I’ve always thought my husband would be a fantastic public servant. I would love for him to run for office, whether city council or anything else. His philosophy is marked by the literal definition of public servant; his approach would be to serve the public that elected him. He is not driven by hubris or notions of grandeur. My husband has a voice of reason and is affable, honest, earnest, and dedicated. He would make a fine public servant indeed. I joke that I would bring him down because one’s spouse can make or break a campaign. A former spouse can be even more costly to a candidate.
Elected officials are branded by the company they keep, be it their pastor, business associates, spouse(s), or tennis partner. Aren’t we all marked by the company we keep? Candidates are simply on stage for the judging. While this might not seem fair, it’s just the way it is. And I must say, I’m okay with it. Spouses on the campaign trail offer us voters an insight into another facet of the candidate. To see a couple’s body language and demeanor around each other is very telling in understanding the whole candidate.
I happen to think it’s quite endearing to see Barack and Michelle Obama giggle together at an inside joke to poke fun at each other. They laugh easily together and are not shy to steal a kiss. They hold hands as if they were newlyweds, and it doesn’t seem like a stiff gesture for the cameras. Their love and mutual admiration for each other are palpable, which I find rounds out the candidate I voted for and will vote for again. Michelle is simply one part of the equation that makes me see a more complete picture of the man beside her.
Newt Gingrich’s spousal troubles have cast him in a most unattractive shade of limelight. His interactions with his current wife (number three) do not share the same undertones of the Obama marriage we see presented to us by the media. There is a certain coldness and discomfort about Callista Gingrich, which is largely due to the onslaught of media attention and scrutiny that comes with a presidential bid. Their interactions seem choreographed and stiff, making Gingrich the candidate seem disingenuous and scripted. The man’s got a tawdry past anyway, and all those exes are going to be put under fire.
Like it or not, spouses are fair game, and the rules are loose. I don’t support adding media hype to a race that is already teeming with irrelevant vitriol and destructive messages. What I’m saying is that a candidate’s spouse matters. He or she should represent the ideals and energy the candidate espouses. The public will glean a lot from their interactions together, and how a spouse reacts to the public is telling too. We as voters judge candidates by more than their stance on issues. We are consumers at heart, and consumers make irrational decisions based on emotion. We do this whether we're buying a car or voting for president. Emotions are certainly tied to our more cerebral senses, and how a candidate's spouse is positioned plays into that emotional decision making.
I joke that I would bring down my husband if he ran for office. I don’t have any juicy, bawdy skeletons clanking about in my closet, but I do have some unyielding opinions and a big mouth that could land him in hot water. Let's just say that my passion overrides my diplomacy at times. My actions and words would reflect on him because we are inextricably linked. What we say and do mark our own personal brands. We are measured by the company we keep; the measuring stick is just a whole lot rougher when the public holds it.
This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: In a Presidential Election, Do Spouses Matter?
Image via crownjewel82/Wikimedia


Tie-Dye for the Fourth of July!
Mom Survives Horrific Domestic Abuse
Kim and Kanye's Baby Name Predictions!
Moms Love Birthday Parties, Too!


















Comments 8
We as voters judge candidates by more than their stance on issues.
And that's why we have a unqualified, incapable disaster in the White House right now. Gingrich's success in S. Carolina is proof that voters are focused entirely on the issues this time around. Job performance and experience matter more than being the warm-and-fuzzy rube who makes you smile. Obama was a HUGE mistake, and not one that any thinking person will allow to be repeated.
South Carolina voters focused on the racist. Newt was the best line dancer and South Carolina showed their true heart. The man has the morals of an ally cat, married to the second whore who became his third wife. He paid off the Catholic church and now he's forgiven? Does the Catholic church have lines of credit like Tiffany's. Cause the way he racks up sins he going to need a pretty large balance.
You may not agree with Obama's policy's or term, however both he and his wife have shown both dignity and class in very difficult circumstances. Calista would be a national embarrassment, and Fruit Loop Newtie would be worse.
