Well, look at Hillary. She was an unelected co-president. Ugh!

There is a reason we haven't elected a bachelor President in modern times. Even with that, we got Kennedy and Clinton, who both went tomcattin' around.

It is important to see what sort of woman a potential President would take as a wife, and probably even more important to see what sort of woman would have him for a husband. It's pretty clear that Hillary was willing to put up with her "husband's" indiscretions because she had her eyes on a bigger prize. Still gives me the creeps!

I guessed the first comment would be about Hillary.

But I am thinking of the quietness of Laura Bush, who, I believe, more by nature than by advice, is seemingly silent in comparison to the obviously ambitious Hillary Clinton who only found her middle name after the 1992 election was won.

Actually, a First Lady taste test that works for me is this: Who would you rather have represent us on state visits abroad? Who would you rather meet with, say, the Queen of England - Dr. May-I-be-excused-now Steinberg, or Laura Bush, who did not betray her modest persona when she spoke so well for her husband at the Republican National Convention in 2000?

Stop referring to Mrs. Dean as the "potential president's wife." You know that Bush is a lock and unless you know something Laura should know, I demand you stop this right now, missy.

I like Mrs. Dean better than I like Mr. Dean. I did not think the Times piece was a hatchet job, just a bit catty about the nature of the marriage. (It wouldn't be the Times if they couldn't find a posture of moral superiority). What I like about how the Deans are dealing with the situation is how authentic it seems. She hates politics. She likes her life. She's living her life. And they've made it work.

If Howard Dean showed half as much respect for the voters (and not just his Dean-kateers) he'd have a chance at my vote.

There is a reason we haven't elected a bachelor President in modern times.

Don't tell Dennis Kucinich!

There is nothing wrong with Dr. (Mrs.) Dean keeping a low profile. Dr. Dean takes her medical profession seriously and does not get involved in something which is not her field. She probably knows a million times more about health care than Hillary Clinton ever did but chooses to mind her own business. Dr. Dean does not want to bother the public about her opinions so I think the public should leave her alone.

It's not about her opinions (I know none of Laura or Barbara Bush's opinions), more about her character. Dean has a less than zero shot of getting my vote but I think he owes his supporters some information about someone that would have such influence over him.

It seems the Drs. Dean/Steinberg are enacting an arrangement that "works for them" despite it being a bit hard to swallow for some voters (and analysts).
I agree that Dr. Steinberg might be jeopardizing some of her husband's potential votes by continuing on with her "keeping it real" routine. On its own, her day-to-day scheduling is not an affront to me at all -- I admire her dedication to her career and the folksiness of the late-night O.C.D. grocery fetching (admittedly, I relate to this). What unsettles me, as an as-yet-undecided voter, is the oblivious nonchalance she displays when confronted with questions about her hypothetical role as first lady, and how her current (low) level of campaign involvement is impacting her husband’s quest to give her that role.
Maybe there’s a little bit of denial behind the determined “I’m just a local family doc” attitude. I could understand that – no one is born into the role of first lady, and maybe Dr. Steinberg is ready neither for letting go of what she has established as her identity in Shelbourne, nor having a darn bright unblinking spotlight in her face. That is, an independent person might not be amenable to advisors and stylists suddenly scripting their every action -- perhaps she’s just holding on a little longer to the peace and quiet that, if her husband makes a successful run, she’ll never authentically have again.
Alternatively, playing by her own rules this way might alienate the very people her husband is counting on to put him in office.
My bottom line: her lack of tangible involvement at present isn’t a prohibitive factor for me as far as strongly considering him. What would give me pause is the following. Should she continue on in this way, without an increase in sincere disclosure of how she perceives her potential position in the White House, I’d have concerns over her acceptance of change. If she can’t realize, and embrace, the tectonic shifts that her world may be due to endure – I question how happy her family (and, centrally, her husband) could be during his (hypothetical) term.
Mamie was the first Mamie, Jackie was the first Jackie; could Judith be setting a new precedent for first ladies, or, might she simply be too stubborn and nervous to effectively deal with the responsibilities of 21st century political spousedom? I dunno. We’ll see.

My only comments. The American public wants to know the First Lady. If Dean chooses to hide her, so be it. But we will find out about her one way or another. No one gets into the White House without a serious background check, not even the First Lady.

So Dean can either show us his wife in a manner he desires or we can form our own opinions. It seems the latter is it for now.

I think Dean parading around saying, 'my wife will keep her job when I am president' is yet another example of him not being in touch with Americans. We like first ladies. They are traditionally the softer side of our president.

There is something calming about Laura Bush. When she talks about the President as in the time she said, 'Oh, Bushie, you gonna git him?' after he made the OBL wanted dead or alive ... I think, in a sense, that's what we want in a first lady -- someone who reveals an aspect of our leader through their relationship with him.

For Dean to assume that AMerica doesn't want a first lady is presumptuous and out of touch.

ANd another thing. Marriages make strong societies, because they lead to 2 parent families ... and wouldn't we want our leader to live by example?

The Bushes are a strong family, have raised their girls with values ... they have it together.

The Deans do not exemplify a strong marriage or family. Here you have a couple who admits to not being in touch with the other one's passion, and not even talking about it!!! They are both so focused on their own careers, it makes me think they have latch key children and are more concerned about two incomes than creating well- rounded children with two parents.

"Dean has a less than zero shot of getting my vote but I think he owes his supporters some information about someone that would have such influence over him." Like when Bush denied knowing who Kenny-boy Lay was?

"The Bushes are a strong family, have raised their girls with values ... they have it together." Um, are you (like Noelle Bush) on crack?