For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
– Corinthians I, verse 7:4

Yes, she is strong-willed and might even be feared as a bit of a loose cannon. She has admitted she might give her husband counsel on whom to pick for his Cabinet. “I know everyone as well as he does, who works here. I've worked with them also. So certainly I would give him that kind of advice.”

During an interview with CNN, she broke with her husband’s official policies for funding AIDS prevention, saying it does not go far enough.

She has told Larry King that she is troubled by filters on Internet search engines in libraries, even in the name of protecting children from porn sites, because “Obviously I'm not for censorship of any kind.”

During an appearance on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno queried whether she had gambled or seen any risqué shows during a campaign stop in Las Vegas. She replied, with a twinkle in her eye, “Jay, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”

At least one top radio personality has suggested she might make the better candidate than her husband. “She is more articulate than [him] . . . She tells a better dirty joke.”

The subject of all this outspoken, uncompromising forcefulness is not Michelle Obama, as outlined by Ms. Henneberger, but rather that den mother of traditional demur domesticity, Laura Bush. And since George W. is not widely regarded as pussy-whipped, I think we can give Barack the benefit of the doubt for being sensible enough to listen to and follow the advice of the strong, intelligent woman he married.

The annals of Presidential history are replete with examples of men whose wives could be considered the domineering partner in their marriages. James and Dolly Madison, Abraham and Mary Lincoln, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, and Ronald and Nancy Reagan are just a few obvious examples. Even this limited set clearly illustrates that strong wife syndrome is hardly limited to one Party.

Henneberger is correct that Americans have been paradoxically tough on First Ladies, expecting them to take highly public (i.e. social) roles within their husbands’ Administrations but not especially significant (i.e. political) ones. There are twin historical sources of distrust at play here. First, there is the now fading but still very real distrust of women in places of great power. Second, there is our national distrust for any unelected person in places of great power.

Those issues have been forefront since the Roosevelts and the World War II era. First Couple marriages are seen as more of an equal partnership because all marriages are viewed more that way, rather than the Nineteenth Century version of the husband as lord and master.

This means that who a candidate’s spouse is and how a candidate deals with their spouse is an important issue to consider when evaluating them for office. However, it is becoming increasing archaic to view Presidential spouses as “unelected.” With couples on par with each other more than ever – in terms of education, accomplishments, and influence – it has become increasingly delusional to expect a President to be able or willing to keep the Oval Office out of the White House’s upstairs apartments.

This raises Henneberger’s second question. To wit, can a candidate of consensus, such as Obama, avoid looking weak, based on the traditional qualities perceived as necessary in a President as leader and Commander-In-Chief? The question is not so much when the American people choose to drop this prejudice, to the extent it remains, as to how much longer we can afford to hold it.

As Henneberger suggests, self-confidence and consistency are admirable equipment in any leader’s decision-making toolkit. Yet they become obstacles when pursued solely as ends within themselves.

Democrats have harshly criticized John Kerry, sometimes with merit, for having been too un-aggressive in his campaigning style. His opponents also frequently and unfairly lampooned him for his marriage to his outspoken, bossy, eccentric second wife. Yet perhaps the most impressive thing I ever heard said about him came from one of his stepchildren during the 2004 Democratic Convention – “He earns respect because he knows how to give it.”

Or consider Abraham Lincoln. His marriage was tumultuous, the union of two very different personalities. Mary Todd Lincoln was vain, jealous, and temperamental bordering on insane. Throughout his tenure, she only added to Lincoln’s already immense burden by her public outbursts, her unchecked spending, and her increasing belief in the occult. Yet Lincoln insisted, until the end, “My wife is as handsome as when she was a girl, and I a poor nobody then, fell in love with her, and what is more, I have never fallen out.”

Lincoln unchecked devotion and liberal tolerance toward her and his children may have derived from much the same sources as Obama’s – a martyred mother and a stepmother whom he idolized versus a father whom he knew to be a failure and disappointment. He once told another romantic interest, “. . . whatever woman may cast her lot with mine, should any ever do so, it is my intention to do all in my power to make her happy and contented, and there is nothing I can imagine that would make me more unhappy than to fail in this effort."

Lincoln was also not unlike Obama in being inexperienced and perhaps even woefully unprepared for the job at hand. Yet no President grew more in office and this stemmed not from his ability to play the autocrat – of which Lincoln was truly capable – but rather his willingness to surround himself with dissenters and listen to their wisdom. “I don’t like that man,” he once told his advisors of a political enemy. “I must get to know him.”

Lincoln understood that lack of communication and ignorance are often the sources of partisan bickering and government ineffectiveness and he was also pragmatic enough to realize he must first understand his enemies in order to destroy them. Lincoln repeatedly vowed and demonstrated by his actions that he would use insight and acumen anywhere he found them in order to do his own job better.

None of this is intended to argue that Barack Obama is the best candidate for President in 2008 based on his home life. However, I do think his general approach to leadership is more in line with what this country needs from its next President, whoever we choose, when contrasting him with President Bush’s personal style. As the autocratic CEO model is increasingly abandoned by enlightened CEOs as shortsighted and dangerous, it seems foolish to continue expecting it from the head of our government.