>>
>>Wasn't this a big plus when we got a 'twofer' with the Clinton's and were privileged to have Hillary's firm hand on health care, travel office personnel and her brother's good offices in arranging pardons?
>>
>My recollection may be fuzzy...........read wrong.......but I seem to distincly recall that one of the issues of the 1996 presidential election was Hilary's role despite the fact that she had been neither elected, nor confirmed by the Senate for any official position. OTOH, in the "attack for something I want to do too" my distinct (but possibly wrong) recollection is that one of Dole's rallying points was something on the order of "Vote for me and you get Elizabeth too."
>
>I'm making no value judgement about Hilary vs Elizabeth. Just the general "what's bad for the goose is good for the gander" mentality that pervades American politics.

As I recall, (and Dick Morris confirms) by 96 Clinton's reelection depended on Hillary moving to a more 'traditional' roll. Liddy Dole was accomplished in her own right for many reasons other than being married to Bob Dole but besides being a pretty accomplished campaigner I don't think she was offered up as part of a team.

I agree that spousal involvement very much depends on the spouse, the nature of the involvement - and the political leanings of the booster or critic ;-) This was in fact my point about the expose of Mr. Palin's meddling in affairs above his station. Just all seems rather silly, but am amused that those promoting it see no irony in their outrage, given recent history within their party ( whereas whatever you think of Bush Laura is hardly a meddler )