ABSTRACT
Title of Dissertation: FIRST LADIES AS POLITICAL WOMEN: 
PRESS FRAMING OF PRESIDENTIAL WIVES,
1900 ? 2001
Lisa M. Burns, Doctor of Philosophy, 2004
Dissertation directed by: Professor Shawn J. Parry-Giles
Department of Communication
University of Maryland
This project contends that press framing of the U.S. first lady institution 
throughout the twentieth century positioned presidential wives as important public 
women who were presented as models of American womanhood. An analysis of the 
print news coverage reveals that the first lady institution serves as a site of ideological
contestation over women?s public and political roles, reflecting the intersection of 
gender, publicity, and power at particular historical moments. The press practice of 
gendered framing draws on often competing ideologies of American womanhood, 
and in doing so shapes the content of news narratives. The subjects of the stories 
often become representatives of social gender norms. I call this practice 
personification framing, which is the positioning of a well-known individual as the 
embodiment of a particular ideology. A personification frame serves as an ideological 
short cut used by journalists to simplify, in the case of first ladies, the complexities of 
gender role performance, making such discussions easier to insert into the limited 
space of a single news story. 
An outgrowth of personification framing is the emergence of first ladies as 
public women, gendered celebrities, political activists, and political interlopers, 
positioning that reflects press representations of women?s public and political roles at 
various points in U.S. history. The publicity and scrutiny surrounding gendered 
performances of the first lady position construct boundaries of empowerment and 
containment that help to normalize women?s public activity and domestic 
empowerment while challenging women?s public and private political influence.
Press frames, thus, serve as important boundary markers that help to define ?proper? 
performances of both gender and the first lady position. While first ladies? status as 
public women and gendered celebrities results in both access to and influence within 
U.S. political culture, they remain on the fringes, with their power largely limited to 
domestic matters and women?s issues. When their influence is suspected of 
trespassing too far into the male political reserve, press coverage exhibits a rhetoric of 
containment that suggests the political activities of first ladies violate the gendered
boundaries of institutional performance. Such framing accentuates the c ontestation 
that surrounds first ladies as political women.
FIRST LADIES AS POLITICAL WOMEN:
PRESS FRAMING OF PRESIDENTIAL WIVES, 1900 ? 2001 
By
Lisa M. Burns
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2004
Advisory Committee:
Professor Shawn J. Parry-Giles, Chair
Professor Maurine H. Beasley
Professor James F. Klumpp
Professor Trevor Parry-Giles
Professor Mari Boor Tonn
@Copyright by
Lisa M. Burns
2004
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work would never have been completed if it were not for the generous 
assistance and support of many people. I gratefully acknowledge the guidance, 
nurturance, and wisdom of my advisor, Dr. Shawn J. Parry-Giles. Along with 
introducing me to the study of first ladies, she aided my development as a rhetorical 
critic and writer. Her input was invaluable, and her support constant. I would also like 
to recognize Dr. Maureen H. Beasley, who generously offered me guidance 
throughout my time at the University of Maryland and served as my ?unofficial? 
advisor and mentor. In addition, I am grateful to the other members of my dissertation 
examining committee, Dr. James Klumpp, Dr. Trevor Parry-Giles, and Dr. Mari Boor 
Tonn, for sharing their insights and supporting my project. Meanwhile, my colleagues 
at Quinnipiac University, particularly the members of the Media Studies and Public 
Relations department, were supportive in my efforts to complete the dissertation 
while working full-time. I would especially like to thank Nancy Worthington, Russell 
Barclay, Edward Alwood, Carol Marro, Sharon Kleinman, Dean David Donnelly, and 
Vice President Kathleen McCourt for their guidance, advice, and backing.    
I am also eternally grateful to the many people who have encouraged me 
throughout my graduate career. At Maryland, a number of people came into my life 
who I now consider my colleagues, mentors, and most importantly, friends. I could 
not have made it through my exams and dissertation without the encouragement of 
my Dissertation Support Group: Laura Janusik, Leslie Dinauer, Leah (Simone) Tuite, 
and Amy Heyse. My DSG sisters helped me navigate this sometimes frustrating, 
often stressful, and ultimately rewarding process. When I needed help, advice, or 
iii
someone to listen, they were there for me. This process made us closer, and I am 
forever grateful that we decided to form this group. I must also thank Lisa Corrigan, 
the other half of ?the Lisas? and my soul sister, who helped me maintain my 
perspective, my cool, and reminded me always of my roots. I also need to thank 
others who provided support and guidance, including my dear friends Nathaniel 
Cordova, Dina Gavrilos, and Jessamy Hoffman; mentors Andrew Wolvin, Michael 
Gurevitch, Robert Bellamy, and Robert Frank; many of my current and former 
students at Quinnipiac University, the University of Maryland, and The George 
Washington University who have inquired about my dissertation; and my fellow first 
lady scholars whom I first met through the Inventing a Voice book project.
Finally, I dedicate this work to my mother and best friend, Betty Roberta 
Williams, without whom none of this would be possible. Everything I am is a 
reflection of her love, her patience, her wisdom, and her belief in me.       
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction???????????????????????????? 1
The First Lady Institution and the Media: Research Trends??????.. 4
Framing Gender, Memory, and Image in News Narratives??????.. 11
Print Media Coverage of the First Lady Institution in 
the Twentieth Century????????????????????... 18
Chapter 1  Representations of Womanhood in the American Press, Pre-1900?? 28
The Era of Republican Motherhood and Parlor Politics, 1789 ? 1833??. 31
Republican Motherhood and Parlor Politics?????????. 32
The Birth of the First Lady Institution??????????.?.. 33
Partisan Press Framing of the First Lady Institution????.?.? 37
The Emergence of True Womanhood and Woman?s Rights, 1833 ? 1865... 43
Defining Women?s Proper Place?????????????... 43
The Antebellum First Lady Institution??????????.?.. 46
Framing the Antebellum First Lady???????????.?.. 49
True Womanhood, New Womanhood, and Social Reform, 1865-1900.?... 54
The True Woman, the New Woman, and the Female Reformer?... 55
Transitional Spouses and the Evolution of the 
First Lady Institution??????????????????.. 58
New Journalism and the New Woman: Framing First Ladies??... 61
Conclusion???????????????????????..?? 68
Chapter 2  First Lady as Public Woman, 1900-1929????????????.. 71
Competing Gender Ideologies: The ?New? Modern Woman??????. 75
Framing the First Lady Institution in the Modern Era????????? 83
From True Woman to New Woman: Personification Framing in the 
Modern Era??????????????????????. 84
From Hostess to Advocate: Framing the Performance of the First Lady 
Position???????????????????????..  91
Emergence of the First Lady as Public Woman???????????. 98
Conclusion????????????????????????.... 107
v
Chapter 3  First Lady as Gendered Celebrity, 1932-1961?????????.. 111
Competing Gender Ideologies: From Rosie the Riveter to June Cleaver... 116
Framing the First Lady Institution at Mid-Century????????? 123
Embodying Domesticity: Empowerment and Containment??... 124
The Two-Person Career: Framing the Performance of the 
First Lady Position?...????????????????... 132
Emergence of the First Lady as Gendered Celebrity????????.. 142
Conclusion????????????????????????.. 152
Chapter 4  First Lady as Political Activist, 1964-1977??????????.. 156
Competing Gender Ideologies: Liberating Women From the 
Feminine Mystique?????????????????????. 160
Framing the First Lady Institution During the Second Wave?????. 167
Personifying the Contemporary Woman of the Second Wave?... 168
The Emergence of First Lady as Political Activist??????. 173
Assessing the Influence of the First Lady as Political Activist????.. 187
Press Memory and Iconic First Ladies??????????... 188
Challenging First Ladies? Political Activism????????. 192
Conclusion????????????????????????.. 200
Chapter 5  First Lady as Political Interloper, 1980-2001?????????.. 204
Competing Gender Ideologies: Feminism and Domesticity in a
Postfeminist Era??????????????????????.. 207
Framing the First Lady Institution in the Postfeminist Era??????. 213
Feminist Vs. Traditionalist: Personification Framing and 
Postfeminism?????????????????.???.. 213
The Emergence of First Lady as Political Interloper?????.. 220
Exploring the Boundaries of First Ladies? Gendered Celebrity????. 230
Iconic First Ladies as Historical Boundary Markers?????.. 232
Boundaries of Empowerment and Containment???????. 237
Consequences of Violating the Boundaries: The Case of
Hillary Rodham Clinton????????????????.. 243
Conclusion????????????????????????.. 248
vi
Afterword???????????????????????????? 251
Personification Framing: First Ladies as the Embodiment of 
Gender Ideologies?????????????????????... 252
News Frames as Boundaries of Empowerment and Containment???.. 258
Iconic First Ladies as Boundary Markers????????????... 264
Journalistic Conventions as Acts of Engenderment????????? 268
Women Covering Women: Discourses of Empowerment 
and Containment??????????????????????. 270
Endnotes????????????????????????????. 273
Introduction Notes?????????????????????.. 273
Chapter One Notes?????????????????????. 291
Chapter Two Notes?????????????????????. 315
Chapter Three Notes???????????????????...? 331
Chapter Four Notes?????????????????????. 351
Chapter Five Notes?????????????????????.. 372
Afterword Notes??????????????????????.. 399
References???????????????????????????? 405
1
Introduction
First Ladies as Political Women: 
Press Framing of Presidential Wives, 1900-2001
On May 16, 1789, a grandmotherly figure bid farewell to her beloved home 
and set out on a journey that would change her life and influence the lives of many 
women to come. As she boarded her coach, Martha Washington was not just leaving 
the serenity of her private life behind, she was traveling into uncharted territory for 
most females, a journey into the public sphere and spotlight so long reserved for men 
and a handful of powerful women. In each town, people lined the streets to wave to 
her, while reporters joined the procession and followed Washington all the way to 
New York. Although Washington seemed overwhelmed by all of the attention, the 
press and the people apparently recognized the significance of her trip and the role 
she might play in the burgeoning nation. A story in the May 26, 1789, Pennsylvania 
and Daily Advertiser described the reaction of the crowd, noting that ?every 
countenance bespoke the feelings of affectionate respect.?
1
As the story of Washington?s trip indicates, the press and the American people 
have been fascinated with the first lady since the beginning of this nation?s history. 
Lewis L. Gould argues, ?These women offer a significant perspective on how their 
fellow citizens regard marriage, child rearing, women in society, and gender relations 
within the United States. . . . Americans have sensed that the wife of the president of 
the United States says something meaningful about the way the nation has chosen to 
organize its private and public affairs.?
2
 The institution of the first lady is a complex 
2
combination of contradictions. The position is not outlined in the Constitution, yet it 
has been a part of the American presidency since its inception. The institution has no 
set rules or guidelines, yet the first lady assumes important duties and faces high 
expectations.
3
 As such, the first lady institution is unique in that it forces its holders to 
straddle the public and private spheres.
4
 Katherine Prindiville suggests that, despite a 
clear position description, the job of being first lady is a matter of tradition probably 
more than any other U.S. institution. She explains, ?Over almost two hundred years, a 
handful of women have, by their personalities and performances, created that 
tradition. . . . And the very fact that they have included such a range of personalities 
has given the role a precious flexibility that allows each woman to adjust to her 
official situation in her own best way.?
5
 Part of that tradition includes a deep sense of 
ambivalence about the role. Gould asserts, ?The public expects the first lady to fulfill 
a multitude of roles flawlessly, and there is criticism at any departure from perceived 
standards. At the same time the criteria for success as a first lady constantly change as 
the public?s view of women evolves and develops.?
6
Over the years, first ladies have been asked to perform a variety of public and 
private roles, from that of hostess, escort, and noblesse oblige to advisor and 
policymaker.
7
 Because the first lady is a gendered role,
8
 there are social norms and 
expectations associated with the ?performance? of the position.
9
 The public nature of 
the position gives first ladies some latitude of performance in the public sphere, yet 
they must also conform to gender standards that reflect models of American 
womanhood that often equate women?s roles with the private sphere of home and 
family.
10
 Therefore, while the position has been shaped by the discourse and actions 
3
of each first lady and the multiple interpretations of the position throughout the years, 
those in the role have never had complete control over the construction of the position 
because of historical, social, and political constraints.  
Standing between the first lady and the public is the ever-present press, the 
Fourth Estate. Since very few people ever have direct contact with the first lady, the 
majority of the public?s information about the position comes from the press. The 
evolution of the position has undergone press scrutiny since the days of Martha 
Washington.
11 
However, Gould asserts that ?popular interest in the president and his 
family quickened after 1900,? thanks in large part to the media. He argues that mass-
circulation magazines and the emergence of human interest journalism fostered what 
some scholars have called ?the culture of celebrity,? in which first ladies are objects 
of curiosity and hence of press coverage.
12
 Throughout the years, the press has 
reported on everything from the first lady?s fashion sense to her political activities. It 
was also the press that popularized the title of ?first lady.?
13
 The press, thus, has 
played a significant role in constructing the first lady institution.  
While several scholars have studied the relationship between individual first 
ladies and the press, few have examined the journalistic constructions of the 
institution over time. Thus, I conducted a longitudinal study of select newspaper and 
magazine coverage of the first lady institution in the twentieth century, tracing the 
ways that journalists framed stories about the first lady position during different eras 
and the consequences of such framing. As a rhetorical critic, I am interested in 
analyzing these texts within their historical context,
14 
which requires an understanding 
of the history of the first lady institution, gender ideologies, women?s history, and 
4
journalism practices. As a feminist media critic and former journalist, I am also 
sensitive to the news writing process, particularly the journalistic practice of gendered 
news framing. The resulting study seeks to contribute not only to the growing body of 
scholarship on first ladies, but also to our understandings of women?s history, 
journalism history, and media theory.  
The First Lady Institution and the Media: Research Trends
Serious scholarly interest in first ladies is a fairly recent phenomenon, dating 
back to the mid-1980s with the work of researchers like Lewis Gould, Betty Boyd 
Caroli, Carl Sferrazza Anthony, Myra G. Gutin, and Robert P. Watson.
15
 Within this 
research tradition, the works that have looked specifically at first ladies and the media 
fall into three general categories: the relationship between first ladies and the media, 
media coverage of first ladies, and the consequences of first lady media coverage.   
The relationship between first ladies and the media has been shaped by a 
number of factors over the years, including the dispositions of the individual women 
holding the position, the social norms governing women?s publicity, the marketability 
of women?s news, and institutional structures regulating journalists? access to first 
ladies. As noted above, press coverage of first ladies dates back to Martha 
Washington. ?The continuing question for all First Ladies,? according to Gould, ?has 
been how to come to terms with this unrelenting attention??having every move 
watched and covered and considered news,? in the words of Lady Bird Johnson.?
