1. I have never understood the mud slinging in US elections. I've heard there are even TV commercials of the candidates in which they badmouth the other candidate? Is that the way you want the leader of your country to act? Isn't it supposed to be about the ideas someone has for the country, how he/she will solve the important issues?

They should focus on their campaign and what they stand for instead of diggin for dirt on the other (or their wife).

Just focussing on should the family be left out of it? Yes, but if you say that than also stop using them as a prop to how how perfect you are. They drag them into the battle, don't be shocked if they also become part of the bad side of campaigning.

Posted at 1:40PM on Jun 21st 2008 by ninainindia

2. If they issue publicity shots with their family as shown with your article, then they are putting their family in the campaign - press shots are different. With such images they say "hey look I'm a family guy, I'm a great politician because of my perfect family" (that's the image presented).

Those who live by the sword, ...

Posted at 5:57PM on Jun 21st 2008 by pbhj

3. You don't get it both ways. You can't trot your family out to campaign for you and then cry foul when somebody takes issue with what they say.

And personally, unless your spouse is going to be involved in the decision making, I don't care to see them on the campaign trail. If I wanted to vote based on how or who sombody choose to marry, i'd watch any one of endless "reality" tv shows. My attention is on the person doing the best job... and that job is representing me and leading us into a (hopefully) better future.

Posted at 6:43PM on Jun 21st 2008 by eugene

4. Considering the spouse is a valid action in a major election like the presidency. As much as we’d like to be chauvinists and say, “the MAN is the president, his wife has nothing to do with it”, we know for a fact that it simply isn’t true. Case in point: Bill Clinton. He got into office and appointed Hillary as the head of his health-care debacle.

Further, and still using the Clintons (because they’re so easy, and currently “out” of the race, VP notwithstanding), when you have spouses on the Campaign Trail, interjecting their opinion, they become fair game.

I fervently believe that children should be untouchable, unless, of course, they are of age and have injected themselves into the campaign – again, I can use the Clintons as an example. It frustrated me beyond belief that Chelsea was put out there to campaign for her mother, but the press were forbidden to ask her questions… and they went along with it. Shameful.

In other races, Congressional seats, state positions, I’m more willing to leave the wife out of it. But for President, not only is it becoming more and more “fashionable” (couldn’t think of a better word) to have the spouse involved, this is the person that, presumably, has the tightest hold on the Ear of the President – whether he admits it or not, she is going to have a lot of influence on most decisions made in the Oval Office, and I want to know how she thinks before putting her husband into that Hot Seat.

Posted at 7:52PM on Jun 21st 2008 by LS