Did the people elect her to be a policymaker? No. Do we elect the first spouses to be policymakers? No. If you want to effect change, throw your hat in the ring, don't try to marry your way to the top.

Seeings as Michelle was much more successful than Barack when they got married (and continued to be so until he got elected to the Senate), I highly doubt that she "married her way to the top". Likewise, Bill and Hillary were both professors of law at the University of Arkansas when they married, thus making them equals.

Your statement is insulting to these impressive women.

Then why didn't they throw their hats into the ring, and run on their own merit? I didn't say either wasn't extraordary, I just said that they didn'g get to the position they are in through their own work, but through their husband's.

Because UnDave there are many idiotic men and women who don't want to see a woman in a position of power. As for marrying her way to the top if she was a psychic and if Barack had been more successful than her then we could say that but since none of those things apply that was an idiotic thing to say.

Is she where she is because of her merit? No. So how did she get there then?

Funny that you weren't concerned when Laura Bush was first lady, UnDave. But I guess mocking women is ok as long as they aren't Republicans, huh?

My issue with this is:
1.) It is an Amendment to the Constitution, which I take very seriously and I do not see the need for it, especially since it has hundreds of years of president.

2.) I don't think it can be enforced. Chatting about issues before you go to bed could be considered "participating in policy debate". This is just not realistic (like 99% of the policy ideas coming out of the Republicans these days).

Last time I checked, Hillary DID throw her hat in the ring. She was a very powerful senator and then a serious presidential candidate. And she is currently the top diplomat for the US.

Based on your argument, if Hillary had won the presidency, it would have been okay for Bill to take an active role in policy because he had run himself first? That just makes no sense.

I don't see how they can stop her influence. She is the wife of the president!!!

And Undave, I disagree about her not getting elected for the position. She basically what, not in the technical sense, since first lady is not a position people vote on, but in the general sense considering she was part of the package. She campaigned, did interviews, her history, words, agenda, beliefs, clothing, etc...was all examined and questioned by the public - when the people elected B. Obama they did so knowing that M. Obama would be right there next to him - and knowing that a wife can be a lot more powerful than most advisers (especially a woman like her).

Didn't a lot of analyst make the argument that Kerry lost because the public was uncomfortable with his wife (or at least that she didn't help - which could have made a difference)?

"Funny that you weren't concerned when Laura Bush was first lady, UnDave. But I guess mocking women is ok as long as they aren't Republicans, huh?"

No one has asked me. What does the second statement in #1 say? We don't elect any first lady/spouse (there will eventually be a female President). I haven't mocked any woman yet, let alone crazy liberal women.

"Last time I checked, Hillary DID throw her hat in the ring. She was a very powerful senator and then a serious presidential candidate. And she is currently the top diplomat for the US."

She did, and she lost. When she was the first lady, it was wrong for her to attempt to affect policy. I have no problem with her attempting in her current position.

"Based on your argument, if Hillary had won the presidency, it would have been okay for Bill to take an active role in policy because he had run himself first?"

No, it wouldn't have been ok for Bill to take an active role, as he wasn't elected this time.

Zeze, you are spot on, “I don't see how they can stop her influence. She is the wife of the president!!! “. The president has every right to use his spouse as a councilor. The amount of her influence is based on her relationship with her spouse. It is his decision as to how involved she can or will be. The question is whether or not she can have her own meetings, develop committees, and do that essentially “off the radar”. I think that would set a bad precedent.

You can make the same arguments that we didn't elect Joe Biden as VP either. When people elect the President, they consider everyone in the Presidents inner circle which includes the First Lady. When BC and BO were elected, we knew their wives were likely to take a more active role in policy. As zeze pointed out, if a potential First Lady can cost her husband the office (which some may argue MO almost did with comment about being "proud of her country"), then they most certainly are being considered during the election.

ks, are you forgetting the hue and cry when it was alleged that the last VP had "secret" meetings with representatives of the oil industry? I think it is in the public best interest to have 'sunshine" whenever possible.

I did forget that, but I was more responding to UnDave's comment that those who were not elected directly shouldn't have a role to play in shaping policy. I agree that the more sunshine, the better. However, as has been stated here, I think there could be a lot of difficulties enforcing this particular piece of legislation.

Every member of any administration must welcome transparancy. I would hope that Michelle will not fight this one but encourage every one to participation in transparent way.

If she does not have anything to hide, she should not fight this.

"If she does not have anything to hide, she should not fight this."

I disagree. I think that a person could disagree with this because it has no way to be enforced. Why support legislation if it is unrealistic?

Not to mention the relationship of spouse is privileged, legally. You can not be made to testify against a spouse. IMO, this legislation violates that pre-existing law and protected relationship. Are we really going to expect that the First Spouse to start having to take notes on every conversation they have with their spouse? Because Presidential correspondence would have to be kept and documented in order to make sure this legislation was enforced. Once again, unrealistic.

