College conservatives have no problem with this, and not just because of the trouble her gaffes cause her husband. Though zealous campaign staff might salivate over the prospect of the straight-shooting wife of a presidential candidate refusing to adhere to talking points, young conservatives like myself want this election to be about the issues. We were actually pleased and surprised when Internet rumors of a John Kerry intern scandal disintegrated. With the United States facing serious national security threats at home and abroad, we don’t want this election reduced to the melodrama of so-and-so’s supposed philandering or quality of home life.
And there’s nothing wrong with a First Lady who can speak her mind. Abigail Adams implored her husband to “remember the ladies.” Dolly Madison regularly entertained influential dignitaries. Laura Bush has been an vocal and effective advocate for literacy. Voters would be foolish to believe First Ladies are not powerful in and of themselves.
Still, that’s not to say that we don’t have a few legitimate concerns about Kerry’s wife. It’s one thing for a candidate’s spouse to have strong opinions; it’s another when she wields enough financial clout to amount to her own personal special interest group. Everyone knows John Kerry used a mortgage on the house he jointly owns with Teresa (a Boston mansion purchased with her money) to loan his campaign $6.4 million and save himself from primary defeat. But some might not know about the Heinz Company Foundation’s sponsorship of several liberal activist organizations, including the League of Conservation voters, a group that has been an early and enthusiastic sponsor of Kerry’s campaign. Or about some of Teresa’s wealthy friends who’ve been happy to open their pocket books to fill Kerry’s campaign coffers.
None of this is illegal or even necessarily improper. But privately counseling your husband–the candidate or the president–is one thing. Leveraging the role to amass power and influence for liberal causes is another. Teresa can’t have it both ways: if she wants to talk about the issues on the campaign trail, she should be vetted like the candidate, not like a spouse who does little more in public than serve as window dressing. Hillary got this message fast, and went under cover, baking chocolate cookies and dropping “Rodham” from her name during the 1992 campaign. College conservatives are waiting for Teresa to define how we’re supposed to think about her. Let’s just hope she’s more honest about it than the junior senator from New York.