16
The relationship between nineteenth-century first ladies and the press varied widely, 
in part because there were no guidelines for either first ladies or journalists to follow. 
Some first ladies attracted press coverage (both positive and negative) for their 
5
hostessing or their fashions, others actively sought publicity, and some avoided the 
press altogether.
17
 The emergence of publications targeting female readership in the 
mid- and late-nineteenth century, including women?s magazines and women?s pages 
in newspapers, helped to expand press coverage of the first lady institution. By 1900, 
articles about first ladies were regularly featured in the American press,
18
 facilitating 
the need to institutionalize the relationship between first ladies and the media. Edith 
Roosevelt hired the first social secretary, Belle Hanger, in 1902. Hanger?s 
responsibilities included preparing press releases about the Roosevelts and talking to 
the press on Roosevelt?s behalf, a practice that would eventually lead to the advent of 
spokespersons and press secretaries.
19
The next major innovation related to first lady press relations occurred during 
Eleanor Roosevelt?s tenure when she instituted the practice of holding regular press 
conferences with women reporters. During her first White House press conference, 
Roosevelt told the women assembled, ??Your job is an important one and if you want 
to see me once a week I feel I should be willing to see you. . . . You are the 
interpreters to women of the country as to what goes on politically in the legislative 
national life and also what the social and personal life is at the White House.??
20
 By 
limiting the press conferences to women journalists, Roosevelt gave them a shot at 
?choice news stories that their male counterparts could not acquire;? in turn, these 
reporters often ?protected the First Lady from tough questions and took potentially 
embarrassing answers off the record.?
21
 Roosevelt?s relationship with reporters was 
strengthened by her own journalistic endeavors that included writing a syndicated 
6
newspaper column, penning numerous magazine articles, and working as a radio 
commentator.
22
Roosevelt?s successors however were quick to abandon her approach to press 
relations. According to Gould, they moved instead ?toward a more managed and 
bureaucratized relationship with the media.?
23
 Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, and
Jacqueline Kennedy returned to the practice of relying on their social secretaries to 
keep women journalists informed and largely limited their personal contacts with 
reporters.
24
 While Kennedy was the first to have a staff member assigned specifically 
to dealing with the media, Lady Bird Johnson ?formalized the First Lady?s press 
operations with the naming of Elizabeth ?Liz? Carpenter as Press Secretary and Staff 
Director;? Johnson was also considered the most ?open and accessible? first lady 
since Eleanor Roosevelt.
25
 In the past forty years, press secretaries and their staffs 
have served as intermediaries between first ladies and journalists. As coverage of the 
first lady institution steadily increased throughout the twentieth century, so too have 
White House efforts to manage first ladies? relationships with the media.      
Media coverage of the first lady institution has evolved over the years, playing 
a significant role in shaping public expectations regarding the performance of the first 
lady position. Betty Houchin Winfield claims that ?the first lady has become a 
collective image, undefined when the country was founded, but framed by the 
media.?
26
 By focusing on the ritual, social, and ceremonial functions of the first lady, 
according to Winfield, ?the nation?s early press defined the first lady?s duties, with 
implications for social norms about the role of women in public life.?
27 
Such framing 
persisted throughout the twentieth century as journalists continued to define the 
7
?proper? roles for first ladies by scrutinizing performances of the first lady position. 
As Maurine H. Beasley notes, ?Both influencing and reflecting public opinion, they 
watch the performance of presidential spouses, measuring their success or failure by 
the media?s own standards.?
28
 Winfield identifies five categories journalists have 
historically used to frame first ladies? coverage and measure their performances: 
presidential escort, leader of social protocol, noblesse oblige, policymaker, and 
political advisor. The first three frames, which concern ?traditional? roles of ?an 
ideal, upper-middle-class American woman in a supportive, nurturing female 
capacity,? dominated first lady coverage well into the twentieth century. The 
?nontraditional? frames of policymaker and political advisor appeared more 
frequently toward the end of the twentieth century, often in critical news reports.
29
Recent studies analyzing first lady media coverage have largely supported 
Winfield?s contentions. Shawn J. Parry-Giles notes that mediated images of Clinton 
have been ?varied and at times antithetical,? ranging from ?career woman turned 
feared feminist, a sometimes all-powerful First Lady who becomes a more traditional 
?good mother,? and a ?stand by your man? wife who is victimized by a cheating 
husband.?
30
 Parry-Giles claims that as images shifted from nontraditional (?strong, 
independent feminist?) to traditional (?good mother and sympathetic wife?), Clinton?s 
public approval ratings increased. Erica Scharrer and Kim Bissell discovered a similar 
correlation between framing and political activity of first ladies. Using Winfield?s 
categories, their content analysis of print media coverage of Clinton, Barbara Bush, 
and Nancy Reagan revealed that the more politically active the first lady was, the 
more negative the tone of the coverage. Their study also found, however, that when 
8
the first lady acted in the more traditional roles of hostess and escort, media coverage 
was notably more positive.
31
 Liz Watts conducted a similar content analysis of 
magazine coverage of first ladies from Lou Hoover through Clinton. She discovered 
that magazine articles focused more on first ladies? social contributions than their 
political activities, which resulted in more positive coverage.
32
 By praising some 
performances of the first lady position and criticizing others, journalists construct 
boundaries that define ?proper? behavior for first ladies.  
Along with setting standards for first lady performance, media coverage over 
the years has had other consequences for the first lady institution. One outgrowth of 
the media?s fascination with first ladies is what Troy refers to as the first lady?s ?cult 
of celebrity.? According to Troy, ?With the rise of the national media, the president 
has become the nation?s celebrity-in-chief. . . . As the most famous man in America, 
his wife, his daughter, even his cat and dog, become role models for the nation.?
33
However, their celebrity status is often more of a curse than a blessing. As Gould 
explains, ?Being a First Lady . . . requires a woman to act, if she would succeed, as a 
mixture of queen, club woman, and starlet. Subject to unrelenting attention, expected 
to behave impeccably in every situation, and criticized from some quarter for 
substantive assertion, the wife of the president has all the prerequisites of stardom and 
the rewards of fame. What she is denied is genuine importance as an individual.?
34
Gould views celebrity as a trivializing process. Because first ladies ?live on 
display,?
35
 their individual agency is severely curtailed. Their every move is 
critiqued, and they often find that they can never please everyone.
36
9
The celebrity status of first ladies has led journalists to position them as ideal 
cultural embodiments of American womanhood. Watson explains, ?As the most
influential and scrutinized woman in the United States, the first lady also functions as 
a sort of barometer for the status of women in society and its shifting views of 
?womanhood.? Her roles, political activities, and treatment by the press and public 
reflect the status of women and the social expectations of women throughout U.S. 
history.?
37
 Caroli claims that ?individual First Ladies have reflected the status of 
American women of their time while helping shape the expectations of what women 
can properly do. They extend our understanding of how women participated in 
government in ways other than simply voting and holding office.?
38
 Because they are 
positioned as ?ideals? of American womanhood, journalists often expect first ladies to 
embody traditional gender roles while also reflecting the changing times. As Troy 
points out, the first lady is ?a throwback of a position with one high-heeled shoe 
firmly planted in the Victorian gentility of the nineteenth century and one sensible 
pump planted in the anything-goes hurly-burly of late twentieth- century American 
life.?
39
 Several scholars have examined this tension and the pressure placed on first 
ladies to live up to the expectations generated by being treated as models of 
womanhood. Leesa Tobin claims that Betty Ford?s work in the White House 
?demonstrated the tension that existed between the emergence of feminism and the 
persistence of traditional women?s roles.?
40
 Similarly, James G. Benze, Jr. argues that 
?the multiple roles of women in American society (homemaker and working woman) 
are reflected in the demands of First Ladies,?
41
 often resulting in double binds 
perpetuated by the press that result in ?no-win? situations for first ladies.
42
10
One area of scholarly study that warrants more attention is the intersection of 
publicity, power, and gender that occurs in media framing of the first lady institution. 
The press is the primary way that the ideas, images, and words of first ladies have 
historically moved into the public arena. First ladies become public women largely 
through the press, which details their public as well as private activities and circulates 
their images throughout the public sphere. Media historian Michael Schudson says 
that the press has always been ?a central institution of the public sphere? in the 
United States.
43
 Political figures, in particular, have long used the press as a vehicle 
for communicating with the American people, which some scholars have called 
?going public.?
44
 Mel Laracey, in his study of the partisan press of the 1800s, argues 
that newspapers are the ?forgotten way of going public,? noting that many 
presidential scholars have overlooked the important role the press has traditionally 
played in providing access to the public sphere.
45
Press coverage has always been a main avenue of ?going public? for first 
ladies, making them some of the first female public figures, and in some cases, 
political celebrities, exhibiting political agency in their own right. But ?going public? 
for women has always been a risky venture; gender ideologies based on the notion of 
separate spheres traditionally defined the public sphere as the domain of men. 
According to Glenna Matthews, ??public woman? in a positive sense was literally 
inconceivable, because there was no language to describe so anomalous a creature, 
yet ?public man? represented a highly valued ideal.?
46
 Positive press coverage of 
American first ladies helped to lessen the stigma of being a ?public woman? and 
legitimized women?s presence in the public sphere. Yet, because press coverage often 
11
focused on first ladies as wives, mothers, and homemakers, the same stories that 
constructed these women as public figures simultaneously reinforced the idea that 
women?s primary domain continued to be the home. While scholars have looked at 
first ladies as celebrities, they have not fully examined the role played by the press in 
constructing, or gendering, first lady celebrity. Nor have they considered the ways in 
which gendered media framing has both empowered and limited performances of the 
first lady position.
This study views press coverage of the first lady institution as a significant 
site of contestation over women?s private, public, and political roles throughout U.S. 
history. This analysis is unique in that it approaches the first lady institution from the 
perspective of the press, rather than using press accounts to supplement the 
construction of historical accounts of the first lady position. By examining press 
coverage between 1900 and 2001, the period in which a ?truly national media and a 
national audience displaced . . . a local public,?
47
 this study seeks to assess how the 
journalistic practice of gendered framing has shaped stories about the first lady 
institution over time, and the consequences of such framing for first ladies. Such an 
examination attends to matters including the women who make up the institution, the 
history and traditions of the position, the roles and duties performed by first ladies, 
the interpretations of the position, and the press and public?s expectations of the first 
lady.
48
Framing Gender, Memory, and Image in News Narratives
My study explores the intersection of journalism and gender ideologies that 
occurs in coverage of the first lady institution. Thus, several areas of media research, 
12
combined with a rhetorical understanding of narratives, collective memory, and 
image construction, provide a framework for this analysis. First, media framing 
theory serves as a basis for understanding how journalists construct news narratives. 
Second, feminist media theory helps illuminate the gendered aspects of journalistic 
framing. Finally, the interpretive nature of journalism, particularly the role that 
collective memory and image-making play in shaping news narratives, highlights the 
power of the press in constructing an institutional identity for the first lady position.
Despite long-held claims of objectivity on the part of journalists,
49
 media 
scholars argue that journalists use a technique known as ?framing? when writing 
stories. Frames are defined by Stephen D. Reese as ?organizing principles that are 
socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully 
structure the social world.?
50
 Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman elaborate 
further that, ?The metaphor of a frame?a fixed border that includes some things and 
excludes others?describes the way information is arranged and packaged in news 
stories.?
51
 Frames work, according to Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, by 
drawing upon the prior knowledge of individuals in order to explain and classify new 
information.
52
 Todd Gitlin asserts that, through framing, the news media ?specialize 
in orchestrating everyday consciousness?by virtue of their pervasiveness, their 
accessibility, their centralized symbolic capacity.?
53
 Framing scholars also believe 
that journalists do not simply mirror social standards, they also help create them. 
Gaye Tuchman argues that ?as newsworkers simultaneously invoke and apply norms, 
they define them. That is, notions of newsworthiness receive their definitions from 
moment to moment . . . news does not mirror society. It helps to constitute it as a 
13
shared social phenomenon, for in the process of describing an event, news defines 
and shapes the event.?
54
 Robert Entman explains it this way, ?To frame is to select 
some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating 
text.?
55
 Because of the pervasiveness of the news media, scholars are interested in the 
ways journalists frame people, issues, and events.
Studying media frames offers insight into how the media alternately reflect, 
constitute, and reify social reality. As a research perspective, the concept of framing, 
according to Entman, ?consistently offers a way to describe the power of a 
communicating text.?
56
 In a review of framing scholarship, Paul D?Angelo identifies 
three strains of framing research: critical, constructionist, and cognitive. Framing 
criticism, which is central to this study, identifies news frames and studies how 
framing shapes the resulting news product; the constructionist and cognitive 
approaches are primarily concerned with the effects of framing on audiences.
57 
D?Angelo explains that framing critics begin by pinpointing particular words and 
images, called ?discursive units,? in news stories. Scholars then focus their criticism 
on ?news values, discursive structures, and content formats that integrate the words 
and images of a news story into a frame.? The term ?framing device? is commonly 
used to denote the constitutive elements of news frames.
58
 Critics are interested in 
explicating how framing devices shape news narratives and the implications of such 
framing on the subjects of the news stories.
Attending to the constrictive value of frames, feminist media critics contend 
that gender is a primary framing device used by journalists. By employing social 
standards to frame news narratives, either consciously or unconsciously, journalists 
14
often reinforce so-called ?traditional? gender roles.
59
 Pamela J. Creedon argues, 
?There is precious little evidence to suggest that journalists have examined the 
cultural assumptions that lie beneath their own, their sources?, or the consensus 
interpretation of gender values.?
60
 The result, according to Cynthia Carter et al., is 
that the news media ?provide sexist judgments about women such that their 
subordinate status within patriarchal society is symbolically reinforced.?
61
 As Pippa 
Norris argues, ?journalists commonly work with gendered frames to simplify, 
prioritize, and structure the narrative flow of events when covering men and women 
in public life.?
62
 She claims that ?the heightened salience of gender politics on the 
American agenda means that news frames have become increasingly gendered on an 
explicit basis. That is, gender has come to be seen as a relevant peg for the story line 
whether covering candidates running for political office, voters at the ballot box, 
international leaders, or policy debates about welfare reform, abortion, and 
affirmative action.?
63
 When women are the subject of news narratives, gender is often 
the primary, if not the only, frame. Linda Witt, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna 
Matthews note that such ?framing can be an insidious, even when inadvertent, barrier 
to new ideas, as well as a potent drumbeater for both stereotypes and the status quo. 
