The role of Judy Dean

It's been widely mentioned that Howard's wife, also a physician but definitely not a politician, has been virtually uninvolved in the campaign. She has chosen, instead, to stay home, tend to her patients and children,and basically continue to do her own thing.

I've been mulling over just what we have the right to expect from the wife of a politician. Is this an indication of the level of Howard's commitment to women's rights? Or is this going to be a nail in his political coffin.

Philosophically, I applaud them. But on an emotional level, I'm aghast at Judy's lack of interest or commitment to her husband's cause. I am all for partners in a relationship having the freedom to pursue their passions (no, not *that* kind...) and having room to function as an individual within a committed relationship or marriage. But I can't imagine not backing my husband up on the really big things, or him not doing the same for me.

I actually haven't come to a hard and fast conclusion here. I'm still struggling with it. So 'm throwing this out for discussion, but not as specifically a Dean discussion. My musings are more about what sacrifices we owe our partners in life. And whether it's fair to expect the spouse/partner of persons in certain professions (politicians, ministers, etc) to play a major role in their husband's career. It's always looked to me like the First Lady work pretty hard, in her own way, without being on the payroll. But is she *required* to do so?

Any thoughts?

---

"and if you're so interested in "commitment to women's rights" then you should be denouncing any evidence that there is a required role that accompanies the first lady"

That's the reason I brought it up. It seems like it should be a black and white issue. And I wish it were that easy. But the fact reamains that there IS an established role for the First Lady. Some have been active; others not so much. But I don't recall a total lack of presence. I'm not even saying that would be wrong. I've been actively standing up for women's rights for a really long time (what happened to that burning bra thread, anyway?), but there's a bigger picture has to be considered, too. It is important for women's rights, especially women's *reproductive* rights, that someone get Bush & Co out of the position where they will be filling upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court. To do that, brings us back to the anyone-but-Bush scenario. And Dean may be that man. My point is, although part of me applauds Judy standing her ground and not being involved, another part of me resents it that she may be weakening his electability even a little bit. Is that fair? Nope. Is it a reality of the situation? I think so. Hence my inner struggle with how I feel about the whole thing.

And just an aside...there is not a single, solitary chance that she will be able to practice medicine while her husband is the president. Can you imagine the vultures who would be standing in line waiting to file frivilous malpractice suits?

---

Updated On: 1/18/04 at 08:33 PM

I used to feel exactly as you do now a long time ago (well, except for the war part..). Ideally, that's how it would work. I spent years...decades even...supporting candidates that had little or no chance of winning. And wasted my vote at times on someone I believed in, but in doing so, failed to help the "less bad" guy get elected. I hate that electability requires tolerance of some things that are less than wonderful (pandering for funds; not pissing-off certain special interest groups, etc). American Democracy is a game, and the rules aren't always pretty.

I'm not encouraging you to drop your idealism, high expectations or standards. I envy your ability to feel that way. And truth be told, I'm somewhat horrified at how jaded I've become in relation to the political process. I'm just calling it as I see it now. And yes, I WILL vote for anyone who has a chance to defeat Bush, because in the big picture, that's what'll matter most to me.

---

even though i'm from the dark side and have no reals stake in this debate, i thought i'd weigh in because i like to hear myself speak..or read my own words as the case may be.

dean has built his campaign on being an outsider, a man who will do things differently than those washington politicians. he's been adamant about it from day one of launching his campaign. he's proud of the fact that he is almost diametrically opposed to those business as usual democrats who cower and concede to bush. so why should it be a surprise that his wife is also an outsider?

i find it refreshing that she refuses to play the politics game. good for her. her husband happens to be running for president. she is a doctor. while he seems to have been able to give up his practice, i believe that i read that it was a shared practice with his wife. now if one of them runs off to run to be a politician i think that one of them might wanna stay behind to look after the people who've come to depend on them. a "country doctor" as they often refer to drs dean has a real responsibility to their patients. in this "me generation" when so often people choose themselves over others i think it's remarkable that this doctor chose her patients over campaigning. to me it says a lot about howie that this is the woman who is his wife. her dedication to what she believes in is so strong that she's willing to risk whatever damage should come to her husband's campaign as a result of that devotion.

i don't see why she could not continue to practice medicine. the secret service would lose their minds, but after they got over being apoplectic, i see no reason why it would not be workable. just because we've never had a first lady who worked does not mean that we cannot have one. i imagine that given her tight lipped reputation that even the paparazzi would get bored and leave her alone after being rebuffed repeatedly.

i think that those people who are calling for her to be there supporting her husband ought to look seriously at why they want her there so badly and if those reasons outweigh the needs of her patients. would you be so happy to part with your doctor? in howard and judy dean there seems to me to be a perfect example of a citizen governor who's family does not see politics as a profession. would that other people were able to see politics this way.

---

This is a damn peculiar spot I find myself in questioning Judy Dean's choice to not actively support her husband's campaign. I will tell you right up front, that I'm not comfortable.

But I am in an excellent position to speak of doctors and their commitment to patients. I am a nurse in a specialty (transplants) which is unforgiving of time lags or absences by both physicians and nurses. I would argue that NO doctor is on 24/7...nor should they be. They all have reciprocal coverage schedules allowing them to take time off. It's a healthy thing for them to do. I'm not arguing that Judy Dean shouldn't stay home and tend to her practice. But certainly, even Marcus Welby got the weekend off every so often. Her distancing from Howard's political aspirations is more that an "I'm too busy with my own stuff...which is important, too" statement. Showing up at a debate in jeans and a sweatshirt gives the impression that none of this is important to her. Even I, wearing a casual denim skirt and Birkenstocks at work today, and who has done more than my fair share to keep Levi-Strauss in business through the years...even I make the effort to tidy up when I know I am going to be in contact with people important to my husband's career. I'm not talking about putting on a false image...I'm talking about making an extra effort on his behalf because he and his career, is important to me. And I expect the same when it matters to me or even when his support would just be merely helpful. Does that make sense? I'm know I'm coming across like June Cleaver here, and sound dangerously like I'm desperately trying to uphold the double-standard status quo. But that's not accurate.

I actually like Dean for upholding Judy's right to non-involvement. To paraphrase, he said something akin to "It would be nice if she wanted to be here and be involved, but if she's here, and doesn't want to be....then it won't be nice."

When the stakes are as high as they are in Iowa, it seems reasonable to expect the person closest to Dean to be publicly supportive. If that absence of visible support weakens his case (I'm not arguing that it SHOULD, only that I think it MIGHT....particularly in the heartland...)even a little, then I find it problematic.

I'm still going round and round about this within my own head. I know how things SHOULD be, ideally, and feel hypocritical not giving Judy unconditional support. I just can't make it gel with the short term objective...which is to win the right to be IN a position to change things.

Okay, I've fought my demons publically quite enough for a while and will spare you all further blather while I drive home.

---

Updated On: 1/19/04 at 05:06 PM