1. News & Issues

Michelle Obama vs. Ann Romney - Does the Candidate's Spouse Seal the Deal?

By September 5, 2012

Follow me on:

Between home improvement, health care, and money management, my family has hired a number of professionals over the years.  Only twice have I met their spouses and never once did I ask, "How's your marriage?" References, quality of previous work and reputation matter...not how the contractor met his wife or whether he's the same man she married years ago. (The same holds true if the contractor's a woman.)

Similarly, there's no section on a job application that reads "Spouse Endorsement." Resumes never list a spouse as a reference. This would be a ridiculous idea in the private sector. Qualifications, skills and experience matter...not how happy the applicant's family is.

So why do the rules change in politics? We're hiring the candidate, not his family. (I use the male pronoun because men still make up the vast majority of candidates.)

We expect the candidate's wife to stump for him and sing his praises. (This in a country where a spouse can't be compelled to testify against her husband in court.) And it's not enough that she's his biggest cheerleader -- she has to look the part of the gorgeous helpmate with impeccable hair, makeup, and clothing.

For these reasons I typically approach the candidate's wife's speech at the two big nominating conventions with a healthy dose of skepticism. I choose not to watch them live because I don't want to get caught up in the moment or hear the commentary afterwards. I want to make up my own mind.

The morning after Ann Romney addressed the Republican National Convention, I watched her speech. She was radiant as she described the boy she met at a high school dance and returned to that image repeatedly. Though intended to be sweet, the theme was ineffective. If she wanted to tap into a universal truth, that wasn't it. Young love has its charms in fiction but if I'd stayed with "the boy I met at a high school dance" beyond our two month relationship, I would have been a teen mom and that child would be 35 today. (That's what happened to my best friend when he started dating her after we broke up.) Ann and Mitt's story is lovely, but very few young brides marry the governor's son, follow him to Harvard, and end up with millions. Her experience is alien to me, as I'm sure mine is to her.

To her credit Ann was poised, polished and effervescent in her belief in Mitt and her testimony to their love and marriage. I found some moments of kinship with her -- I too had rainy days alone with screaming children, and I also was diagnosed with cancer. But unlike Ann, I've never stood before a crowd of thousands and received praise and applause for handling those challenges. None of my friends who've faced those challenges has. We don't expect that reaction because that's just part of being a woman and a mother.

Ann's struggle with MS is no small thing, but she's able to seek treatment and support without worrying how the bills will be paid or if the costs will be covered by insurance. As a woman raised in a world of privilege, she could only evoke her grandfather's early life as a Welsh coalminer as her sole connection to personal poverty. It was a weak attempt that didn't win any points.

Like Ann Romney, Michelle Obama was poised and polished and genuine when she spoke last night at the Democratic National Convention. But unlike Ann, her theme of struggle -- as exemplified by the economic challenges faced by her family -- hit home for me. (My father worked three jobs and my mother couldn't afford a babysitter so she brought me to her part-time job at a thrift store. For this privilege she agreed not to be paid in cash but to accept a meager credit for clothing from the shop, all of which she spent on me.)

Michelle's description of her father coping with the pain of MS, never letting his disability prevent him from being the primary breadwinner, conveyed the simple pride of a man who refused to let his family down. She did this without a lot of bells and whistles and metaphors such as Ann's "storybook marriage," but it was powerful and memorable.

Ann Romney was picture perfect but few of us felt that we knew her any better. She touched upon the personal, but her reflections were guarded. In comparison, Michelle was intimate on a deeper level that often brought a tremor to her steady voice. Her compassion for the average American was specific; it resonated as heartfelt compared to Ann Romney's broader but emptier declaration, "I love you women!"

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been critical of Michelle Obama as First Lady. As a working mother who juggled family and career, she had the background and the understanding to make this a pet project during her time in the White House. I was disheartened to find that she was no more a champion of working women than Laura Bush was, and instead seemed to lose herself in pursuit of becoming an icon of style and fashion.

Yet in her speech to the DNC, I saw reasons why she shied away from being a policymaker like First Lady Hillary Clinton had tried to be, and stuck with a more traditional First Lady role. She expressed her fears that her daughters would suffer from living in the fishbowl of the White House. First and foremost, she told the audience, she saw her most important job as that of Mom-in Chief. And in that regard, she's accomplished all she's set out to do.

I can't fault her for wanting to protect her daughters more than she wanted to protect the working mothers of America as I'd hoped she'd do. But what I need to remember is that I'm not electing her to run things as I'd like. I'm electing her husband...or Mitt Romney...to fulfill that role.

The candidate's spouse is BOGO -- buy one, get one free. She's a fascinating figure caught in a limelight not of her own making, and we'll never be privy to the fact that there's a lot more frustration than fun in the role. But my interest only goes so far.  I've always been more inspired by the women who make their own way in the world and tell their own stories instead of relating the stories of their more famous, powerful and influential spouses...or how they came to be associated with "the great man."

In the wake of Michelle Obama's speech last night, many are claiming that she's won Barack Obama the election. I have a problem with that. Is that an insinuation that to win the "women's vote," all you have to do is evoke an emotional reaction? I teared up at least once during Michelle's address, but I've been known to do the same over an overwrought Hallmark commercial. That doesn't mean I'm going straight out and buying the card.

If the candidate's spouse seals the deal with the American public, then we're being lazy and not doing our homework.

