The icon of the nuclear political family is undergoing some difficulties of late. As is marriage, and the role of wife. It's all connected. I’d wager that most Americans are angry at Silda Wall for standing by her man, even while we debate the professional respect due the role of first lady, especially when Hillary Clinton played the role. We see Silda’s choice, and Hillary’s, and Dina McGreevey’s, as "enabling" rather than a career choice, because we don’t consider the office of First Lady a legitimate career choice.

We’re ambivalent about the First Lady because it flies in the face of the women’s movement. Even the word is old-fashioned. We’re not comfortable with them just baking cookies and standing by their men, but we don’t want them running things either. Take Silda, Hillary, and Michelle Obama: We want our first ladies brilliant, uber-credentialed, but willing to take a backseat. I have found the media’s attempts to discredit and silence Michelle Obama appalling. Just Google her name, and you’ll see discussions of her sarcasm, lack of patriotism, and struggles with her decision to become “unemployed.” It’s quite negative. And of course, first ladies must be resilient but not enabling. Silda Wall Spitzer, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton are superwomen by any standard: Graduates of the most elite law schools with mega-careers who gave it up to support husbands in public life.

And for what? When things get ugly, we don’t question their work or their sacrifice. We just place them in the role of victim and question their judgment. The first lady’s credentials have gained status with the times, but her role has not. Cindy McCain is no Betty Ford, and with all due respect, it would be very hard for Michelle Obama to emulate Eleanor Roosevelt.

Does the office of First Lady count as a career? Barack Obama would say no. As his senior advisor Greg Craig just wrote in a memo:

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings.

Before we even look at the family dynamics, let’s think about what it takes to be a political spouse and why it's a career unto itself. The discipline and sheer work it requires is extraordinary. We don't recognize this, and indeed with Hillary, we denigrate her experience as First Lady. For an excellent summary of the role of first ladies see Myriam Miedzian’s piece at the Huffington Post. Myriam writes, “There is enough to criticize in Hillary Clinton without demonstrating what might be perceived as both a lack of historical awareness and lack of sensitivity to many women's life experiences.”

Comments like this one from the New Republic-- “How do all these guys convince their wives to stand by them at these post-scandal news conferences”?-- demean the work of political spouses. I have spent enough time around power couples, both in business and politics, to know that a political career is truly a team effort. This sounds trite, but its truth is proven in the countless situations we see when things fall apart. The familiar image of the pained wife standing by her fallen man testifies to the fact that a political career is not about one person. I think that when you're in a political marriage, you agree to a special kind of contract, in addition to the marriage contract. Because being a political spouse is not fun: you have to do all the face time, but you get little of the glory. It requires a level of commitment and sacrifice I think few of us would be willing to offer.

Spitzer’s downfall was Silda Wall Spitzer’s career on the line, too. Stephanie Taylor, a Democratic political consultant in Washington, says, “I think that being the partner of a political figure is a career in itself -- something that is unrecognized and unrewarded, like most traditionally female caretaker roles. Silda Wall Spitzer has a career as Eliot Spitzer's partner, and it's as real a career as any other career.”

It is indeed a career, but like most choices, summons ambivalence. How many of you can relate to this comment by Wall Spitzer, made right after she quit her high paying, high status corporate job to support her husband’s run for Attorney General? “I’ve basically got three jobs now, with the campaign,”she said — referring also to motherhood and Children for Children, a foundation she started. “And none of them are corporate law, and none of them pay.”

The modern political spouse is a high achiever, and quitting doesn’t come easily. And we feel iffy about that too, because it reflects a huge and unsettling question most of us face: work or family? Many in this community denigrated Elizabeth and John Edwards when they chose to remain on the campaign trail in the face of her cancer. But I heard Elizabeth say over and over, “this is our life’s work.” A political career is a joint mission. But a society torn about work and family tensions prefers scapegoating public choices rather than questioning our own.
I think we feel profound ambivalence about the role of the political spouse because we have real ambivalence about the role of spouse in general. Most Americans are not married. In 2000, 86% of Congress was married, and only 7% divorced, and these numbers haven’t really budged. We like our political families nuclear. How about the average American family? In 2004, 43% of Americans over age 15 were single or unmarried, according to census data. Last year, over 50% of American households were headed by an unmarried member.

As always, it’s easier to judge the lives of others. Margaret Carlson writes of her friends:

"who come down on Silda Spitzer as if she were the one who spent a reported $80,000 on hookers. I was at a dinner with some of them, all ardent Clinton supporters, appalled that she hadn't hit her husband over the head with a frying pan instead of appearing with him.

This is the definition of cognitive dissonance.

If you ever bring up the Clintons' marital history, as Republicans surely will, Hillary Clinton supporters, back in touch with their inner feminism, will clobber you for blaming a woman for saving her marriage.

Forget that Hillary publicly forgave Bill on multiple occasions, and Ms. Spitzer did it but once."

And forget Hillary's marriage: More than the Hillary Clinton of today, Hillary as first lady, joined by Michelle Obama and now Silda is a bellweather for our societal attitudes about working wives and ambitious couples. The wife is a strange role. I became a wife last year and I have noticed it demands a definite modulation of
behavior, even if one's husband is not a politician. I’m confused about what a wife is, especially when she’s as educated, empowered, and career hungry as her husband.

I’ll end on a bittersweet note. The other day, I had the good fortune of hearing former eight-term Congresswoman Connie Morella speak, accompanied by her husband of 54 years, Tony. Tony, an accomplished lawyer, professor, and political activist, said that in all the years his wife held office, he never used Connie’s office phone. Never intervened where he shouldn’t or took a formal role in her campaign. He said the secret is being secure in yourself. I think that’s admirable but it’s easier for a man whose wife is atypical, as most serious women politicians still are. For our famous would be and serving first ladies, they’re acting out the ambivalence of their role, and they’re taking the blows for the rest of us.

PS: See this excellent post "Am I the only woman who understands Silda Spitzer"?