MemeMachineGo!

What has really ticked me off about the whole Judith Steinberg Dean issue is how the press has shown such blatant hypocrisy. For months they tsk-tsked Dean for not having his wife along on the campaign trail. And then when she did come out to Iowa with him, one of the first questions the press hit him with was, "Are you using your wife as a prop?"

Given Dean's famous temper, I'm surprised he didn't say, "No, I brought her out here, away from her work and her patients, because you assholes wouldn't shut up about it. I hope you're happy now."

Three reasons:

1. Thouands of other people have taken time off from their careers and families to volunteer for the Dean campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the Feb 3 states. For the candidate's wife to be less committed than they are is worrisome.

2. If she really believes it's a question of her career vs. his career, that's a problem. Because if she really believes in him as the best candidate, it's a question of her career vs. his career and the future of her country, which is a non-negligible difference.

3. I'm confident that most of the people cheering Mrs. Dr. Dean for putting her career first would be reaming Mr. Dr. Dean if the roles were reversed, and he was putting his career ahead of her campaign.

I don't think Judith Steinberg Dean should be a spokesmodel -- not least because she is neither attractive nor well-spoken -- but for her to be comfortably at home while people who don't even know her husband are being pelted with eggs on freezing Iowa streetcorners in his support doesn't seem quite fair.

Can't agree with you here, Timprov.

1) Of those thousands of people, in how many cases are all parents in a family taking off to volunteer, rather than leaving one at home to act as caretaker? How many are operating essentially single-person businesses that rely on a regular clientele such that if the clientele have had to go elsewhere for a year the business wouldn't be there for them to return to ?

2) Setting it up as "if she really believes it's a question of her careen vs. his career" is a straw man. It's a matter of taking care of her patients (some of whom doubtlessly have chronic or complicated conditions such that they'd really dislike changing doctors), maintaining a practice, raising a child, abandoning something her temperament and skills are suited to for something they are not, namely spending a year standing two feet behind Howard Dean, smiling and waving as necessary. And even at that your point would make some sense if she thought her participation (i.e. smiling and waving) would make the difference between him being elected or not, which isn't clear. For all I know sitting here now, they consciously bet in advance that not treating her as a prop will win more votes than it'll lose (purely idle speculation, of course, but not implausible.)

3. Well, I wouldn't, and, like you, I can only speculate as to what others would do. I think most would be neutral and I'd be surprised if many would "ream" him.

I do, though, think the people that are criticizing Judith Dean would be in a furor if a successful professional man operating a single-person business abandoned his career to subordinate himself to his wife's over what a nancy-boy he was.

But, alack, we'd need a woman Democratic candidate who was the frontrunner before Iowa in 2004 to put any of our speculation to the test.

And "comfortably at home" in this case means raising a child and maintaining a medical practice... it's not all eating bon-bons.

I think Timprov's comment that he didn't think Dr. Steinberg would make an effective spokesmodel addressed point two for me, there: that *if* it was his career vs. hers, *then* she ought to be out there, but since she might not be an asset at all in that role, that's a calculation yet to be determined.

I'd have to agree that I think a husband who was not visibly supportive of his political candidate wife would probably get raked over the coals. Not by the same people who are raking Dr. Steinberg, necessarily. But people, yah.

I think it's probably a no-win for women candidates in general that way: if you're unmarried, you must be some kind of scary bull-dyke; if you're married and your husband waves and smiles and holds your jacket for you, he's the aforementioned nancy-boy (and you *still* may be some kind of scary bull-dyke); and if you're married and your husband keeps doing what he does, not even your spouse believes in your campaign, etc. etc. *Or* he's a sexist because he doesn't believe in equal-opportunity subordination of campaigning spouses. *Or* in either of the latter two situations, he secretly wears the pants in the family and will be telling the candidate what she should do and *he's* the one we should *really* be watching.

It's all going to depend on how the media thinks they'll get the best ratings spinning it, sadly.

On that, I agree. Someone's going to be on the attack over any martial status/spouse role of any candidate in this modern world.

#2 isn't my strawman; it's a direct quote from the last paragraph you cited: "My career is just as important as my husband's career."

If you can't see why treating a run for the presidency as just another promotion for your spouse is bothersome, I'm afraid I can't explain it.

=v= What's this nonsense about Dr. Steinberg not being attractive? She's very attractive (in a genuine and cuddly way), has a good job, and her idea of a good time is to go out on a bike ride with a knapsack of cupcakes. The perfect woman.

(Need I remind anyone that the current First Stepford Wife prefers running STOP signs with her car to riding a bike?)

=v= The latest issue of The Nation has a column by Katha Pollitt on this matter: Judy, Judy, Judy. Pollitt hits an boxful of nails on their heads, makes every relevant point I can think of, and throws in a number of mordant remarks, each of which I wish I'd written.