Because we expect X, we see X.?
64
 Thus, gendered framing shapes how journalists 
construct narratives about women.
The news media?s notions of gender are drawn from competing ideologies 
that seek to define womanhood during particular historical moments.
65
 Gaye 
Tuchman notes, ?Dominant American ideas and ideals serve as resources for program 
development, even when the planners are unaware of them, much as we all take for 
15
granted the air we breathe. These ideas and ideals are incorporated as symbolic 
representations of American society.?
66
 In turn, James Carey argues that when gender 
becomes part of a news story, it becomes ?part of a culture described by a particular 
writer, class, power structure, or the like at a particular point in history.?
67
 The result 
is a symbolic construction of gender in which various ?ideals of American 
womanhood? emerge in the mass media.
68
The notion that there is such a thing as the ?ideal American woman? has 
persisted since the birth of this nation. However, gender ideals have evolved and 
shifted over the years in response to historical, political, and social forces. Also, 
different conceptions of the ?ideal American woman? have competed to define 
gender norms and roles. The common thread historically has been the construction of 
the ?ideal American woman? as white and upwardly mobile, particularly by the mass 
media, which seeks to appeal to the broadest possible audience.
69
But because gender 
is a fundamentally unstable construct,
70
 even the white, upwardly-mobile journalistic 
ideals include ?layers of internal inconsistencies and the co-existence of multiple 
gender meanings.?
71
 In addition, although journalists may promote a particular gender 
ideology, challenge to its ideals is possible through oppositional readings of 
messages. As Liesbet van Zoonen explains, media texts ?carry multiple meanings and 
are open to a range of interpretations, in other words news narratives are inherently 
polysemic.?
72
Such gendered framing, and framing in general, is directly tied to journalism?s 
reliance on narrative. Storytelling has always been an essential form of human 
communication, and journalism is a specialized form of storytelling.
73
 Journalists 
16
construct narratives that include characters, plots, and settings. Despite the 
obviousness of the narrative structure of news, journalists and journalism scholars 
have often overlooked or denied the importance of narrative.
74
 Barbie Zelizer, in her 
work on the interpretive nature of news, argues, ?While journalists have long 
discussed among themselves issues connected with narrative and storytelling?
questions about ?how to tell a news story,? distinctions between fact and fiction, 
stylistic and generic determinants and specific conventions of news presentation?
admitting to non-reporters a dependence on narrative practice seems to imply a lack 
of professionalism.?
75
 Cultural theorists have adopted the narrative paradigm as a way 
of understanding the interpretive nature of journalism. Michael Schudson contends 
that ?news is a form of literature? and that journalists work within ?the cultural 
tradition of story-telling and picture-making and sentence construction they inherit, 
with a number of vital assumptions about the world built in.?
76
 Media frames allow 
journalists to construct stories that not only ring true to their audiences, but are also 
compelling and engaging narratives about the world in which we live.
77
 Thus, the 
narrative structure of news illuminates the journalistic practice of framing as well as 
the rhetorical nature of news accounts. 
Because framing relies on organizing principles that are socially shared, 
journalists often draw on history to provide context for their narratives, linking 
journalism and collective memory. Zelizer argues, ?The shared past through which 
journalists discursively set up and negotiate preferred standards of action hinges on 
the recycling of stories about certain key events. Journalists become involved in an 
ongoing process by which they create a repertoire of past events that is used as a 
17
standard for judging contemporary action.?
78
 Journalists simultaneously draw from, 
reinforce and contribute to U.S. collective memory. Collective memory is described 
by John Bodnar as a ?body of beliefs about the past that help a public or society 
understand both its past and its present, and, by implication, its future.?
79
 According 
to Bruce Gronbeck, the rhetoric of collective memory operates by constructing 
symbolic bridges between the present and the past. He claims, ?A society?s collective 
memory is regularly reshaped by today?s interpreters so as to make it more useful in 
the present.?
80
 Thus, collective memory, like news framing, both reflects and 
constitutes a society?s values, beliefs, and attitudes. Zelizer connects framing and 
collective memory, noting that memory can be understood as ?a type of constructive 
activity, the enunciation of claims about the past through shared frames for 
understanding.?
81
 Through their power as an interpretive community,
82
 journalists 
help create social memory.
83
 By variously reflecting, creating, and framing collective 
memory, journalists have considerable influence over the social construction of 
ideologies such as those shaping institutions like the first lady.  
Since journalists must draw on historical and contemporary sources in 
constructing their narratives, framing often becomes a process of negotiation, 
especially when the subjects of news stories are aware of the importance of image-
making. Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair claim that 
presidents have always been concerned with constructing a favorable public image, 
but this concern has mutated over the years into what they term the ?image-is-
everything presidency? in which teams of consultants work to create a marketable 
image for the president. However, Waterman and his colleagues note that, while 
18
presidents and their partisan rivals try to define the president?s image, ?[A]n 
important intervening factor is the media?newspapers, magazines, and television,? 
which play ?an integral role in establishing the president?s image.?
84
 The same can be 
said of first ladies, who have increasingly sought, with the aid of staffers and 
consultants, to construct their public image. According to Gutin, ?the press plays a 
critical role in transmitting both the image and substance of a First Lady.?
85
 Winfield 
believes that first ladies have the most influence over their images when they develop 
a coherent strategy for dealing with the media, which includes controlling their 
photographic and video images, as well as their public statements.
86
 First ladies have 
faced the added challenge of representing for the press their gender as well as their 
office, and thus their images are tied to both the first lady institution and American 
womanhood. Karrin Vasby Anderson argues that ?first ladies become ?sites? for the 
symbolic negotiation of female identity. Discourses by and about first ladies function 
culturally to shape our notions of femininity and so both foster and constrain 
women?s agency.?
87
 Despite the growing complexities of image negotiations, 
journalists play a significant part in image construction because the practice of 
framing allows them to explain, interpret, and even deconstruct the images presented 
by first ladies and presidents.    
Print Media Coverage of the First Lady Institution in the Twentieth Century
Although television, radio, newsreels, and other media have all contributed to 
the journalistic construction of the first lady institution, this project examines articles 
about the first lady institution published in newspapers and women?s magazines 
between 1900 and 2001, centering exclusively on campaign years when press 
19
attention to first ladies grows more intensive.
88 
Newspapers and magazines are 
important sites of information because broadcast journalists tend to get their news 
from their print colleagues. As Schudson points out, ?Television news, even the 
national network news programs, are parasites of print. Rarely does a broadcast 
journalist pick up a story that newspapers and newsmagazines are not already on top 
of.?
89
 Print journalism, thus, has considerable power when it comes to constructing 
institutions such as that of the first lady and dictating the principle frames used by 
broadcast journalists.  
Analyzing print sources also provides a sense of continuity throughout the 
project. In terms of professional journalistic practice, the press, as we know it today, 
is very similar to its turn-of-the-century counterparts. According to Schudson, the 
?new model journalism,? which developed following the Civil War, popularized the 
interview, ?a colloquy between a reporter and a public person, designed explicitly and 
exclusively for a newspaper readership.?
90
 Significantly, the interview gave 
journalists the power to question public figures, as well as the power to decide what 
information would be included in the resulting story. Such interviews were then 
packaged into narrative form to attract readers, including ?leads? and the inverted 
pyramid style. Prior to this period, stories were often organized chronologically, 
resulting in laundry lists of information.
91
 Finally, women?s pages and successful 
mass market magazines targeted women and became staples of the print media in the 
late 1800s, increasing routine news media coverage of the first lady institution by the 
twentieth century.
92
20
Of particular interest will be the articles that appeared during presidential 
campaign years. Presidential campaigns are an ideal time to examine journalistic 
narratives about the first lady institution because they are moments in which the past, 
present, and future come together as Americans reconstitute themselves as a nation.
93
This study will examine articles written about the first lady institution during the 
period ranging from June of an election year, when the focus shifts away from the 
primaries to the national conventions and general election, through June of the 
following year.
94
 Specifically, the study will center on those articles that construct the 
first lady institution; this will include articles about former, current, and potential first 
ladies.
95
This study will center on two major newspapers, the New York Times and the 
Washington Post, and three mass market women?s magazines, Ladies? Home Journal, 
Good Housekeeping, and McCall?s. Both the New York Times and the Washington 
Post are considered national newspapers. Their stories are often reprinted in papers 
nationally, thus influencing audiences across the country.
96
 Because of their national 
status, both newspapers also employ reporters assigned to the White House press 
corps to cover campaigns full-time during election periods.
97
Ladies? Home Journal, 
Good Housekeeping, and McCall?s were selected because all three have consistently 
been among the most popular women?s magazines published throughout the twentieth 
century.
98
 Women?s magazines, because of their openly gendered content, serve as a 
counterpoint to mainstream newspapers, which have traditionally appealed to a 
broader audience despite the frequent relegation of first lady news to the women?s 
pages.
21
This study examines how gendered framing shaped print news coverage of the 
first lady institution in the twentieth century. Gendered framing draws on the various 
and often competing ideologies of American womanhood during particular historical 
moments, and in doing so guides the content of news narratives. The subjects of the 
stories often become representatives of social gender norms. I call this press practice 
personification framing, which is the positioning of a well-known individual as the 
embodiment of a particular ideological performance. A personification frame, thus, 
serves as an ideological short cut used by journalists to simplify, in the case of first 
ladies, the complexities of gender role performance, making such discussions easier 
to insert into news narratives. Personification framing allows journalists to reduce a 
gender ideology to a few key characteristics, circumventing the difficulty of dealing 
with complex ideologies in the limited space of a single news story. As Richard 
Schickel argues, ?reporters want to personify events and ideas, to find the individual 
who can conveniently symbolize an issue and thereby render it quickly and easily 
comprehensible;?
99
 first ladies have long served this purpose, simplifying the 
complexities of gender performance.
100 
Gendered framing also influences journalists? discussions of the institutional 
duties of first ladies in that the expectations regarding the roles these women perform 
are derived from the gender prescriptions that they personify. Such framing, which 
conflates the performance of institutional duties with gender performance, can be 
both empowering and constraining. Through press coverage, first ladies have been 
positioned as some of the first, and most visible, public women. By recognizing first 
ladies as public women, gendered celebrities, and in certain instances political 
22
activists or political interlopers, news framing moves them beyond the confines of the 
private sphere, even when they are portrayed primarily as wives, mothers, and 
homemakers, helping to simultaneously legitimize women?s presence in the public 
sphere while also limiting their influence therein. Meanwhile, in viewing women?s 
traditional domestic roles as newsworthy, the press acknowledges the important 
social role women play, even when their primary contributions may be confined to 
the home. Thus, media frames at times empower women, particularly within the 
domestic sphere. At the same time, the focus on domestic roles reinforces the idea of 
separate spheres, which constrains women?s public and political participation and 
creates double binds for women who seek to move beyond the boundaries set by 
gender prescriptions and media frames. Journalists? reliance on gendered framing in 
articles about the first lady institution highlights the complexities of gender and 
institutional performance.        
My analysis of press coverage of the first lady institution is divided into the 
following chapters. Chapter One provides the study?s historical context by examining 
the gendered press framing of the first lady institution prior to 1900. The gender 
ideologies of the nineteenth century, based on the concept of separate spheres, shaped 
journalists? framing of first ladies, which in turn aided the development of the first 
lady institution, with its series of duties, traditions, and expectations. In addition, 
press coverage made many of these first ladies nationally visible public figures during 
periods when women?s publicity was largely condemned. In some cases, such 
publicity was used to criticize a first lady, but in general, these women were 
positioned by the press as models of American womanhood. Combined, the gender 
23
ideologies of the nineteenth century, the duties of the first lady position, and the 
growing publicity surrounding first ladies provided the foundation for twentieth-
century press framing of the first lady institution.  
Chapter Two examines the news coverage of first ladies from 1900 to 1929. 
Beginning the analysis with the campaign of 1900 parallels the beginning of the 
modern era of American politics.
101
 This era saw the emergence of the first lady as 
public woman. The cultural debate of this era regarding women?s place in American 
society, coupled with the growing popularity of women?s magazines and women?s 
pages, heightened the publicity surrounding the first lady institution. In the press, the 
nineteenth century concept of true womanhood, which defined the home as woman?s 
proper sphere, competed with the new woman?s call for the expansion of women?s 
roles into the public sphere. While turn-of-the-century first ladies personified the 
ideals of true womanhood, their successors represented a balance between the true 
woman and the new woman, embodying the modern era?s version of the 
?superwoman.? Such gendered framing was used by journalists to explain the 
growing duties of the first lady institution and to legitimate the emergence of first 
ladies as public women, which played a significant role in normalizing women?s 
growing public presence and political activity.    
The impact of the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War, especially in 
relation to women?s roles, helped shape the news narratives about the first lady 
institution from 1932 to 1961 and are the focus of Chapter Three. The era was 
dominated by an ideology of domesticity that moved beyond the pages of women?s 
publications, pervading every aspect of private and public life. Women?s roles as 
24
wives, mothers, and household consumers were imbued with political significance, 
offering women a sense of domestic empowerment that helped recognize that the 
?personal is political? long before second-wave feminism. However, by limiting 
women to traditional roles, their political power was simultaneously contained to 
private sphere concerns, which would be pointed to as the root of the ?feminine 
mystique? by second-wave feminists. For the journalists covering the first lady, many 
of whom were women, the first ladies of this era embodied the domestic ideal, 
whether by personifying social feminism or Cold War domesticity. Thus, even 
Eleanor Roosevelt?s precedent-breaking performance of the first lady position was 
framed primarily as an extension of her role as a wife and homemaker. Yet such 
gendered framing and the rise of the first lady as public woman in the previous period 
led to the emergence of specific first ladies as gendered celebrities. As gendered 
celebrities, these first ladies served as models of women?s civic engagement, which 
ranged from Roosevelt?s volunteer and political activities to the Cold War 
consumerism of Mamie Eisenhower and Jacqueline Kennedy.           