UnDave, sorry about my spelling error...the second part of the sentence was poorly phrased, but I was intending to say that there have been many years of precedent. I would think that even conservative judges would see this as a big stick in the wheel of the law.

Marry her way to the top?

You can't really marry your way to the top if you've married your spouse however many years ago, and if you met that person while you were still in school. Marrying your way to the top is a phrase that's best suited for someone who's, uh, probably the polar opposite of someone like Michelle.

jill, any discussions between a husband and wife should be privileged. No one is saying a president can't have his/her spouse as a confidant. I frankly do not care if the spouse is invited to any meeting the president has with others. The problem is a spouse having separate meetings, making who knows what policy decisions, without the public having a clue, as to what was discussed and with whom until after the policy is implemented.

Grandpa, You just want to be invited to the women's naughty wear party. Admit it.

Do I get a seat up front?

As long as you stay away from the lube!

Grandpa, I'm out. Something about lights.

"You can make the same arguments that we didn't elect Joe Biden as VP either. "

But we did. His name was on the ballot. The people made a choice.

And her name was on his marriage license. People knew they came as a set. It's not like we elected BO and were surprised that Michelle got to live in the White House too.

Yes her name was on the marriage license, but it wasn't on the ballot, right? The bottom line is she wasn't elected, he was. If she wants to be a force for policy changes, get elected. I think she would get elected fairly easily, but it's the first step.

On the list of important issues this country needs to be worried about right now, this is pretty much on the bottom for me. I wasn't afraid that Laura Bush was making policy on behalf of libraries or the women of Afghanistan and I'm not worried about Michelle Obama.

The first spouses policy work will always be private to some degree, it's called pillow talk.

On the list of important issues this country needs to be worried about right now, this is pretty much on the bottom for me. I wasn't afraid that Laura Bush was making policy on behalf of libraries or the women of Afghanistan and I'm not worried about Michelle Obama.

i competely agree with you steph, first ladies have been doing things like this for years. why werent these same republicans trying do this during laura bush's tenure?

hpno, which is why i have no problem having the president inviting his/her spouse to any meeting he is in attendance.

She should pick a non controversial issue (like literacy, domestic violence...). The court decision back in the 90s making Hillary essentially equivalent to a Federal employee was ridiculous.

Absolutely not, we need all the good minds we can get to solve our problems.

Are you telling me that Congress has nothing better to do than stop people from bringing awareness to issues? If you have a voice, use it for good - regardless of your position in society!

I agree with UD, we didnt elect michelle and she should have no power to argue policy at all.

So you would apply the law to Michelle CG? You know, Laura Bush said she dealt with policy - including gang issues - but that people assumed she didn't because of their preconceptions of her because of her librarian background.

So let me get this straight: because Michelle wasn't specifically elected (although most intelligent minds would know that since she is the spouse of the President, she is going to have some opinions on policy issues) she can't have an opinion, or try to effect change herself? How many normal activists who aren't elected to any position try to influence policy changes every day?

She should definitely have the right to try to influence policy work. She is an intelligent woman, trying to make a difference and not just sit around doing nothing while her husband is in the Presidency.

I also agree with SKC - *this* is what Congress has to do?? This is seriously the most important issue they could be dealing with right now?? I think not. And everyone has the right to use their voice to affect change.

Steph I had no idea what Mrs Bush did really ( i dont pay attention much to the first wives) If she did, and this came to my attention.I would say the same thing.

Isista, who is sitting around while thier hubby the pres is doing his job? Every single first lady has been an effective busy woman.

No one said anything about influencing policy, or telling this woman what she can think, I just dont like her being able to participate in government debates and being a functioning government employee.

I don't think they are trying to prevent her from bringing awareness to issues. I think they are trying to prevent her from having any power other than the power of influence- which might be fair. She can run for Congress or President if she wants to. I see all marriages this way. When I discuss my husband's work with him, I influence his opinions. If he likes one of my ideas, he takes it to work and makes it happen. I don't go to work for him and do his job. That would be ridiculous.
I realize the role of First Lady comes with more traditional, inherent responsibility- it might need to be redefined now that women have a more prominent societal role. Maybe she needs to have a "job" in the administration too. If that is the case, it needs to have a job description and not just be carte blanche. Ironically it has been Republican spouses who have disagreed with their husband's policies publicly- ala Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan.

While I agree with the statment UnDave's statement regarding the fact that we aren't electing spouses. I always questions when people want to make "rule changes" this late in the game we have had two first ladies that lived under this policy and now Michelle is being put under extra scrutiny...why is this is my question?

The Republican congressman who would change the rules for Michelle said last year that the federal government had done enough to help New York cope with "a fire" that "simply was an aircraft" hitting the World Trade Center - so maybe we should just consider the source on this one.