Will a visible candidate spouse make a difference in the GE?

I wonder what folks think on DU about the role of the
candidate's spouse. It seems like some spouses are very
visible and others are not. Will it make the candidate
more electable in the General Election (i.e. vs Bush)
if the candidate's spouse is more visible and active?

First ladies are "fair-game" to the GOP. Just ask Drudge.

edit: Though I'd love to see Teresa Hines go toe-to-toe with Pickles.

Judy Steinberg Dean apparently plans to continue her medical practice in Burlington, thank you very much. She gets my vote even if I don't vote for Howard.

I personally think the traditional model of political wife is gag-inducing. Republicans are the worst offenders, but too many Dem wives don't seem to have brains or lives of their own. What I loved the most about Hillary was that she was her own person, until she got so badly smacked down in the early part of the first term over universal health care. I wish she'd stood up to all the critics and told them in so many words to f**k off.

I'd think much more of the various candidates' wives if they continued about their normal lives.

And Kucinich doesn't even have a spousal unit.

a difference including their spouses.

who has an actual life of her own.

.

ooooh very good Blm putting that "dean must be a conservative because he is friends with Bayh", meme out there.

Or does the cloud above Eeyore's head seem to move as I'm reading text?

Teresa Heinz Kerry. I could see an amazing benefit for REAL healthcare initiatives in Africa that really change how healthcare is dealt with there and not just more lip service.

I heard her speak last year in Boston. Wow. Amazing grasp of issues and the challenges. This woman reads medical studies. Really impressive depth of knowledge.

They would be America's first environmental couple.

are living their own lives outside of their husband's political shadow. It will pave the way for a female president someday...IMO.

members.

We had a female governor in MA whose husband was out of the spotlight - he shunned the spotlight, and lived eventually out in the Western part of the state with the children.

I think it affected people's view of the governor. Ideally, it should not matter. Practically and reality - it matters.

unfortunately.

It DOES matter. Most people don't follow politics the way we do here. They vote on the warm-fuzzies, not policy, and a candidate's family is part of what makes up that perception.

I can already hear the RW pundits saying "If his wife doesn't care about his campaign, why should the voters?". I don't agree with that assessment, mind you, but it will be put out there.

it is part of the family man image that is attractive to voters. Voted yes.

That's the question and some of you kind of missed it.

that most people here responded that yes, it does matter in the GE. How much will it matter? Who knows? But we do know that people decide whom to vote for based on lots of silly reasons - this is one of them.

when even other feminists are so partisan for a particular candidate that they play the "get Hillary" game against another potential Democratic first wife.

I don't think anybody's playing that game. I think we're simply acknowledging that these things DO matter to some percentage of voters.

I also think that most of us aren't happy about it. But denying it doesn't make the phenomenon go away.

fair game.

and other right wing Christians, but besides that I'm thumbsup with candidate's wives being in the campaign.

http://www.now.org/issues/right/promise/mythfact.html

Will it make the candidate more electable in the General Election (i.e. vs Bush) if the candidate's spouse is more visible and active?

Well, I know I look at Laura Bush and feel sorry for the poor thing (not that I'd ever vote for the misleader). I often feel she wants to smack him upside the head when he mangles the language.

I think a visible and active spouse can help. I think an invisible or too active spouse can hurt. I don't think it would change too many voters either way.... although that was a darn close election last time around, wasn't it?

I am a highly-educated. successful, career woman turned stay at home mom (my choice). While I applaud Howard Dean's wife's commitment to her own career, I know I am in the minority. After 45 years of being an idealist, I am scared enough about the future of this country to be a pragmatist. Howard Dean has enough baggage on his own without having to deal with questions about his wife and her support of his campaign.

Welcome to DU..

:hi:

...candidate spouses on the campaign trail have no lives is out of line and unrealistic.

Just look at how tongues still wag over the Clinton's separate lives. It's definitely spoken about in a negative way. So, I voted yes even though I respect Dean's spouse's decision. If she's doing it out of devotion to her patient's, it's laudable because it can add slight risk to his chances. Being conspicuous by her absence may appear to be a lack of support to some voters. Voters may think that if "she" doesn't support him, why should they. The nation is not chock full of feminists.

It shouldn't matter but it does.

There are many people in this country who think "Leave it to Beaver" is the real world.

Too many people vote on superficial things, & are not informed about real issues.