Anita Creamer: Open season on spouses of candidates

There's only one thing I can tell you for sure about Michelle Obama, and that's because I heard it directly from my oldest and dearest friend, who lives in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and whose kids attend the same school as the Obama daughters.

She ran into Michelle some time back at another child's birthday party, when the parents were converging to pick up their kids.

Michelle, she reports, seems really sweet.

I know, right? We've generally come to expect far more scandalous observations during election season.

As a description, "really sweet" approaches nowhere near the same league as "Obama's Baby Mama," the label recently applied by Fox News in an appalling moment that, true to form for Fox, managed to combine sexism, racism and a ridiculous amount of flat-out stupidity.

So we come to that special portion of each presidential election cycle devoted to the traditional slamming, parsing and promotion of our potential first ladies, as if the real competition takes place between the two of them.

Under the guise of learning who the candidates' spouses really are, the dissection of the wives amounts to an especially mean game, one in which stray statements are examined and misconstrued, parenting styles are analyzed and, above all, fashion choices are critiqued.

Oh, gosh, yes. To judge from much of the coverage, the more meaningful contest this year involves not Obama vs. McCain but rather the 21st century Jackie Kennedy vs. the new Nancy Reagan.

Of course, in the political world, perception is reality.

So depending on your point of view, Cindy McCain is either a devoted suburban mother who happens to be exceptionally wealthy and elegant – or a tightly wound Stepford wife just a few rough campaign stops away from a prescription drug relapse.

And Michelle Obama is either a tall, striking, Harvard-educated lawyer emerging from humble beginnings to fulfill the American dream – or the quintessential angry black woman.

The stereotypes and coded slurs are nothing short of astounding. (In reference to the Obamas, after all, doesn't "elitist" represent a fancy euphemism for "uppity"? Commentators up and down the cable spectrum, we're onto your tricks.)

Still, the ongoing reinvention of the wives' images requires visits to the network morning programs, as well as cover stories in various magazines in which they can talk about their kids, their families and the man they love.

Co-hosting "The View" last week, Michelle Obama foiled widely held wingnut expectations when she failed to get into a catfight with conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

Honestly, what a demeaning process.

Just a wild guess, but I think I can speak for a wide segment of the electorate here: Whoever keeps insisting that our potential first ladies engage in the ritual sharing of favorite cookie recipes, please cut it out.

This isn't a school bake sale but rather a presidential election. There's a difference.

I don't care that Cindy McCain's alleged recipes have been plagiarized by idiotic campaign staffers who don't know what they're doing, and I don't think the fate of the free world should hinge on such matters, either.

Frankly, whatever you think of her husband's politics, Cindy McCain is a smart enough cookie to steer the $100 million fortune left to her by her father and serve as chairman of the family brewery business.

Does she have to pretend to bake, too?

So an anxious nation once again wallows in sexist expectations and racist assumptions regarding its next first lady.

But if the attacks on the candidates' wives prove to be an effective campaign tool this year, that will tell us nothing about Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama. But it will speak volumes about us.

About the writer:

• Anita Creamer's column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in Scene. Reach her at (916) 321-1136 or acreamer@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/creamer.