Bendana, those are some harsh words! I can tell you feel really strongly, and for the most part I agree. I think SC proved that most of us are either hypocrites or idiots. Has to be one of the two. Next's proven to me that he doesn't know the meaning of integrity or comittment. He's only committed to something while it's benefitting him. Fool me once...you know the rest. He hasnt been a hypocrite once, he's been such on a habitual basis. He couldnt go to war because he had a family, but when his WIFE needed him and he was tested in his loyalty and faithfulness to the promise he made (to his wife, community and GOD) he folded like a cheap suit. In the end, that's what I think of Mr Gingrich. He's a cheap suit. Nothing more or less.
"Elected officials are branded by the company they keep, be it their pastor, business associates, spouse(s), or tennis partner. Aren’t we all marked by the company we keep?"
No, we are not. Mr. Obama sat in the pews of a church with one of the most racist, hate-spewing pastors I've had the displeasure to witness, and was given a pass. He counts among his friends a domestic terrorist who tried to blow up the Pentagon, and was given a pass. He is surrounded by Marxists and Communists (Van Jones, for one), and is given a pass. We know next to nothing about him OR Michelle - no childhood friends have been brought forth, no former lovers, no family members. It's as if they were dropped from the sky to run for office in Illinois.
It seems only the Republicans must stand the "company they keep" test. I'm no defender of Mr. Gingrich, but if I am asked to take Obama at his word that he is a Christian, that he loves Capitalism, that he wants to "help the middle class", then I should be able to take Gingrich at his word when he says that he has learned from his past mistakes. The Press even dragged a former boyfriend of Mr. Santorum's wife out of hiding for some interview. And not a peep about Mrs. Obama's past. That is getting ridiculous.
Once again, a double standard raises its ugly head, and nobody seems to care.
IMO, it's just like a military member getting his/her security clearance. When my husband has to get his renewed, they look at me as well. Right after we got married, I was interviewed by NCIS because he was getting his clearance. The spouse's conduct reflects just as much on the person running as the conduct of the person looking for that elected office. It's the same in the military, and the higher up you are, the more true it is. (Althought, I've witnessed some spouses that tend to forget that...)
Maybe....just maybe ponychaser there have been no articles because there are no skeletons. Do you really believe for a minute that faux news hasn't been trying for years to dig up SOMETHING on the Obama's? No need to go looking for dirt on Newtie and his patootie, it's public record.
Maybe what they're finding isn't salacious enough to print. Damn a president and first lady with morals and convictions and no hidden past. Sucks for you guys doneit ? But it makes for a great conspiracy theory, right up there with the grassy knoll.
Bendana... you call hanging out with racists and terrorists "no skeletons"? I call it blatant and nearly criminal negligence on the part of the Press. And "Faux" News HAS covered these stories. But interestingly enough, people like you call that a pack of lies, conspiracy theories, and the like. You will never see those stories on your precious "hard news" stations - MSNBC, CNN, etc., because they have their heads so far in the D party that they can't see straight.
The stories are out there - plenty of them. They're just not sexual stories, so your precious "News" outlets won't cover them. No, they're far more important - criminal activity (Tony Rezko), terrorist activity (Bill Ayers), communist rabble-rousing and sympathizing (Van Jones), racist activity (Rev. Wright). But none of that matters because it's not "sexy".
LOLOL!!!
Elected officials are branded by the company they keep, be it their pastor, business associates, spouse(s), or tennis partner. Aren’t we all marked by the company we keep? Candidates are simply on stage for the judging. While this might not seem fair, it’s just the way it is. And I must say, I’m okay with it. Spouses on the campaign trail offer us voters an insight into another facet of the candidate.
-------
IF ONLY!!! Oh, wait, that is only for the Repubs, I think. This was certainly NOT the case when BO was in the running for his current position. Moreover, his spouse certainly offered insight, but that too was ignored.
Pony is absolutely right, as always!