If you're going to choose someone to provide you with an essential service, you look at their skills, abilities, track record and experience. You research as much as you can about them and you make up  your own mind based on your findings, not just their promotional materials. The spouse should have nothing to do with it. If you'd do this before choosing a plumber, electrician, or contractor, shouldn't you do the same when choosing a President?


September 6, 2012 at 2:19 am
(1) Paul says:

of COURSE the american people are lazy and dont do their homework.. the majority of them anyway.. and what the hell is ‘doing your homework’ supposed to mean anyway, paying attention to our corrupt media outlets?

September 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm
(2) Susan says:

I appreciate your article. I am however a bit bothered by the last line – when I hire a plumber or carpenter etc. I hire them for probably one specific job and if they do the job well, I will probably hire them again but again for one task or job. When I cast my vote for President, I am electing an individual to govern our country for four years, 24/7, and all tasks are included. I appreciate the job of First Lady and value that service which is unpaid (OK there are benefits but you get my drift). I feel it should play a part in my decision making process – part is the key word. I just hope that in four years this country will have the courage to elect a woman if she is the best qualified individual for the job.

September 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm
(3) Irish Queen says:

There was a time when few of us resented the “privileged” rich. The middle class had decent jobs and most were more than able to provide for their families. Since this horrible economic downturn, we have (not unjustly, at times) demonized the wealthy. Hence the resentment towards Ann Romney. She did a great job, it was said, but she didn’t suffer enough (save for the minor inconveniences of MS & breast cancer). Michelle Obama – now she suffered! But somehow her greedy and voracious spending of taxpayers’ money on her staff, wardrobe and vacations while families struggle to put food on the table has been above reproach. The woman who stated that her husband sometimes smelled (in an interview in 2008 before he was elected) and who glibly chooses to vacation ad nauseum without him suddenly has an epiphany and claims she now loves him more than she ever did blah, blah, blah. Do we really buy this? Is the American public that stupid? I voted for Obama..and yes, his wife had nothing to do with my choice. But if wives are going to be used as pawns to persuade us to vote for a particular candidate….I’d have to say that Ann Romney appears to be infinitely more genuine.

September 6, 2012 at 4:37 pm
(4) Courtnee says:

I couldn’t find the little x to get rid of the ads that covered up most of the blog, so I didn’t get the full article. However, what I did read was interesting and a bit funny. It was very well written and for once it seems unprejudicial.

September 6, 2012 at 4:49 pm
(5) Annie says:

Every news media has made it an issue about the spouse not only here but Englland. What they do, what they wore and how much it cost and what they have said. Jackie Onasis was a role model for myself and many others. Her style was an influence when we wore hats, gloves etc..
Now with so many tv stations and the internet stories are abundant. We can research and research finding contradicting facts but the bottom line is we find them with both parties and have to choose the one who’s platform is what we believe in. Whether they follow through or are able to because of getting laws or changes passed we do not know, Throughout my years I have seen both parties acting like little kids not getting their way but this has been the worst Republican actions. Clinton was right on with his speech. Always looking at the person, not the affiliation, Obama stands for what I believe in. I find Ann standoffish and Michelle warm and inviting.

September 6, 2012 at 4:59 pm
(6) Pink Lady says:

This is in response to Irish Queen: you obviously have been listening to Fox News. President Obama have taken far less vacation time than President Bush. According to Washington Secrets, as of February 2012, President Obama’s FAMILY vacation have tabulated to 16, 10 where the family was together, such as for Christmas and summer vacations, one by the president and five by the first lady. Not included were Camp David visits or trips like the first family’s New York City date night in May, 2009.

According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.

September 6, 2012 at 5:36 pm
(7) Proud (D) Voter says:

I must agree the article was very well written, but i must agree to disagree. How can we not take inconsideration the president’s wife’ that we choose when casting our votes. I believe your spouse is your other half she should give us an idea as to what type of man her husband is. If I can’t relate to the president’s wife, i’m pretty sure I will never relate to the president. I don’t know what it is like to grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I do know what it is like to have to work hard for everything that you want. Those are the kind of values I want my kids to have, because unfortunately the Romney’s story is nothing at all that the 99% of Americans can relate to.

September 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm
(8) Linda says:

Mitt Romney will be our next best President ever and it’s going to be great to have CLASS back in our White House. Ann is so smart and so beautiful. She’s going to make an amzing First Lady. God Bless America. John 3:16

September 6, 2012 at 7:59 pm
(9) merc2010 says:

Sounds racist

September 6, 2012 at 10:07 pm
(10) Julia D. says:

Michelle has a lot more class than Ann. Hands down!

September 7, 2012 at 7:11 am
(11) James Kiawu says:

the presidency is never about racism. so leave it out. it is about potentials and deliverables. so if u’re racist, then please find your way back to either south Africa or during the days of Martin Luther King. we have migrated and left you far behind Madam Racist Linda…HOOPs!!!

September 12, 2012 at 10:31 am
(12) Anne Caroline says:

Michelle Obama was hand-picked early by Jewel Lafontante (a member of George H.W. Bush’s cabinet) to run for president. The power brokers in Chicago wanted her ~ rather than her husband. Chicago is known as a city controlled by Democrats ~ that’s just at the local level ~ the Republicans have always been national power brokers.

I wasn’t impressed by either speech. I got so annoyed with the talking heads that I found C-SPAN ~ they covered the conventions wall-to-wall. There were many great speeches that the American public, unfortunately, didn’t get to see.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.