Chapter Four looks at coverage from 1964 to 1977, in which the first lady 
institution became a site of contestation over women?s roles, reflecting the influence 
of the women?s liberation movement on press framing. Just as domesticity dominated 
the previous era, feminist ideals permeated discussions of women?s issues. In 
women?s magazines, the first ladies of this era, with the exception of Pat Nixon, 
embodied the contemporary (super)woman who successfully balanced home and 
family with a career and outside interests, thus supporting women?s liberation without 
rejecting domesticity. In contrast, Nixon represented the feminine mystique, which 
25
often resulted in critical coverage of her more ?traditional? performance of the first 
lady position. The increased public and political activities of these first ladies were 
also viewed through a feminist lens, particularly by women journalists, many of 
whom were sympathetic with the women?s movement, leading to the emergence of 
first ladies as political activists in press framing. Because their status as public 
women and gendered celebrities was now linked with their political activism, press 
scrutiny of first ladies increased during this period. In some articles, journalists used 
iconic first ladies, who personified historical gendered performances of the position, 
to gauge the activities of contemporary first ladies. Other stories reflected the 
ideological contestation over women?s roles that characterized this era, pitting activist 
women against their more traditional counterparts, which often resulted in a no-win 
situation for everyone involved. While the activist first ladies were judged to be too
influential, Nixon was criticized for not being influential enough. Such critiques of 
the performance of the first lady position began to evidence the double binds faced by 
these women and pointed to a growing backlash against the second-wave of feminist 
activity.  
Chapter Five examines the framing of the first lady institution from 1980 
through 2001. By the end of the century, Americans were still debating women?s 
?proper? place as ?family values? became a major campaign issue. The backlash 
against second-wave feminism saw the return of the Cold War domestic ideal and its 
baby boomer counterpart, new traditionalism, which were juxtaposed with the 
careerism of second-wave feminism, setting up a political catfight between 
candidates? wives. Media framing, which throughout the century had facilitated the 
26
emergence of first ladies as public women, gendered celebrities, and political 
activists, worked primarily in this era to establish boundaries that limited the 
gendered performance of the first lady position. Concerned with the ?hidden power? 
of first ladies, journalists framed political wives who overstepped the boundaries of 
first lady and gender performance as political interlopers whose influence allegedly 
trespassed too far into the male political sphere. Drawing on iconic first ladies as 
boundary markers and the double binds that developed in the previous era, gendered 
media framing worked to contain wives who were perceived to be political 
interlopers. In particular, Hillary Rodham Clinton, before she even moved into the 
White House, aroused age-old fears of the sexualized public woman who refused to 
be contained and thus was a danger to her husband and her community. 
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, gendered framing continues to 
influence the coverage of the first lady institution. In the 2004 presidential campaign, 
gendered framing has juxtaposed the candidates? wives. Displaying the reluctance of 
Edith Roosevelt and drawing favorable comparisons to Mamie Eisenhower, 
journalists praise current first lady Laura Bush for her ?more traditional? performance 
of the position. In contrast, journalists compare the ?outspoken? Teresa Heinz Kerry 
to Hillary Rodham Clinton, framing her as a potential political interloper who refuses 
to ?stay on script? and be contained within the gendered and mediated boundaries of 
proper first lady performance. Using the current coverage of Bush and Kerry as a 
framework, the Afterword will reflect on the implications generated by this study of 
gendered framing, for the first lady institution, for journalists, and for political 
women. In the end, this study demonstrates first ladies? unquestionable presence in 
27
the public sphere through press framing; such framing likewise reveals the visible 
boundaries that still persist for first ladies? involvement in the political sphere. 
Throughout the twentieth century, the press provided first ladies with a forum 
for becoming public women, gendered celebrities, political activists, and political 
interlopers. Their entrance into the public sphere via the media made first ladies 
among the first, and most visible, political women. Through their publicity, and as 
role models for American women, first ladies helped to legitimate women?s 
participation in the public and political spheres long reserved for men. Their status as 
media figures empowered them with varying levels of influence. These women were 
granted the latitude to perform in the political sphere, provided that they confined 
their interests to issues affecting women and children. When first ladies were 
suspected of violating these boundaries, press criticism that framed them as political 
interlopers helped to contain them. The roots of such gendered media framing reach 
back to the earliest coverage of the first lady institution, back to Martha Washington?s 
1789 journey.    
28
Chapter One
Representations of Womanhood in the American Press, Pre-
1900
By the time Martha Washington reached the final leg of her journey from 
Mount Vernon to New York City, it appears she had become accustomed to seeing 
her name in the newspapers. On May 27, 1789, she boarded a forty-seven-foot 
presidential barge in Elizabethtown, New Jersey that carried her to Manhattan. In a 
letter to her niece, she noted that ?the paper will tell you how I was complemented on 
my landing.?
1
 But within weeks, anti-Federalist papers were criticizing rather than 
complimenting the president?s wife. Soon after Washington arrived, she settled into a 
schedule of weekly social engagements, including Friday evening receptions that she 
hosted. As Carl Anthony notes, Republican papers were quick to refer to the 
gatherings as ??court-like levees?? and ??queenly drawing rooms.??
2
 In a time when 
an accusation of royalist leanings was the ultimate insult, these comments were 
designed to incite the ire of Federalists.  
Newspaper criticism of Washington would eventually become a campaign 
issue. Catherine Allgor explains that in 1792, Thomas Jefferson, through the 
Republican newspaper the National Gazette, ?launched a six-month campaign against 
the Washington administration by attacking these events, especially Martha?s levees.? 
Jefferson directly charged the president?s wife with acting ??too queenly,?? in private 
and in print. Allgor asserts, ?Though ostensibly a private lady, Martha bore the brunt 
of the criticism. Republicans lambasted her levees as ?tending to her a supereminancy 
and as introducing the paraphernalia of the courts.??
3
 Martha Washington was no 
29
stranger to press coverage, and the stories about her would help establish a continuing 
relationship between presidents? wives and the press.    
As one of the most visible women in America, the first lady has always been a 
popular topic of press accounts.
4
 For many journalists, the first lady position has 
become a barometer for measuring the shifting ideals of American womanhood. The 
first lady position is unique in that it calls upon women to perform the private sphere 
roles of wife and mother in the public spotlight, making these women public figures.
5
The position also affords its holders an avenue for public and political participation.
6
Thus, it is not surprising that journalists have consistently employed gender ideals in 
their framing of the first lady institution.  
The news media are one social institution that helps shape gender norms and 
roles. Media critic Gaye Tuchman argues, ?Americans learn basic lessons about 
social life from the mass media. . . . For our society, like any other society, must pass 
on its social heritage from one generation to the next.?
7
 The mass media, according to 
Tuchman, are particularly influential in teaching American ideals of gender through 
their representation of sex-role stereotypes. These are ?portrayals of sex-appropriate 
appearance, interests, skills, behaviors, and self-perceptions. They are more stringent 
than guidelines in suggesting persons not conforming to the specified way of 
appearing, feeling, and behaving are inadequate as males or females.? Through their 
representations of gender in practices such as framing, journalists play an important 
role in shaping how Americans understand womanhood.
8 
At the same time, the ideals of American womanhood have never been static. 
The status and social expectations of women have fluctuated between traditions 
30
rooted in the past and the progress of the present; these contradictions are reflected in 
press coverage of women, particularly first ladies. Joanne Meyerowitz argues that 
?mass culture is rife with contradictions, ambivalence, and competing voices. We no 
longer assume that any text has a single, fixed meaning for all readers, and we 
sometimes find within the mass media subversive, as well as repressive, potential.?
9
Because the first lady position straddles the public and private spheres, its mediated 
construction serves as a site of contestation over the ideals of American womanhood. 
As Karrin Vasby Anderson puts it, ?Historically, first ladies have functioned as 
?symbols? of traditional white middle- to upper-class femininity in America, a 
condition that has both constrained and empowered them.?
10  
The gender ideologies that developed during the nineteenth century impacted 
the representations of American womanhood that appeared in newspapers and 
magazines, which in turn influenced the performance of the first lady institution. First 
ladies, because of their role, were nationally visible public figures during periods 
when women?s publicity was condemned.
11
 Sometimes their publicity was turned 
against them, making first ladies targets of harsh criticism; in other times, their public 
role was justified as a requirement of their position. Regardless of the discourse?s 
tone, first ladies were granted access to rhetorical spaces, in this case the pages of 
newspapers and magazines, closed to most women.
12
 The gender ideologies of the era 
were routinely employed by journalists to frame their stories about first ladies. What 
resulted is one of the many paradoxes of the first lady institution. Journalists used the 
first lady?s status as a public figure to construct her as a model of American 
31
womanhood; such a focus, though, often promoted the home as woman?s proper 
place, far away from the public spotlight.  
This chapter has three goals. The first is to outline the gender ideologies that 
influenced definitions of womanhood throughout the 1800s and well into the 
twentieth century. Second, this chapter traces the development of the first lady 
institution, which foreshadows the roles and expectations of twentieth-century first 
ladies. Finally, press coverage of first ladies prior to 1900 is also discussed, with an 
emphasis on the gendered frames that continue to characterize coverage of the first 
lady institution. These three elements provide a foundation for the analysis in the 
following chapters of news framing of the first lady institution in the twentieth 
century. The following historical periods roughly coincide with shifts in gender 
ideologies, which impacted the performance and coverage of presidential wives.
The Era of Republican Motherhood and Parlor Politics, 1789 ? 1833
Women played a significant role in the American Revolution, and continued 
to shape the new nation, albeit from a position that has long been devalued. As Linda 
Kerber notes, ?Like most women in preindustrial societies, eighteenth-century 
American women lived in what might be called a woman?s domain. Their daily 
activities took place within a feminine, domestic circle.?
13
 The notion of a woman?s 
domain, a separate sphere that is private, physically located in the home, and 
constructed in opposition to the public domain of man, can be traced back to Aristotle 
and has been used over the years to define, describe, and critique women?s place in 
society.
14
 The concept of separate spheres has informed the gender ideologies 
defining American womanhood since the revolutionary era, simultaneously 
32
constraining and empowering women. This paradox can be seen in the ideology of 
republican motherhood and the role of parlor politics in the fledgling Republic.             
Republican Motherhood and Parlor Politics
Women?s participation in the revolution disrupted the barrier between the 
male political world and female domestic realm;
15
 the ideology of republican 
motherhood ?was an effort to bring the older version of the separation of spheres into 
rough conformity with the new politics that valued autonomy and individualism.?
16
Kerber argues that republican motherhood, which emphasized women?s moral 
influence on men and ascribed importance to their maternal role, ?recognized that 
women?s choices and women?s work did serve larger social and political purposes, 
and that recognition was enough to draw the traditional women?s ?sphere? somewhat 
closer to men?s ?world.?? But, she points out, the ideology rejected the feminist stance 
that ?claimed for women a direct connection with republican political life? and 
instead upheld the conventional separation of spheres.
17
 For example, republican 
motherhood promoted at least a basic education for females; however, girls were 
taught to read and write in order to ?prepare them for their role as mothers of the next 
generation of citizens.?
18
 While access to education empowered women, the ideology 
imposed limits on that power by linking education to motherhood and containing 
women?s knowledge within the private sphere, hence the paradox of republican 
motherhood.       
Because republican motherhood and the notion of separate spheres recognized 
the home as a woman?s domain, American women, particularly political wives, would 
play a key role in building the new nation. According to Allgor, America?s founders 
33
?had not yet developed a clear delineation between a private sphere of home, 
emotion, and family and a public sphere of office, bureaucracy, and business.? 
Because of this, ??work? happened in all arenas of life, especially in a town such as 
Washington. In a government with little mandated structure, the unofficial sphere 
proved as crucial as the official one.?
19
 Social events served as ?both private events 
and political arenas, often at the same time,? and since women assumed the role of 
hostess within the home, they were key players in the ?parlor politics? of the new 
Republic.
20
 Allgor argues that, ?in a republican culture that frowned upon official 
men engaging in such old-fashioned aristocratic politicking, women assumed more 
responsibility for creating the political machine and keeping its operations smooth.?
21
Thus, hostessing was both a political and social role. Because hostessing was the 
province of women, they also bore the responsibility of balancing republican 
simplicity with the status symbols associated with aristocracy. This powerful position 
of post-revolutionary women has often been overlooked by scholars because of its 
association with the feminine domestic realm.
22
Early first ladies found themselves in positions that were infused with political 
significance, but the roles they played were often devalued or criticized. The ideology 
of republican motherhood and the importance of parlor politics in the new Republic 
were influential in the development of the first lady institution, and its resulting press 
coverage.
The Birth of the First Lady Institution
When Martha Washington joined her husband in New York, she knew that 
she would be helping her husband in his latest venture, but there was no blueprint to 
34
follow in determining the extent of her responsibilities.
23
 While the duties of the 
president were detailed in the Constitution, there was no mention of the role of the 
president?s wife.  Robert P. Watson claims that the tenure of Washington and other 
early first ladies ?shaped the institution as a public ceremonial office that was 
responsible for social functions and hosting formal affairs of state.?
24
The six 
presidential wives of this era, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington (1789-1797), 
Abigail Smith Adams (1797-1801), Dolley Payne Todd Madison (1809-1817), 
Elizabeth Kortright Monroe (1817-1825), Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams (1825-
1829), and Rachel Donelson Robards Jackson (1828),
25
 learned quickly that their 
private lives were now public record, and that they were expected to perform a 
variety of roles, including hostess, presidential helpmate, and public figure.
26
As noted earlier, the parlor politics of hostessing played an important role in 
the formative years of the United States. Allgor argues that the female relatives of 
political leaders, like those of farmers and shopkeepers, ?participated in the family 
business?in this case, however, the family business was politics.?
27
 Social events 
served both private and political functions. According to Allgor, ?Men could maintain 
public virtue in the official sphere while working cooperatively and politically behind 
the scenes,? while women ?used a veil of respectability to work aggressively toward 
their political goals.?
28
 Of the early first ladies, Dolley Madison and Louisa Catherine 
Adams were particularly adept at social politicking. Madison, whose social events 
received universally high praise, was successful because of ?her ability to combine 
republican simplicity with federalist high style.? Allgor says, ?[S]he created a public 
space for the executive that reassured both Federalists and Republicans, while 
35
impressing European visitors and officials with the sophistication of the new 
nation.?
29
 But even Madison at times faced criticism, what Patricia Brady calls the 
?damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don?t factor, the hypercritical attention lavished 
on every aspect of presidential entertainment?too lavish, too formal, too free.?
30
Washington social events were heavily covered by the partisan editors, who 
recognized their political importance.  
The behind-the-scenes activities of presidential wives were also of interest to 
the press. According to Watson, early spouses ?forged a role as confidant and 
informal advisor to the president on political matters.?
31
 All of the women of this era 
accepted the notion that their role as helpmates involved duties that impacted their 
husbands? job performance, supporting scholars? claims that the presidency is a two-
person career.
