[afraidfortherepublic]

FTA:

I am definitely in favor of every candidate’s spouse foreswearing championing a cause while his or her spouse is President or Vice President and agreeing to having no more than a minimal staff, travel and expense allowance. I want them to emulate Denis Thatcher and just leave all that stuff for “The Boss” we elected and enjoy for the brief time they are there the many perks of life in the White House.

[sinanju]

I second the motion. It seems that Dem 1st ladies measure their significance by how big a staff they can command and how much taxpayer’s money they can splurge on their pet causes.

[Vigilanteman]

I'm OK with first ladies championing a cause as long as it doesn't constantly whine for attention and coequal status with their spouse. Lady Byrd Johnson was a great first lady and far better than her husband with her beautify America by planting along roadsides cause. Nancy Reagan earned the affection of many parents with her "Just say no" to drugs cause. Ditto for Laura Bush with her reading causes.

None of the aforementioned three cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars with their constant travel junkets and insatiable need for media face time. They were content to let the causes be bigger than them, not tools to raise their profiles.