FIRST LADY: Hillary Clinton

Just what is the First Lady's position all about, anyway? According to the White House's explanations, her job is to improve people's lives in the U.S. and around the world, travel and promote opportunity and democracy and to ensure that the White House will remain a monument "of our cultural heritage as the center of our nation's government." What the First Lady does is contribute to her husband's reputation. It is said that the First Lady sets the standard for women of her time. Is this her legitimate job description, something that is demanded of a First Lady, or something that each First Lady does on their own, like choosing pet projects to volunteer their time and skills towards? I think it is a way of justifying what these women have been doing for years and finding some way of respecting their contributions.

Fact is, she really doesn't have a job description at all because she earns no income for being First Lady. It's not a legitimate job. It's a title brought to a woman only because she's married to the President (since we've only had male Presidents thus far). However, we have seen many first ladies very much involved in their husband's political careers and decision-making processes throughout the years; Hillary and Nancy as two examples.

Is this going to be a continuing trend? If so, perhaps we need to re-examine what it means to be First Lady and have some official job title and payment for this position? I feel the First Lady should be a legitimate paying job or the First Lady should be free to reject that title in favor of her own career - after all, she isn't running for President, or is she?

Why should a spouse have to sacrifice their own careers or dreams merely because they're married to a President - unless we're electing the spouse, too? After all, married couples do share intimate details of their lives with one another. To think that they don't have some influence on each other is, I think, naive. What I also question is our assumption and expectation that maybe she has no choice. Even though some First Ladies probably enjoy some of what they do, I wonder if they felt truly valued, or had a little bit of resentment because their position was voluntary, more like being a slave for the nation but disguised as being mandatory and idyllic? Does being a First Lady mean the woman MUST attend all these functions and play the perfect hostess? Isn't this catering to old ideas of women's roles in our society? Would a male husband of a female President do the same thing a First Lady does now; host teas, put on fashion shows with other first ladies, decorate the White House, etc? Would most men tolerate that, and without a salary? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, as a society we still refer to the role of housewife as "just a housewife," or she's a "doctor's wife," in describing a woman. That doesn't tell us about who she is or what she does, does it? Would a male doctor say, "I'm the husband of a housewife?" Would a female doctor's husband say he's "doctor's husband?" How many people do you know who speak that way? The First Lady is the same type of role....really undefineable and subject only to her husband's clearly defined job description. You may argue that she is a politician's wife and has to expect to spend the rest of her life being talked about as someone's wife. I feel she deserves her own distinction.

Perhaps we need to think about taking the role of First Lady seriously and that s/he is a partner of the person we elect for President. Certainly Hillary and Nancy have shown us that their influence has been important in some national and international matters. Would we feel better having a wimpy First Lady or someone who is her own woman? Will we want a First Lady who has definite opinions or someone who just says what she's told and puts on a phoney act? Personally, I admire a woman who is her own person.

I have a feeling that many people are already considering these questions and thinking about couples instead of only individuals as Presidents. I admire Gore and Lieberman for showing us outright that the four of them are closely knit - nothing hidden here; all loving, intelligent, independent and strong people. I don't see this with any of the other presidential candidates. But, that's personal opinion. Regardless, I feel these ideas of co-Presidency will be more on the minds of Americans (and maybe those from other nations) in the years to come as we bridge the gap between male and female while appreciating the obvious gender differences; valuing each for who they are and what they do; and finally being honest and admitting that no married President does hir job without hir spouse.

Isn't it about time we officially recognize, respect and reward the work of the First Lady and express these sentiments with a salary, if she chooses to do her national duty as First Lady? (Instead of taking her for granted for the hard work she does as a very visible representative of our nation, and then complaining about how she performs?) Yes. I'd like to see her being a REAL role model for women of the 21st century.

I send a copy of this article to Mrs. Clinton, and she was kind enough to swifly send a personal reply:
"September 19, 2000

Dear Ms. Amrani,

Thank you for the article regarding the changing role of the First Lady. I want you to know that your support means a great deal to me.

Your continued support will be invaluable to the President as he and his Administration continue to work toward meaningful and lasting change.

Thank you again for remembering me in this special way.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton."
[Thank you for reading my article and for your response, Mrs. Clinton.]