Why the role of first lady hasn't changed since Jackie

People went wild for Michelle's outfit, hair and choice of nail colour at the convention. But some are asking why the FLOTUS can't identify herself as a working woman as opposed to a "mom-in-chief." (Eric Thayer/REUTERS)

People loved Michelle Obama's speech. And her dress, purple-grey manicure, and hair. Her curl has its own Twitter account.

Michelle is a Harvard-educated lawyer, yet last night you wouldn't know it. Last night, she went by "mom-in-chief."

That she has to downplay (ignore) her professional credentials is an indication of how, despite women being more important to winning the vote than ever before, the role of the FLOTUS is trapped in the 50's:

"At a time when powerful career women are showcased at each convention — former secretaries of state, senators, governors, activists — the role of the president’s wife, or an aspiring president’s wife, seems pretty much frozen in the template set by Jacqueline Kennedy and Pat Nixon," says the New York Times.

You have to wonder if when she's choosing her clothes, she's thinking like Hillary Clinton was in 2010 when asked about clothing designers she likes:

MODERATOR 1: OK. Which designers do you prefer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes?

MODERATOR 1: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)

Comments

[matt]

Why should the president's wife have any role in government? Americans don't elect her, heck she's not really even a factor in the election. In this country, we don't even give special privileges to the PM's wife (but I guess the royal consort enjoys the same privileges they always have). IMHPO, the president's wife should have no role in office as she isn't elected.

[Rourke]

This is a very ignorant post and demonstrates the lack of research and effort that one would be disappointed to see exposed by a once highly regarded news source (whether or not it is the 'blogs' or 'opinions' section). It is also quite embarrassing for this piece to have even been associated (in any way) with Canadian public opinion on American politics. Regardless of whether or not this is a blog entry, it is on a Canadian newspaper site that would be expected to have higher standards than this on anything related to foreign issues/topics. This spew of words not only misinforms readers that may not have prior knowledge to American politics, but also shamefully demonstrates her clear lack of research on the ROLE of the First Lady. It makes the reader question if she even watched the speech at all, or know that Michelle Obama was speaking on behalf of the Democrat party? -Because if Findlay did, she'd know that the "mom-in-chief" role was to connect with the principles, values, and average American that are identified in her husband's Democrat platform. Not to mention how terribly superficial the latter end of the article was by bringing in Hillary Clinton and glazing over the fact that she's currently exceeded any 'boundaries', the role of a "First Lady" might have by now serving as the Secretary of State.