32
 Because the presidential workplace and residence were one in the 
same, notes Betty Boyd Caroli, wives had to be familiar with politics, ?With a 
husband who ?worked at home,? she could not, as John Quincy Adams? wife, Louisa, 
liked to point out, escape knowing something about his job?who supported him and 
who opposed.?
33
 This knowledge was essential in social politicking, and positioned 
wives as partners in their husbands? political careers.
34
 Their political influence was 
often tempered by the republican motherhood notion that these women were serving 
as helpmates to their husbands rather than political actors in their own right, keeping 
their actions safely contained within the private realm. Such ideological limitations on 
their influence, however, did not prevent the occasional critique that wives wielded 
too much power. Regardless of how their performance was viewed, the helpmate and 
36
hostess roles made first ladies more visible publicly, especially when their activities 
were reported in the press.  
Washington realized during her journey to New York, as she attracted crowds 
of well-wishers and newspapermen, that she had become a public figure. According 
to Watson, ?From that moment Lady Washington responded to her public celebrity 
and thus fulfilled an important role within the first presidency, one that gave further 
credibility to her position, the presidency, and the new nation.?
35
 The press and public 
promoted the status of these early presidential wives as public figures by treating 
these women as newsworthy. Early first ladies were among the most visible women 
in the country, attracting press attention in a period when stories about women rarely 
appeared in partisan newspapers. However, because the press was not yet a mass 
media, first ladies? publicity was often limited to the elite readers of partisan 
publications.    
These women recognized that, paradoxically, the publicity and political 
considerations of their public role placed severe constraints on their private lives and 
personal expression. Presidents? wives were scrutinized by both political rivals and 
supporters, as well as by the partisan press. In a letter to her niece, Washington 
complained, ?I think I am more like a state prisoner than anything else, there is 
certain bounds set for me which I must not depart from?and as I can not doe [sic] as 
I like I am obstinate and stay at home a great deal.?
36
 Abigail Adams, who called the 
position a ?splendid misery,? noted, ?I have been so used to freedom of sentiment that 
I know not how to place so many guards about me, as will be indispensable, to look at 
every word before I utter it, and to impose a silence upon myself, when I talk.?
37
37
Thus, despite being among the most recognizable women of their era, early first 
ladies? voices were often stifled by their status. The silence of these women gave 
considerable power to the partisan press to construct their images and interpret the 
?proper? role of the president?s wife.    
Partisan Press Framing of the First Lady Institution
The press of this era was characterized by its partisan nature. Editors believed 
their purpose was to win supporters for a particular political viewpoint; they 
published news from a political standpoint, defending the party?s view and attacking 
opponents,
38
 while politicians sought out sympathetic editors to publicize their 
arguments.
39
 Stories featuring women rarely appeared in partisan publications, which 
according to Karen List is not surprising given women?s absence from politics and 
partisan papers? emphasis on political information.
40
 In her study of several major 
partisan era publications, List found that when women appeared in stories, they were 
usually portrayed as victims, ?most likely of men from the opposing political party, 
but also of criminals and even the weather. Women were killed, raped, pillaged, made 
to work as prostitutes, beaten and terrified.?
41
 The rare stories that discussed women 
asserting themselves in public were critical of their actions, often labeling them as 
?public women? or ?Jezebels.? According to Glenna Matthews, ?public woman? was 
an ?epithet for one who was seen as the dregs of society, vile, unclean? and to be a 
public woman ?in any of the several senses of the term?was to risk the accusation of 
sexual impropriety.?
42
 List argues that the partisan press employed a notion of 
separate spheres that constrained women?s roles, ?Women?s sphere as conceptualized 
by the periodicals was a physical space?the home?where women were to play a 
38
limited role not created by them but assigned to them by men.?
43
 In the process, List 
notes that partisan editors often employed the rhetoric of republican motherhood as a 
way to promote the concept of separate spheres, ?The periodicals became voices of 
authority in terms of disseminating a new conception of woman?s role?one that kept 
her in the home but elevated the significance of what she did there.? Republican 
motherhood recognized that women contributed to civic life by instilling democratic 
values in their children.
44
Gender ideology converged with journalism ideology in the framing of first 
ladies, whose positions made their private lives of interest to the press. As noted 
earlier, partisan editors were primarily interested in promoting a particular political 
ideology by supporting their allies and attacking the opposition. List argues that 
?[w]omen in the newspapers were simply used for the editors? own political purposes, 
considered secondary and subservient?
45
 rather than as political actors in their own 
right. The press framing of first ladies between 1789 and 1833 exemplifies the debate 
over woman?s place in the new Republic. Early presidents? wives were generally 
represented in one of three ways: as queens, as republican mothers, or as ?Jezebels.? 
Each of these press constructions reflects the politics and gender ideologies of the 
period. Even stories about first ladies? fashions were imbued with political 
significance during the partisan era. The coverage of these early presidential wives 
began to shape the institutional memory of the first lady position.
46
Depending on the political perspective of the editor, treating the first lady as 
queen was a frame through which presidents? wives could be praised or attacked.    
Because partisan era editors did not have a template to follow for covering the first 
39
lady position, many treated the president?s wife as a queen. According to Anthony, 
Federalist editor John Fenno institutionalized the practice of referring to Washington 
as ??Lady Washington,?? a title he bestowed on all society females.
47
 But Republican 
editors were quick to criticize the use of royal titles, pointing to ?Lady Washington? 
as an exemplar of the monarchical leanings of the Federalists.
48
 Watson notes that 
Abigail Adams was criticized to an even greater degree than Washington for being a 
royalist, and was often referred to as ??Her Majesty?? by Republican editors.
49
 Dolley 
Madison was lovingly called the ??Queen of Hearts,?? but her successor, Elizabeth 
Monroe, was accused of suffering from ??queen fever.??
50
 Monroe?s preference for all 
things French, including her clothing and the furniture in the newly redecorated 
White House, was criticized in the press as a sign of aristocratic airs.
51
 Anthony 
asserts that, during her time in the White House, Louisa Catherine Adams was 
criticized by the Jacksonian press for living in ??regal magnificence.?? Adams fought 
back, writing a detailed account of her life, which appeared in the June 1827 issue of 
Mrs. A.S. Colvin?s Weekly Messenger, making her the first president?s wife to openly 
write for a publication.
52
Partisan editors often employed the royalty frame when discussing social 
events.  Early first ladies sought to establish a ?Republican Court? that balanced royal 
dignity and republican simplicity.
53
 As noted earlier, Washington?s levees became a 
target of partisan press criticism for awkwardly imitating European court receptions.
54
Allgor claims that Madison was the first to develop a style that appeased both 
Federalists and Republicans. Many of her early drawing rooms were advertised and 
reported on in newspapers.
55
 According to Anthony, Madison?s ?republican court? 
40
was national news, ?Intelligencer stories about her wit, fashions, and parties were 
read across the young nation, by men and women alike.? Even anti-Madison 
publications at times carried flattering accounts of her popular receptions.
56
 As Allgor 
states, the press? royal treatment of Madison?s events helped to make republicanism, 
?with its particularly ideological and abstract ideals of manners, into a working 
reality? for Americans.
57
Even the fashion choices of first ladies had political significance during the 
partisan era. Like European royalty, first ladies were held up as trendsetters by the 
partisan press, and editors often connected their popularity to their husbands? political 
fortunes. Watson declares that the first lady ?is a social and cultural trendsetter, and 
what she wears, how she styles her hair, and what she chooses to do often ignite a 
popular following.?
58
 Madison?s turbans became a national fashion craze, thanks in 
part to their descriptions in press accounts.
59
 She was also the first president?s wife to 
grace a magazine cover, offering Americans a visual representation of the popular 
first lady.
60
 Monroe?s French gowns were often described in detail by partisan editors, 
many of whom criticized her regal tastes.
61
 In contrast, Federalist papers praised 
Washington?s decision to wear American-made garments, touting her as a model of 
republican values for supporting her country rather than coveting the latest European 
fashions.
62
 Coverage of first ladies as trendsetters helped to establish them as 
recognizable public figures.
The first ladies of this era not only circulated in the public sphere via press 
coverage, but they also engaged in volunteerism, one of the few public activities 
deemed appropriate for women.
63
 Partisan editors often used the values associated 
41
with republican motherhood to frame first ladies? volunteerism, a topic that received 
limited coverage during this period. Stories about Washington frequently mentioned 
how she helped care for her husband?s troops during the Revolutionary War, and 
noted her continuing support of veterans? causes as a symbol of her patriotism.
64
Madison was the first to have her volunteerism covered extensively by the press.
65
She served as the ?First Directress? of the newly founded Washington Female Orphan 
Asylum, donating a cow and twenty dollars to the cause as well as making clothes for 
the orphans. Allgor notes, ?Extensive publicity, not usually associated with female 
activities, surrounded the effort from the start.? The National Intelligencer regularly 
advertised the organization?s meetings and fundraisers. The press covered the 
opening of the asylum, and then continued to report on its progress in raising 
money.
66
 Volunteerism was sanctioned by the press as an acceptable public sphere 
activity for women because it reflected the domesticity and patriotism of the 
republican motherhood ideal. In other words, volunteering was a way for women to 
extend their maternal caretaking skills beyond the home. This type of press coverage 
would continue as first ladies adopted various volunteer and social advocacy projects, 
and the publicity surrounding such activities would help to expand women?s presence 
in the public spotlight.
However, because women?s publicity was generally frowned upon, first 
ladies? status as public women was sometimes used against them. Campaign coverage 
during the partisan era was often extremely negative, and several presidential wives 
found themselves at the center of political scandals in which they were cast as 
?Jezebels.?
67
 Anthony states that during her husband?s presidential campaigns, the 
42
anti-Madison press circulated ?lewd rumors of a scandalously graphic nature,? 
claiming that Dolley Madison was Thomas Jefferson?s mistress. Editors charged that 
the Madisons were childless because James was impotent and Dolley was oversexed. 
Other stories implied that Madison ?had relations? with Democrats who could deliver 
electoral votes.
68
 During the campaign of 1828, the Adamses were accused of having 
pre-marital relations by Jacksonian editors.
69
 These charges were minor, though, 
compared to the attacks leveled by the pro-Adams press against Rachel Jackson. 
During the campaign of 1824, word began to spread that Jackson was still married to 
her abusive first husband when she married Andrew in 1791.
70
 While many were 
aware of the situation, it did not become a major campaign issue until 1828.  By then, 
Anthony reveals that Jackson was called a ??bigamist,?? ??an American Jezebel,?? ??a 
convicted adulteress,?? and ??a profligate woman?? in pamphlets and the press.
71
Jackson went on to win the election, but Rachel suffered a heart attack just before 
Christmas. Allgor notes, ?Rumor held that the slanders of the campaign had brought 
on Rachel?s death, shocking and shaming the Washington community, who had been 
joking for months about the country woman smoking her pipe in the White House 
drawing room.?
72
The partisan press established a template for covering the first lady that 
continues to frame coverage of the institution. As List asserts, ?The groundwork for 
the media?s depiction of women was laid in the 1790s, almost sixty years before the 
women?s movement began, and the media since that time have often conveyed the 
same thinking on women?s place that appeared in these publications 200 years ago.?
73
However, the social upheaval of the following era would also impact the ways in 
43
which journalists framed the first lady position. The Jacksonian era is credited with 
ushering in a new democratic ideology that championed the common man
74
 while at 
the same time further diminishing the political activity of American women.
75
Meanwhile, conflicting notions of American womanhood competed to define 
women?s roles. While the true womanhood ideology intensified the concept of 
separate spheres, the fledgling woman?s rights movement advocated expansion of 
women?s participation in the political sphere. These very different ideals of 
womanhood impacted the performance of the first lady position and the framing of 
the first lady institution.      
The Emergence of True Womanhood and Woman?s Rights, 1833 ? 1865
The notion of separate spheres continued to inform gender ideology.  
Republican motherhood remained salient, particularly during the Civil War, but the 
emerging ?cult of true womanhood? dominated discussions of woman?s roles during 
this era, particularly in publications targeting female readers. However, the sweeping 
social and political changes of this period drew many women into the public sphere 
and eventually led to the development of the woman?s rights movement, whose early 
leaders promoted a gender ideology that directly challenged the separation of spheres.      
Defining Women?s Proper Place
The ideology identified by Barbara Welter as the ?cult of true womanhood? 
first appeared in the 1820s. With its cardinal virtues of piety, purity, domesticity, and 
submissiveness, true womanhood was based on a strict separation of the public and 
private spheres.
76
 Karlyn Kohrs Campbell offers this description: ?Man?s place was 
the world outside the home, the public realm of politics and finance. . . . Woman?s 
44
place was home, a haven from amoral capitalism and dirty politics, where ?the heart 
was,? where the spiritual and emotional needs of husband and children were met by a 
?ministering angel.??
77
 Carl M. Degler notes that women were often referred to as 
?angels of the house? because of their role as moral guardians of the family.
78
 Collins 
believes that true womanhood ?was attractive to many Americans in the pre-Civil 
War era because it emphasized safety and control.?
79
 However, many feminist 
scholars have viewed true womanhood as an ideology that ?controlled women and 
narrowed their options.?
80
 Mary P. Ryan argues that, because of true womanhood?s 
strict separation of spheres, republican motherhood lost its political importance 
during the antebellum era, ?By popularizing the notion of a separate female sphere of 
discourse and social practice, the antebellum cult of domesticity distanced vital civic 
concerns, as well as issues of specific interest to women, from the world of open 
public debate.?
81
 True womanhood also constrained women?s rhetorical activities and 
agency. According to Campbell, ?femininity and rhetorical action were seen as 
mutually exclusive. No ?true woman? could be a public persuader.?
82
 Women who did 
speak or act in public risked their reputations, unless they could prove how their 
actions were sanctioned by true womanhood.    
While true womanhood worked to confine women to the home, it also 
afforded women a certain level of authority within their sphere of influence. Women 
were viewed as the moral superiors of men, and they were entrusted with the spiritual 
health of their families, an idea that would eventually justify women?s public 
involvement in moral reform and benevolent organizations.
83
 When Alexis de 
Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, he observed that ?although the 
45
women . . . are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation 
is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen women 
occupying a loftier position.?
84
 Matthews claims that, in the mid-1800s, true 
womanhood had a ?favorable impact on women? because ?for the first time in 
American history, both home and woman?s special nature were seen as uniquely 
valuable.?
85
 Domesticity was viewed as an alternative to patriarchy, and was 
legitimized as a social force, both inside and outside the home.
86
Volunteerism also expanded during this era, engaging more women from 
various social classes in public sphere activity. In the antebellum era, ?women were 
organized into thousands of societies for charitable purposes and a certain number for 
more controversial reforms like abolition.?
