I happen to think that what she does is just fine, and I look forward to the day when everyone else thinks it's just fine too. However, that day hasn't arrived, and I don't think the NYT did anything wrong in running this story. Putting up with stories about the personal life of presidential candidates and their marriages is just part of the game.

(Granted, though, the paragraph implying that maybe something was wrong with their marriage was probably out of bounds.)

I would say it goes back to Mary Todd Lincoln.
She was the first First Lady to establish the position as a type of Office.

Eceryone knows the story, that she went insane after Lincoln was shot or that she was always insane. But in the past 20 years or so researchers have shown that she was hated by both sides of the party for being such an intentionally direct and very public figure.

Her so called abnormal spiritualism ( calling the dead around a candle- dream tripping etc.) was a very common practice by women in all of America at the time.

Her direct involvment with helping freed slaves get on their feet and becomeing independent, brought here scorn from both sides of the aisle, everyone wanted her out just as much as they wanted Lincoln himself out.

When she was commited to a mental institution, (by her own son)there were laws put in place to restrict family members from commiting each other because it was so common at the time and often bogus. The doctor who recommended the jury lock her up never even met her before. The jury took only 15 min. to decide and in the time she was locked up she never received treatment of anykind.

So I would certainly say, first lady politics started with Lincoln.

People magazine is a perennial best seller because people are interested in well, people. You'll never confuse me for a NYT apologist, but this is a legitimate story. Boring, but legit.

What I found amazing is that even after Dean started to campaign, she didn't remove her name from the roadside sign.

In many cases, and perhaps in this one, one partner is perhaps more self-involved than partnership-involved. This is, unfortunately, a rising trend in modern marriages and, I would venture to guess, a primary reason why more than half of American marriages fail.

More and more, we Americans seem to accept that our First Ladies have quasi-legitimate formal political roles. In the case of married candidates, while we may only cast a vote for President, the truth is that when the dust settles we get the bonus of an un-elected key player in the White House with significant influence. That being the case, and given the grave importance of the Presidential position, I think it is reasonable for voters to weigh the strength or weakness of that influence and available information about what that person thinks about various issues.

---