies we've had have in public seemed very traditional. That's because, I think, a woman can accept a seemingly more docile public role if she has influence behind the scenes. So, Nancy Reagan is a good example of a woman who took a traditional public role, as is Laura Bush. Both are/were highly influential over their husbands. It's interesting to me that the women who have bridled at the traditional role have also seemed to have the weaker or less intimate marriages -- such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton. And it was this lack of intimacy with or influence over their husbands that caused them to seek out a broader, more publicly influential role.

_______________________