There is a huge difference between the way Democrat presidential candidate spouses insert themselves into the race and the way Republican spouses stay mostly away from the fray. Cindy McCain made one highly quoted statement on patriotism. That’s pretty much it. Perhaps Democrat spousal insertion stems from the fact that Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are all lawyers. I don’t know. You would think this would make them more careful. Apparently not. Elizabeth Edwards inserted herself into the Cheney family in the 2004 campaign by scolding The Vice-President and Lynne Cheney for failing to understand their daughter Mary’s lesbianism. Big mistake. Bill Clinton has reeled from controversy to controversy throughout his wife’s campaign, often acting as if he himself was running. Yesterday he gave a long wonkish speech at Texas A &M , only occasionally mentioning “Hillary”, the candidate. On the helping/hurting meter, most would say Bill has a mixed record. But it is Michelle Obama that is getting most of the press these days, due to her soon appearance as the Democrat nominee’s wife. The result has been some pretty wild statements.

   Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a series of photos comparing Barack Obama’s wife with Jackie Kennedy in dress, poses and style. But it is the substance of Michelle Obama’s comments, not her style, that is raising eyebrows. Speaking in Canton, Ohio last week, she reacted to a radio talk show host and others who have referenced Barack Obama’s middle name repeatedly. Barack Hussein Obama. “They threw in the ultimate fear bomb,” she said. Most people realize by now that Obama is not a practicing Muslim and that the internet myth that he was sworn in on the Koran is just that. But is the repetition of his name a sign of hate and fear? Since when is repeating a person’s name accurately viewed as a low blow? Should conservatives stop using it? In an interview on the Sean Hannity Show last week, Newt Gingrich said that Republicans should focus on more substantive issues than Obama’s name. Fair enough. But neither should Michelle Obama be able to silence them from using it whenever they like. If elected, will he use “Hussein” when he is sworn in next January 20th? Is Barack Obama willing to identify the religious basis of jihaidism? How does he view the relationship between patriotism and his much-touted internationalism? These are questions Obama has yet to fully address. Conservatives should not give quarter on any of this.

   But Michelle Obama made a more revealing and consequential comment about the private economy last week, one that is highly reflective of the Democrat Party’s distorted view of business and how the world really works. Let’s first remember that the Obama’s are rich by most standards. Their income was over $1 million last year. That is not surprising. He is a US Senator and a best selling author. She is a hospital administrator at the University of Chicago Hospital, whose salary suddenly went from 121k in 2004 to 316k in 2005. No doubt, some of this had to do with her high profile husband. Perhaps her visibility was worth more to the hospital in community awareness and fund-raising potential? Here is her bizarre comment: “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we are asking young people to do … Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be a nurse. These are the careers we need.” Recently Hillary Clinton also seemed to denigrate her own daughter Chelsea’s work for a New York City hedge fund as being less than worthy.

   Lets be clear. Michelle Obama was not advocating for public service as a great career. Politicians of both parties have encouraged this for decades now. We do need more teachers, more nurses and people willing to do community service. Despite the morale problems and low pay, people can spend part or all of their lives in public service. But that is not what she said. No, this was an out and out attack on business, something Democrats have strangely reveled in during this campaign season in their never-ending quest to empower government at the expense of private enterprise. Furthermore, the above is a naïve message because it fails to understand how the US economy works. It is a losing message because attacking business alienates the majority of Americans who know better.

   A question for Mrs. Obama. Who raises the money for your hospital? Who frees up their employees to do volunteer work for community organizations? Who creates the wealth that government uses to fund the programs your husband advocates? What makes people independent enough to send their kids to college and be contributing members of society? The answer is business. The business world is not, in your warped view of the world, a lesser calling for corrupt and non-idealistic individuals. It is “corporate America” that enables everything you advocate and without it nothing you advocate would happen. If everyone followed your advice, the tax base would dry up and the economy would collapse. If you believe in “diversity” stop telling everyone “Don’t go into corporate America.” We are all different and necessary to this world of ours.. The truth is that most people come to America for business opportunity, not to become “community organizers” or members of teachers unions.

   What all this reveals about the Democrat Party is that it is hoping to return to the White House in anti-business dress, a far cry from Bill Clinton’s more pro-business agenda. What it shows about Michelle Obama is that she would rather cast her lot with so-called victims than explain her family’s success as a reflection of an American economy that is open to all. At the same Zanesville, Ohio speech, she complained how much she had to spend on dance and piano lessons. Too bad. Touting one’s victim status on $1 million a year is a tough job, but in today’s strange Democrat Party a necessary calling. One more question: if the spouses are not running, why should we have to listen to this stuff? If the candidates agree with it, they should say so.

John Pendleton