No. We’re saying that in the context of the campaign that is all that is relevant. The rest of it shouldn’t matter, if she keeps to the assigned role of First Lady. That should also mean that the rest is “off limits” for scrutiny and critique as well.

During the specific context of the Obama’s bid for the White House it’s not sexist to judge Michelle Obama solely on the criteria she must meet as First Lady. This is especially true since we just almost had a First Gentleman in the form of Bill Clinton.

“And we don’t measure her this way because of the outdated, sexist way we see the “position” of First Lady.

If America accept that the First Spouse has a different role than what is and was traditional, then you’re absolutely correct. Of course that would mean greater scrutiny and critique of the potential First Spouses since couple will essentially be running on a “First Family” ticket at that point.

Ummm…Yes, that is the sole criteria by which we should judge a potential First Spouse (Post Hillary Nomenclature).

In the past, yes, I’d agree that that is how we’ve judged a potential First Lady, but I would argue that it is not beneficial to us, or the lady.

They are not running for office; their spouses are.

I’d agree with this point. However, despite the fact that they will not have a formal role in the presidency, they will have an informal one – as advisors, confidantes. For this reason I think it is important we know something about the woman; we don’t necessarily need to scrutinize her as we do her husband, but I want to know more about her than what we get in relation to Barak Obama.

If Michelle wanted to be “measured” in other terms than her husband during the campaign she should have pushed for the VP slot.

The issue has nothing to do about what Michelle wants – I can’t comment on that, and neither can anyone else. The question is: Does the identity of a candidate’s wife disappear simply because her husband is running for office? And the answer is no. She is the same woman during the campaign as she was before. We can’t define her simply as her husband’s wife, because it’s inaccurate and sexist.

The problem with measuring Michelle Obama in terms of her husband is that we’re basically saying that she’s only worth something because she’s attached to him. Or, as you insinuated with the VP comment, running for office. And that, among other things, is sexist.

If you remember a lot of the problem with Hillary as First Lady was that she overstepped the limited bounds of her role without being elected to office.

This is a different issue than the one we’re debating (although you’re right in thinking its a related issue). However, I’d like to mention that we hold the potential first ladies to a strange dichotomy: we evaluate their persons (but only in fairly sexist terms, such as appearance, and hostess abilities) as if they hold vital importance to the campaign even while we expect them to have no influence on the position for which their husbands are running. We can’t have both, and yet we try to manage it anyway.

In sum: I don’t think measuring Michelle Obama in terms of her husband is the best (or only) way to measure her. She’s an educated woman, a mother, a professional, and a wife, and she should be judged that way, good or bad. And we don’t measure her this way because of the outdated, sexist way we see the “position” of First Lady.

Ummm…Yes, that is the sole criteria by which we should judge a potential First Spouse (Post Hillary Nomenclature). They are not running for office; their spouses are. If Michelle wanted to be “measured” in other terms than her husband during the campaign she should have pushed for the VP slot.

It’s not sexism. It’s separating a non-elected adjunct position from an elected one. If you remember a lot of the problem with Hillary as First Lady was that she overstepped the limited bounds of her role without being elected to office. She later when on to rectify that, for which I give her all due props.