87
 These benevolent organizations gave 
women experience in leadership, organizing, fundraising, and financial management, 
as well as offering a network of female acquaintances.
88
 They also helped to 
neutralize the negative connotations associated with women acting outside of the 
private sphere.
89
 The moral reform movement was one of the first to be ?successfully 
initiated and controlled by women.? A. Cheree Carlson argues that these women 
?used skillful casuistic stretching of the feminine ideal to justify taking non-
traditional action in the name of traditional values.?
90
 Likewise, Carol Smith 
Rosenberg asserts that moral reformers were ?the first American women to challenge 
their completely passive, home-oriented image.?
91
 Many female abolitionists also 
drew on the religious elements of true womanhood to justify their public sphere 
activities. During the Civil War, the United States Sanitary Commission, staffed 
primarily by women, ?performed a critical role in providing food and medical 
46
services for the soldiers.? Meanwhile, Southern women created similar organizations 
dedicated to the war effort.
92
 The number of voluntary associations exploded 
following the Civil War, as women increasingly sought activities that took them out 
of the home.      
Women?s experiences in the abolitionist movement, particularly the obstacles 
they faced as public women, led to the formation of the woman?s rights movement. 
At the first Woman?s Rights Convention, held July 19
th
, 1848, Elizabeth Cady 
Stanton read the ?Declaration of Sentiments,? which called for a number of reforms, 
including marriage law reform, property rights, and suffrage for women.
93
 Early 
leaders, including Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Angelina Grimke, 
promoted a natural rights philosophy which viewed women and men as equals,
94
 a 
viewpoint that contradicted true womanhood. After the Civil War, when the 
Fourteenth Amendment added the word ?male? to the Constitution in relation to 
citizenship and voting rights, movement leaders focused their energies on the suffrage 
issue. The presence of an active woman?s movement challenged not only laws, but 
the gender ideologies that dictated women?s roles in society.
95
 These competing 
ideals of public versus private womanhood can be seen in the performances of the 
first lady position during this era.  
The Antebellum First Lady Institution
Most of the presidential wives of this era were less active and less influential 
than either their predecessors or successors. As a result, Watson notes, ?The roles and 
responsibilities during this time were not expanded, and the institution was much less 
visible than it was during the earlier period.?
96
 Ten different presidents served 
47
between 1833 and 1865. Two of them, Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) and his 
successor Martin Van Buren (1837-1841), were widowers. Another, James Buchanan 
(1857-1861), was a bachelor. Five presidential wives claimed poor health and 
delegated their first lady duties to stand-ins, including Anna Tuthill Symmes Harrison 
(1841), Letitia Christian Tyler (1841-1842), Margaret Mackall Smith Taylor (1849-
1850), Abigail Powers Fillmore (1850-1853), and Jane Means Appleton Pierce (1853-
1857).
97
  The remaining first ladies of this era, Julia Gardiner Tyler (1844-1845), 
Sarah Childress Polk (1845-1849), and Mary Todd Lincoln (1861-1865), accepted 
their role and the inevitable publicity that went along with being first lady. This 
period was influential in the development of the institution, despite the limited 
expansion of the first lady?s roles. Elizabeth Lorelei Thacker-Estrada argues that 
antebellum first ladies ?helped to establish a ?traditional? approach to the office, that 
of a publicly passive and seemingly nonpolitical first lady,?
98
 a performance which 
reflected the true womanhood ideology.    
The more publicly active antebellum first ladies, Tyler, Polk, and Lincoln, 
continued to play the roles of hostess and helpmate established by early first ladies. 
All three women were recognized for their hostessing, and sought to use social events 
to garner support for their husbands, as their predecessors had done. The youthful 
Tyler was well aware of the importance of both image-making and parlor politics; in 
her brief time in the White House, she used hostessing to bolster her husband?s, and 
her own, popularity.
99
 The Polks entertained regularly, often holding two public 
receptions a week.
100
 Lincoln believed that keeping a regular schedule of entertaining, 
even as the Civil War loomed, was important in maintaining a sense of stability and 
48
presidential authority. However, the plan backfired, and her hostessing became a 
frequent subject of press attacks.
101
 Along with social politicking, these women also 
served as advisors behind the scenes. They all showed an interest in politics, with 
Polk acknowledged as being the most knowledgeable and influential. Thacker-
Estrada argues that, ?As performed by Sarah Polk, the role of political partner and 
advisor took the socially accepted form of being a helpmate to her husband.?
102
While most of the wives of the antebellum era were rarely mentioned in the 
press, Tyler, Polk, and Lincoln were again the exceptions. Tyler actively sought 
publicity, and had her own unofficial press agent.
103
 Polk received ?universally good 
press from both sides of the fence,?
104
 praised for both her intelligence and for 
exemplifying ?the elegance, charm, and dignity that marked the pinnacle of true 
womanhood.?
105
 In contrast, Lincoln was the target of some of the most virulent 
negative press coverage of any first lady in history. She seemed to attract attention for 
all of the wrong things.  Caroli claims, ?If Mary Lincoln had diverted her attention 
from parties and clothes (subjects that appeared frivolous to many war-sufferers) and 
concentrated on appearing supportive and protective of her husband, she might have 
disarmed her critics.?
106
 Even the ideologies of republican motherhood and true 
womanhood were not enough to frame Lincoln?s activities in a positive light.                  
True womanhood may have limited press coverage of most antebellum first 
ladies, but it prized two roles that would become increasingly important in the press 
framing of future first ladies: wife and homemaker. Thacker-Estrada argues, ?In the 
age of the ?cult of domesticity,? the fundamental but often overlooked role of wife 
could be quite influential and powerful.?
107
 She claims that Margaret Taylor, Abigail 
49
Fillmore, and Jane Pierce, along with Sarah Polk, ?contributed to their husbands? 
administrations in varying degrees as loyal wives, homemakers, hostesses, cultural 
arbiters, intercessors, helpmates, and advisors.?
108
 Because true womanhood 
demanded that women avoid publicity, the roles most of these first ladies played 
received little attention from the press. In later years, the roles of wife and 
homemaker would receive considerably more press coverage.
Framing the Antebellum First Lady
Unlike partisan papers, which rarely mentioned women unless it was in 
connection with politics, this period saw the rise of the penny press with its stories of 
average men and women, who increasingly became both writers and subjects of 
newspaper content. Several women broke into the field of journalism during this era, 
including the first woman to work full-time for a newspaper,
109
 the first female 
foreign correspondents,
110
 the first women to cover Washington, D.C.,
111
 and the first 
women columnists.
112
 However, the majority of women who became journalists 
during this era worked for the newly developed society and women?s pages, as well 
as for the growing numbers of women?s magazines. These publications were 
developed specifically to satisfy the growing numbers of advertisers who wished to 
court female consumers. According to Maurine H. Beasley and Sheila J. Gibbons, 
some 60 magazines aimed at women were founded between 1830 and 1850. Many of 
these publications featured female editors and writers.
113
 As a result, articles about 
fashion, beauty, and society news became press staples in an effort to attract women 
readers. However, despite the general increase of women?s news, first lady coverage 
during this era diminished, with a few exceptions, due to the women who held the 
50
position. The press continued to treat first ladies like royalty, covering their social and 
political activities. Whether focusing on their fashion or the scandals surrounding 
them, journalists drew upon gender ideologies to frame coverage of the first lady 
institution while simultaneously using first ladies to gauge the often competing ideals 
of American womanhood.  
Despite the democratic spirit of the Jacksonian era and the penny press, many 
journalists continued to frame first ladies as American royalty; first ladies like Julia 
Tyler and Mary Lincoln even courted this coverage. This frame was especially 
prevalent in stories about first ladies? appearance and fashion. Tyler made history by 
hiring a press agent, New York Herald writer F.W. Thomas, to promote her 
activities,
114
 a move which evidences her understanding of the importance of image-
management and self-promotion. According to Anthony, Thomas wrote glowing 
stories about her youth and beauty, calling her the ??Lovely Lady Presidentress?? and 
??the most accomplished woman of her age.?? These stories, which Anthony claims 
represented Tyler as American royalty, reached a national audience because of the 
Herald?s huge circulation.
115
 Lincoln was also interested in promoting a regal image, 
which she believed would help to legitimize the White House in the eyes of visiting 
dignitaries.
116
 Shortly after Lincoln entered the White House, Leslie?s Weekly praised 
her regal tastes: ?No European court or capital can compare with the President?s 
circle and the society of Washington this winter in the freshness and beauty of its 
women.? The magazine also complemented the new first lady fashions for 
?displaying the exquisitely moulded shoulders and arms of our fair ?Republican 
Queen,? . . . absolutely dazzling.?
117
 Both Tyler and Lincoln were praised by the press 
51
for their beauty and style, positioning the first lady as a trendsetter for American 
women and reinforcing the notion that physical attractiveness is a defining quality of 
womanhood.
118
While royal comparisons persisted, particularly in the society columns of the 
penny press, there was a shift from the frame of queen to that of lady, a Victorian 
ideal tied to true womanhood. According to Katherine Fishburn, the lady represented 
all that ?was chaste, unworldly, and moral in American culture,? and true 
womanhood, which praised piety, purity, domesticity, and subservience, 
?promulgated the lady as the ideal type of American woman.?
119
 Press coverage of 
Sarah Polk reflected the discourse of true womanhood, which is interesting given 
scholars? claims that she was her husband?s most trusted advisor and one of the most 
politically astute women to become first lady.
120
 Polk was a strict Calvinist who was 
praised by the religious press for banning drinking and dancing during her time in the 
White House.
121
 Caroli argues that Polk received universally positive press coverage, 
?Capital social arbiters who sized up her ?feminine charms? could hardly fault her, 
and the more intellectually inclined, who wanted a thinking woman in the White 
House, apparently approved of her too.?
122
 Anthony cites an editorial in a New York 
paper that noted the ??legitimate influence of a pious wife . . . his guardian angel.??
123
Thus, despite her political activities, Polk?s piety made her a model of the true 
woman.  
The focus on society news in the penny press intensified interest in White 
House social activities as well. John Tyler caused quite a stir in the press when he 
became the first president to wed while in office, marrying 24-year-old New York 
52
socialite Julia Gardiner in June of 1844.
124
 Like her predecessors from the partisan 
era, Tyler used social events, which were covered by all of the major papers, to garner 
support for her husband?s policies. She hosted several social events that helped her 
husband successfully lobby for the annexation of Texas, as well as a grand final ball 
that reclaimed her husband?s social status after being turned out of his own party.
125
Abigail Fillmore also garnered press coverage when she invited public figures to the 
White House during her tenure, including singer Jenny Lind and authors William 
Thackery, Charles Dickens, and Washington Irving.
126
 Coverage of such events 
established the White House as the center of Washington society and cast the first 
lady as a society doyenne.
Along with the increased attention to the first lady?s role as hostess and social 
arbiter, the press included more coverage of their volunteerism. The values of 
republican motherhood continued to legitimate first ladies? philanthropic activities 
during this era. Lincoln was praised by some newspapers as a patriot for her 
volunteerism during the war. Gould explains that the Washington Star characterized 
her as a motherly figure in a story about her visits to Union hospitals, where she 
delivered flowers, food, and sympathy to wounded and dying soldiers. Some papers 
also noted her personal donations to the Sanitary Commission, which raised money 
for soldiers, and her fundraising efforts on behalf of the Contraband Relief 
Association that provided aid to the freed slaves who flooded the nation?s capitol.
127
Ironically, the values of republican motherhood were also used to criticize 
Lincoln?s performance of the first lady position.
128
 Although Lincoln was initially 
praised for her hostessing skills, she faced harsh criticism from female journalists 
53
who denounced her expensive clothing and extravagant entertaining as unpatriotic 
and selfish. Columnist Mary Clemmer Ames claimed that while American women 
made bandages for wounded soldiers, the president?s wife spent her time traveling 
between Washington and New York, making extravagant purchases. Eleanor 
Donnelly published a poem, ?The Lady-President?s Ball,? which told of a fictitious 
soldier dying in the street as a party raged on in the White House. However, when 
Lincoln cancelled weekly band concerts, she was also criticized, placing her in a no-
win situation. One of the most crushing rumors printed was that she abused her 
children.
129
 The stories that accused her of being a frivolous woman and a bad mother 
were just as critical of her performance of the first lady role as those that claimed she 
was a traitor and southern sympathizer because some of her male relatives were 
fighting for the Confederacy.
130
As the lineage of the first lady institution extended, journalists started to 
construct the collective memory of the institution through stories that focused on the 
history of the institution and the links between past and present. Julia Tyler was often 
compared to Dolley Madison by reporters, in part because of her close relationship 
with the former first lady. According to Anthony, Tyler herself sought to publicize 
the relationship, insisting to her press agent at one point, ??Can?t you get into the New 
York papers that Mrs. President Tyler is coming to town accompanied by Mrs. Ex-
President Madison???
131
 Tyler recognized that linking herself publicly with her 
popular predecessor would only help to increase her own popularity. Like Madison, 
Tyler continued to garner press coverage that tied her to the first lady institution until 
her death, and often commented on her successors when interviewed.
132
 Sarah Polk 
54
remained popular with the press following her White House tenure. Reporters often 
visited her Tennessee home to seek her opinions on political matters and her 
successors. To this day, journalists continue to refer to Mary Lincoln as an exemplar 
of everything that a first lady should not be.
133
 Such media coverage impacts the 
collective memory of the institution and influences future reporting on the first lady 
institution. By contrasting ?proper? and ?improper? performances of the position and 
positioning certain first ladies as historical role models to be either emulated or 
rejected, journalists help to shape expectations regarding first lady performance.    
The Civil War brought about great social change in the United States, 
particularly for women. As women expanded their social roles and challenged the 
boundaries of the private and public spheres, journalists would take an even more 
active role in defining the first lady institution within a context of contestation over 
women?s roles in American culture.    
True Womanhood, New Womanhood, and Social Reform, 1865 ? 1900
Although the ideology of true womanhood dominated the pages of 
newspapers and the growing numbers of women?s magazines at mid-century, the 
daily experiences of American women were increasingly taking them out of their 
homes and into the public spaces. The Civil War ?encouraged many women to give 
their first speech, organize their first club, or take their initial trip out of home 
territory.?
134
 Whether shopping at a department store, going to the theater, or working 
at a settlement house, women were becoming more visible in public life.
135
The True Woman, the New Woman, and the Female Reformer
55
True womanhood continued to shape discussions of women?s roles in the late 
nineteenth century; however, the true woman of the Gilded Age was very different 
from her antebellum sister, particularly as portrayed in the press.
136
 True womanhood 
was championed by the mass market women?s magazines and women?s pages that 
proliferated following the Civil War, in part because the ideology helped to promote 
the rapidly expanding consumer culture.
137
 Katherine Fishburn argues, ?Rather than 
functioning as producers of goods, women, in the nineteenth century, became 
consumers.?
138
 Women?s domestic role made them responsible for the household 
shopping, drawing them into the marketplace, which was part of the public sphere 
previously closed to white middle- and upper-class women. Jennifer Scanlon says that 
women?s publications, aimed primarily at white women, ?promoted for women 
readers traditional ?women?s values? and full participation in the consumer society.  
Contradictions naturally followed.? For example, Scanlon notes that while advocating 
domesticity and women?s place in the private sphere, women?s magazines in the 
1880s and 1890s simultaneously encouraged women?s participation in the public 
sphere of commerce, thus expanding women?s social roles.
139
 By tying true 
womanhood to consumer culture, the boundaries of the domestic sphere became 
much more elastic than they had been previously. Such ideological repositioning 
allowed true womanhood to remain a viable ideology in the debate over women?s 
roles.
140
The redefined true womanhood was still viewed as restrictive by woman?s 
rights leaders like Anthony and Stanton, who continued to work on behalf of suffrage 
and other women?s issues. The energies of suffragists were focused on two fronts: 
56
lobbying for a constitutional amendment and stumping for state propositions granting 
women the vote.
141
 Egalitarianism, which promoted gender equality, continued to be 
the dominant ideology of the movement.
142
 Suffrage leaders routinely experienced 
discrimination and ridicule, especially when they spoke in public. Women?s rhetorical 
action was still viewed as improper, a violation of the separate spheres. As Campbell 
describes it, ?a woman who spoke displayed her ?masculinity?; that is, she 
demonstrated that she possessed qualities traditionally ascribed only to males. When a 
woman spoke, she enacted her equality, that is, she herself was proof that she was as 
able as her male counterparts to function in the public sphere.?
143
 Hence, suffrage 
activity continued to be viewed as suspect by both men and women because it was 
such a far departure from true womanhood.
144
Neither the ideology of true womanhood nor the woman?s movement could 
fully account for the roles women found themselves playing in a rapidly changing 
society, thus a new ideology was needed. Industrialization, urbanization, and 
immigration from 1865 through the turn of the century dramatically altered the social, 
cultural, and political landscape of the United States, and American women were 
greatly impacted by these developments.
145
 The ?new woman? ideology, which 
emerged during these years, claimed the middle ground between true womanhood and 
suffrage. Combining true womanhood?s moral authority and concern for family with 
the public activism of suffrage leaders, the new woman was interested in social 
reform and personal improvement. Caroli asserts that the ??new woman? meant a 
serious woman concerned with substantive matters such as reform rather than empty 
party-giving. It meant having opinions and an identity of one?s own.?
146
 Many of the 
57
college educated women of the era believed that the ideology of the new woman 
reflected their experiences.
147
New womanhood was promoted by the growing numbers of women who were 
attracted to reform activities like the temperance and settlement house movements. 
The Women?s Christian Temperance Union, under Frances Willard?s leadership, 
became the largest women?s organization in the nation, lobbying for a broad welfare 
program.
148
 By appealing to women?s moral authority and domestic concerns, the 
W.C.T.U. was able to attract women from various walks of life and convince them to 
support various reform efforts, including suffrage.
149
 Similarly, the settlement house 
movement literally channeled women?s domestic talents into social reform efforts. By 
the end of the century, progressive movements drew countless women into the public 
sphere. Meanwhile, the growing number of women?s clubs and literary societies, 
many of which were more politically active than their title suggests, meant that, by 
the end of the century, an overwhelming majority of women from all walks of life 
were involved in women?s club activities.
150
 Women?s participation in women?s clubs 
and reform movements in the late nineteenth century was often justified as a logical 
extension of true womanhood?s moral influence. Estelle Freedman argues that, in 
order to bridge the separate spheres, female reformers created a ?public female 
sphere? in which they established their own networks, managed their own 
organizations, and commanded an actual physical space as well as a figurative spot in 
the male-dominated public sphere. This space allowed women to reconcile conflicting 
gender prescriptions and be publicly active true women.
151
Transitional Spouses and the Evolution of the First Lady Institution
58
The first ladies of this period were a mix of true and new women. In general, 
they were well-educated, intellectually gifted and sociable.
152
 Yet many scholars 
express disappointment with these women?s performance of the first lady position, 
referring to the ?unfulfilled possibilities?
153
 of this era and the ?limited promise of the 
?new woman.??
154
 Watson says, although these first ladies were generally more active 
and influential than their immediate predecessors, they ?fell short of their potential; 
they did not make lasting impressions on the first ladyship or on the status of women 
in U.S. society.?
155
 Caroli puts it this way: ?The nation?s Head Housekeeper might 
present a more serious, mature image but she was not really a ?new woman.??
156
However, news coverage of the first lady tells a different story. The women of 
this era, with the exception of Eliza Johnson who proclaimed herself ?an invalid,?
157
expanded the duties of the first lady, providing the foundation for the development of 
the modern institution. By the end of the nineteenth century, first ladies were more 
than just hostesses, helpmates, and volunteers; they were White House managers and 
preservationists, campaigners, and social advocates. Meanwhile, more attention was 
paid to their roles as supportive wives and mothers. They also routinely dealt directly 
with the press and appeared more often in public than their predecessors. The seven 
women who occupied the White House at the end of the nineteenth century, Eliza 
McCardle Johnson (1865-1869), Julia Dent Grant (1869-1877), Lucy Ware Webb 
Hayes (1877-1881), Lucretia Rudolph Garfield (1881), Frances Clara Folsom 
Cleveland (1886-1889, 1893-1897), Caroline Lavinia Scott Harrison (1889-1892), 
and Ida Saxton McKinley (1897-1901), often found themselves at the center of the 
social debate over women?s roles.  
59
The first ladies of this era took different approaches to their roles, but each 
contributed to the increasing public visibility of the position. Anthony asserts that 
Grant ?steadfastly upheld her belief that the role of First Lady was public and must be 
acknowledged as such.? Grant took an active role in creating and promoting herself 
and the first lady position. She was the first to always recognize reporters, and she 
also issued the first press release. She attended several ceremonial functions, 
including the opening of the Philadelphia Exposition in 1876, marking the U.S. 
centennial, because she recognized the publicity opportunities of such events.
158
Hayes traveled across the country with her husband, giving the thousands that turned 
out a chance to see the president?s wife firsthand. For others, Hayes? image was 
readily available in the press.  Caroli argues that hers ?became the most familiar 
woman?s face in America. Advertisers used her picture, without her approval, to 
promote household products, and popular magazines carried photographs of her.?
159
Her popularity would be mirrored in the tenure of Cleveland, whose image was 
appropriated to sell numerous products.
160
 She was frequently chased by 
photographers who, like today?s paparazzi, went to extreme lengths to capture a 
picture of the popular young first lady. She also issued a press release in response to 
reports that she was an abused wife.
161
 The volunteer activities of both Hayes and 
Cleveland also received press attention, helping to create the public expectation that 
the first lady support a charitable cause.
162
 Garfield was also ?quite frequently in the 
public eye,? often accompanying her husband on tours of government facilities, 
including a naval shipyard.
163
60
First ladies also became more visible through participation in their husband?s 
campaigns. Garfield was the first candidate?s wife to appear on a campaign poster,
164
while McKinley was the first to have her image appear on campaign buttons, and was 
also the subject of the first campaign biography of a candidate?s wife.
165
 Harrison and 
McKinley were active in the front porch campaigns of their husbands, ?entertaining 
guests? and ?posing for the media.?
166
 Harrison reviewed almost daily campaign 
parades, which featured marchers numbering upwards of 75,000.
167
 Despite her poor 
health, McKinley often ?emerged from the house to pose for photographs with 
various delegations who came to pay their respects to her husband.?
168
 Stories about 
candidates? wives became common features of newspapers and magazines. These 
articles usually focused on their roles as wives, mothers, and homemakers, outlining 
their qualifications for the position of the first lady. Such stories would become 
staples of campaign coverage in the twentieth century.      
Ironically, the increased publicity of the first lady institution was accompanied 
by an intensified focus on the first lady?s domesticity and femininity. Gender 
ideologies were used by the press to justify the first lady?s public activities, and 
several first ladies of this era were constructed as personifications of a particular ideal 
of American womanhood. The language of true womanhood, the spirit of the new 
woman, and the patriotism of the republican mother were all used to frame the public 
and private activities of first ladies at the end of the nineteenth century.        
New Journalism and the New Woman: Framing First Ladies 
The conflicting ideologies of womanhood shaped the representations of 
women in the press during this era. Both true womanhood and the emerging new 
61
woman found voice in newspapers and women?s magazines. Coverage of the first 
lady institution intensified substantially during the era of new journalism because of 
factors including the expansion of women?s pages, the proliferation of women?s 
magazines, and the marketability of women?s news,
169
 as well as heightened visibility 
of first ladies.  
The expansion of women?s publications following the Civil War increased 
both the number of female journalists and the coverage of women. By the end of the 
nineteenth century, more women worked for the press than ever before, and some of 
the most prominent journalists of this era were women.
170
 Several of the society 
reporters and female columnists who got their start before the Civil War were now 
among the highest paid journalists at their respective publications,
171
 and women 
journalists formed their own professional organizations.
172
 By the 1890s, women?s 
magazines were proven commodities, reaching millions of readers.
173
 The increasing 
importance of women?s consumerism led newspapers to focus more attention on their 
female readers, creating evening and Sunday editions that targeted women in order to 
accommodate the increasing number of advertisements aimed at female consumers.
174
These issues were filled mainly with department store advertisements, all hoping to 
attract women as customers. They also expanded the society and women?s pages in 
order to carry more articles about fashion, beauty, and health, subjects all linked with 
advertising.
175
 These articles promoted domesticity and the true woman ideology in 
an effort to cultivate women as consumers.
176
In their stories about the first lady institution, the press continued to use 
frames prevalent in earlier coverage. The focus on women as consumers encouraged 
62
stories about first ladies? appearance and fashion, sometimes using first ladies to 
promote various products. The private lives of presidential couples were increasingly 
of interest to reporters, recalling in some cases the partisan era?s focus on scandal. 
The political activities of first ladies, like volunteerism, also received more attention 
during this era as journalists began making more connections between the public 
performance of the first lady position and gender ideals.  
First ladies had long been viewed as style setters, and the increased use of 
illustrations and photographs in newspapers and magazines, coupled with advertisers? 
desires to promote women?s consumerism, heightened the attention paid to first lady 
fashion and appearance. When Julia Grant issued the first press release as a first lady, 
she declared that she was not interested in being a ??fashion dictator,??
177
 but that did 
not keep her fashions from being discussed in the press. Lucy Hayes also did not wish 
to be a trendsetter, yet her prim and proper style was the focus of much of the early 
coverage of her. According to Emily Apt Greer, the New York Herald described her 
as ??singularly youthful?? and a ??most attractive and lovable woman.??
178
 Mary 
Clemmer Ames covered the Hayes inauguration in her column, praising her prim 
appearance. She compared her eyes to those of ?the Madonna? and wondered how 
fashion magazines like Vanity Fair would represent the new first lady, asking would 
they ?friz that hair? powder that face? . . . bare those shoulders? shorten those 
sleeves? hide John Wesley?s discipline out of sight, as it poses and minces before the 
?first lady of the land???
179
 Ames? description positioned Hayes as a model of true 
womanhood, while simultaneously constructing her as a public figure. Popular 
magazines frequently featured photographs of Hayes, often posing with her children; 
63
advertisers also used her image without her permission to promote their products.
180
Frances Cleveland faced a similar problem. Weeklies like Leslie?s Illustrated and 
Harper?s could not get enough of the young first lady; advertisers unscrupulously 
reproduced her likeness to sell just about every product imaginable, including soaps, 
perfumes, liver pills, ashtrays and even women?s underwear.
181
 Women imitated her 
hairstyle and her fashions, and people lined up by the thousands at White House 
receptions and public appearances just to catch a glimpse of her.
182
 Both Hayes and 
Cleveland were treated by the press as models of consumption, foreshadowing 
celebrity coverage that emerged during the Cold War era.
Several first ladies were held up as models of true womanhood in articles that 
praised their piety and purity. The Philadelphia Times, cited in Caroli, lauded Hayes 
as a ??true woman?? for her pious dress and the lack of pretension at her White House 
events.
183
 Ames continually held Hayes up as a model of true womanhood in her 
columns, noting her religious devotion.
184
 Ida McKinley was also positioned by the 
press as a true woman. Following her husband?s election, popular magazines 
published numerous posed photographs of the new first lady and articles praising her 
womanliness and virtue.
185
 An article in Harper?s Bazaar noted, ?Mrs. McKinley?s 
faithful presence beside her husband at state functions, her frail form clad in the rich, 
ceremonious dress proper to the occasion, describes a gentle martyrdom, the 
indescribable pathos of which is written in the expression of her sweet pale face.? The 
article further described McKinley as ?a revelation of the glory of the woman at 
home? and a ?First Lady who exalts mere womanliness.?
186
 At the end of the 
nineteenth century, McKinley?s press construction reflected the true woman ideal. 
64
The publicity given to these so perceived true women by the press helped to carve a 
space for women in the public sphere that would be explored further by the first 
ladies of the early twentieth century.
Domesticity, another key theme of true womanhood, would also frame the 
coverage of first ladies. In the campaign of 1880, newspapers promoted the Garfields 
as the ideal nineteenth-century couple. Caroli states that the Republican Party 
literature bragged that Lucretia Garfield had ?the domestic tastes and talents which 
fitted her equally to preside over the home of a poor college president and that of a 
famous statesman.?
187
 When Garfield decided to redecorate the White House to 
reflect the history of the mansion, she promoted her plans in the press.
188
 Similarly, 
Caroli maintains that Caroline Harrison was referred to by her contemporaries as the 
?best housekeeper the White House has ever known.? The press touted her 
domesticity, which included her plans for a major White House renovation.
189
 When 
Harrison decided to renovate the White House, she, like Garfield a decade before her, 
used the press to lobby Congressional support for the renovation.
190
 Such stories 
presenting first ladies as White House homemaker would start a trend that would 
stretch well into the twentieth century.  
True womanhood?s emphasis on domesticity and the private sphere, coupled 
with the fact that the White House serves as both a private residence and a public 
place, in some ways legitimated stories about the private lives of presidents and their 
families.  Coverage of life inside the White House intensified the spotlight on 
presidents and first ladies. Articles about the Clevelands were representative of this 
type of news framing. When bachelor president Grover married twenty-two year old 
65
Frances in June 1886, the newspapers followed the couple?s every move.
191
 The press 
was barred from the White House wedding, but the story made the front page around 
the nation.  Eager reporters followed the couple on their honeymoon, hiding in trees 
trying to get pictures of the newlyweds.
192
 A few years later, Cleveland staunchly 
defended her husband during a campaign scandal. In 1888, rumor spread that Grover 
beat his young wife. In response, Watson reports that Cleveland issued the second 
press release in first lady history, calling the reports ??wicked and heartless lies?? and 
said she wished women ??no greater blessing than their homes and lives be as happy 
and their husbands may be as kind, attentive, considerate, and affectionate as 
mine.??
193
 By highlighting the relationships of presidential couples, newspapers 
promoted first ladies as traditional wives while simultaneously recognizing them as 
public figures in their own right.   
Despite the dominance of the true woman ideal, the increasing involvement of 
middle-class women in social movements heightened journalists? interest in the 
private and public activities of first ladies.
194
 The image-making activities of the 
women of this era also prompted the press to pay more attention to first ladies? roles 
as advisor and presidential surrogate. Hayes, the first college graduate to become first 
lady, was recognized for her political intelligence and reported to be one of her 
husband?s respected advisors. Greer reports on an article in the National Union, 
??Mrs. Hayes is said to be a student of politics and to talk intelligently upon their [sic] 
changing phases.??
195
 Hayes was one of the earliest first ladies to travel regularly, 
sometimes serving as a surrogate for her husband, expanding the press coverage of 
the position. Anthony reports that when the Hayeses traveled through the South in an 
66
effort to reunify the country, the Richmond Dispatch reported, ??Mrs. Hayes has won 
the admiration of people wherever she has been in the recent tours of the 
President.??
196
 Garfield was also her husband?s trusted advisor. According to 
Anthony, one journalist noted Garfield was ??in all senses the ?helpmeet? of her 
husband, his companion in all sorts of studies and reading, his confidante and advisor 
in all things.?? Ames, also quoted in Anthony, observed that Garfield had ??a strength 
of unswerving absolute rectitude her husband has not and never will have.??
197
The frame of the new woman was most often employed to describe the 
volunteerism of first ladies during this era. Hayes was linked to the temperance 
movement. Although she refused to publicly support the W.C.T.U., the organization 
used Hayes? likeness to promote their cause by commissioning a portrait of the first 
lady, which included a symbol of the temperance movement in the background. 
According to Margaret Truman, Ames helped avert criticism of the portrait by 
arguing in her column that the portrait be considered a ??a tribute to Mrs. Hayes?to 
the grace and graciousness of her womanhood.??
198
 Cleveland represented the new 
woman ideal. A Wells College graduate, she balanced her home life with a concern 
for social reform efforts. The press of the era noted that rather than championing a 
specific cause, Cleveland supported several, including the W.C.T.U.?s ?Hope and 
Help? campaign, the Washington Home for Friendless Colored Girls, the Colored 
Christmas Club, and the Cincinnati Orchestra Association.
199
 Despite her domestic 
public persona, Caroline Harrison was deeply interested in politics and was an ardent 
advocate of many women?s issues. She was the first president?s wife to publicly 
67
associate herself with struggling women?s organizations like the Daughters of the 
American Revolution, and her support garnered needed publicity for such groups.
200
As the lineage of the first lady institution extended, journalists had more 
history to draw from to construct their narratives about the position. Simultaneously, 
the image-making activities of some first ladies encouraged coverage that highlighted 
the history of the institution. Grant often avoided journalists? criticism by 
orchestrating press events that helped ensure a positive portrayal of the first lady. 
When Julia Tyler visited the White House in 1871, reporters followed the former first 
lady as she gave a portrait of herself to Grant to be hung in the White House, marking 
the start of the first ladies portrait collection. A reception was later held in Tyler?s 
honor, and reporters remarked on the two Julias standing side by side in the receiving 
line.
201
 Events like this encouraged the press to construct the institutional memory of 
the first lady institution. The number of articles comparing candidates? wives during 
campaigns also increased in this era. In the campaign of 1876, for example, the 
serious Hayes was contrasted with the fun-loving Grant; reporters speculated on how 
the difference in their personalities would impact the role of the first lady.
202
By 1900, journalists had a century of experience in covering the first lady 
institution, and many of the trends of previous years coalesced by the end of the 
century. While several themes carried over from earlier eras, new journalism 
heightened the publicity surrounding the position, accentuating the various roles 
played by first ladies. The popularity of women?s pages and magazines created a 
market for women?s news, and first ladies helped to fill these pages. At the same 
time, the competing ideals of the true and new woman were used by journalists to 
68
frame, and scrutinize, the private and public activities of first ladies. To an even 
greater extent than in previous years, journalists positioned first ladies as 
representatives of various interpretations of the ideals of American womanhood.  
Conclusion
Since the birth of this nation, the notion of separate public and private spheres 
has dominated discussions of gender roles in the United States. American women 
have subsequently adopted, promoted, questioned, and rejected the gender ideologies 
that have sought to define their lives. Yet the notion of an ideal American woman 
persists, thanks in part to women?s publications which use this ideal, no matter how 
unrealistic, to frame articles about women. First ladies, in particular, are subject to 
this framing because of their visibility and the gendered aspects of their position. This 
chapter?s discussion of competing gender ideologies, the development of the first lady 
position, and press framing of the institution lays the groundwork for the analysis of 
the press constructions of the first lady institution in the twentieth century. There are 
four key points that inform the following chapters.
First, the metaphor of separate spheres plays a significant role in shaping 
gender roles. The one element that each of the gender ideologies reviewed has in 
common is the reference to a public and private sphere, each of which is defined by 
gender, race, class, and physical location. Republican motherhood and true 
womanhood used the separation of spheres to distinguish between the duties of 
women and men, and to highlight women?s realm of influence. These ideologies both 
empowered and inhibited women by allocating them power, yet dictating that they 
could only wield that power within the confines of the home or philanthropic 
69
extensions of the domestic sphere. The natural rights philosophy promoted by early 
woman?s rights leaders did not reject the notion of separate spheres outright, but 
instead demanded women?s access to the public sphere. These women knew firsthand 
the limitations on women?s public activity because they were themselves constrained 
by social norms and laws aimed at keeping women out of the public sphere. The new 
woman, and the revised true woman of the late nineteenth century, sought a more 
indirect route into the public sphere by stretching the boundaries of the private sphere 
into public spaces and creating a ?female public sphere.? The concept of separate 
spheres continues to influence gender ideology and American life. Kerber explains 
why the metaphor remains resonant today, ?For all our vaunted modernity, for all that 
men?s ?spheres? and women?s ?spheres? now overlap, vast areas of our experience and 
consciousness do not overlap. The boundaries may be fuzzier, but our private spaces 
and our public spaces are still in many important senses gendered.?
203
Second, gender ideologies are not static, and they are not absolute. Michael 
Calvin McGee asserts that ideology ?is dynamic and a force, always resilient, always 
keeping itself in some consonance and unity, but not always the same consonance and 
unity.?
204
 Gender ideologies, like true womanhood, have adjusted to social and 
cultural changes in order to remain viable, and they continue to alter in order to 
accommodate the cultural shifts of the twentieth century. Women?s lived experiences 
and the ideals of American womanhood were often at odds. As Anne Firor Scott 
points out, if gender ideologies are placed on a continuum, most women would fall 
somewhere in-between ?feminist? and ?traditional? values, ?often holding some part 
of each set of values simultaneously.?
205
 This was often true of most first ladies.
70
Third, by the end of the nineteenth century, the foundation for the first lady 
institution had been established, which shaped both the collective memory of the first 
lady position and future expectations of presidents? wives.  First ladies were expected 
to perform a variety of duties, many of which straddled the private and public 
spheres. The media memories of their performances helped to define both proper and 
improper performances of the first lady position. According to Thacker-Estrada, 
?Although the public sphere of men and the private sphere of women were 
supposedly sharply delineated, they strongly influenced each other in the executive 
mansion, both the office and the home of the president.?
206
 Meanwhile, first ladies 
were required to perform their duties in the public spotlight amid much public and 
press scrutiny. Wertheimer notes that ?no first lady has ever received unanimous 
acclaim for her performance.?
207
 News articles support this statement. As the public 
visibility of first ladies increased, so did the press coverage of the institution. 
Meanwhile, the publicity of the position via the press helped to increase the visibility 
of the institution.    
Fourth, and finally, press framing of the first lady conflates the performance 
of the first lady?s duties with performances of gender. While the royalty frames of the 
early Republic gave way to descriptions of ladylike true women, press frames have 
always included a gendered element. These frames have reflected social, political, 
and historical conditions while reifying the prominent gender ideologies of the 
various eras. This trend intensified at the end of the nineteenth century as the 
publicity surrounding first ladies increased, and continued throughout the next 
century, which is the subject of the next chapter.
71
Chapter Two
First Lady as Public Woman, 1900-1929
?Who will be the First Lady of the Land the next four years?? According to a 
Harper?s Bazaar article of August 1900, that was ?the paramount woman question of 
the pending Presidential campaign.? The author of the story, which compared the 
candidates? wives, stated, ?The election of Mrs. McKinley or Mrs. Bryan means 
elevating to a place of eminent dignity and importance a typical American woman, of 
contrasting schools of culture.?
1
These contrasts were evidenced for the press in each 
woman?s performance of gender, and the gender ideologies of true womanhood and 
the new woman were used to frame each woman.
The story positioned each woman as a personification of gender ideology; Ida 
McKinley exemplified the true woman ideal, while Mary Bryan personified the new 
woman of the era. The re-election of McKinley, the author believed, ?would provide 
the American people a First Lady who exalts mere womanliness above anything that 
women dare to do.? The writer praised her performance of the first lady role, claiming 
?she has done her utmost? despite being an ?invalid for many years past,? and 
concluding that McKinley was ?an inspiration to all women who for one reason or 
another are hindered from playing a brilliant individual role in life.?
2
Bryan, in 
contrast, was introduced as ?a woman of action?a successful woman? who ?has 
been admitted to the bar?a full-fledged lawyer.? The author noted that she was a 
club woman interested in social reform. However, Bryan?s individual 
accomplishments never outranked her roles as wife and mother. According to the 
story, her ?mind is a storehouse of information on all subjects that pertain to her 
72
husband?s duties and ambitions,? adding it was a ?well-known fact that she does 
assist her husband in his work,? even writing some of his famous speeches. The 
writer continued, ?Yet, with all the rest, Mrs. Bryan is versed in the domestic arts and 
sciences?a good housekeeper and a good mother.? She was praised as ?the rare 
instance of the logically impossible woman who accomplishes a man?s success at no 
expense of her own??the epitome of the new woman. The article concluded that, 
despite their differences, each woman personified a type of American womanhood 
that should be emulated, ?Mrs. Bryan?s influence as wife of the President of the 
United States would compel women to know and to think about the questions of the 
day. She would be a needed stimulant to the woman who aims at nothing at all. Mrs. 
McKinley?a vivid antithesis?is always a needed gentle sedative to the typical 
woman of today who aims to do too much.?
3
The McKinley-Bryan dichotomy is a prime example of the gendered 
journalistic framing of the first lady institution. It illustrates how these women 
personified for the press the gender ideologies that competed to define womanhood at 
the turn of the century, highlighting the complexities of gender performance. The 
story also points to the various roles first ladies were expected to play, and evaluates 
each woman?s ability to do so. Finally, this story evidences the increased publicity 
surrounding the first lady position, especially during campaigns.
Press coverage of first ladies established these women as highly visible public 
figures and role models for American women by circulating their images and stories 
about their activities and interests in the public sphere. According to Lewis L. Gould, 
?By the end of the 1920s, the public had become accustomed to seeing First Ladies as 
73
more visible figures than had been the case twenty years before.?
4
This, in large part, 
was due to the press coverage of the first lady institution. But the fact that these 
women were increasingly performing more duties that garnered press attention was 
also a factor. Robert P. Watson argues, ?The first ladies of the early twentieth century 
forged new roles for the institution. Indeed, the foundation for the modern first lady 
as an active presidential partner was firmly established during this period.?
5
Eight 
women served as first lady between 1900 and 1929. Two of them, Ida Saxton 
McKinley (1897-1901) and Florence Kling Harding (1921-1923), had their time in 
the White House cut short by the deaths of their husbands. Their successors, Edith 
Kermit Carow Roosevelt (1901-1909) and Grace Goodhue Coolidge (1923-1929), 
went on to occupy the position longer than the other first ladies of this era. Ellen 
Axson Wilson (1913-1914) died just seventeen months into her tenure, leaving the 
White House without a first lady until her husband Woodrow married Edith Bolling
Galt Wilson (1915-1921). The remaining first ladies of the modern era, Helen Herron 
Taft (1909-1913) and Lou Henry Hoover (1929-1933), held the position for only one 
term. The personalities of the women holding the position, the many duties of the 
modern first lady, and the expectations regarding the performance of those roles were 
reflected in the journalistic framing of the first lady institution.  
During the modern era, personification framing reflected the changing status 
of women in American society. While turn-of-the-century first ladies, like McKinley 
and Roosevelt, embodied true womanhood, their successors increasingly personified 
both true womanhood and the new woman despite the conflicting gender 
prescriptions, evidencing the complexities of gender performance. Such framing 
74
empowered women by recognizing the multiplicity of private and public roles they 
must play and by considering their activities as newsworthy.  
Journalists also used gender framing to judge these women?s performance of 
the duties associated with the first lady institution during the modern era. These 
stories focused on the roles of the first lady, like presidential helpmate, hostess, 
campaigner, and volunteer, which for reporters represented the performance of gender 
ideologies. While true womanhood dominated discussions of role performance, the 
new woman ideal increasingly was reflected in articles as the era wore on. In 1901, 
Edith Roosevelt could avoid campaigning and choose not to involve herself in 
volunteer work, and the ideology of true womanhood explained her limited 
performance of the first lady position. But as early as 1908, wives were taking a more 
active public role in their husbands? campaigns, and every first lady of this era except 
Roosevelt and Ida McKinley worked publicly on behalf of a social cause, mirroring 
the new woman ideology.
6
By the end of the modern era, press coverage indicated 
that first ladies were expected to perform various private and public sphere roles in 
ways that reflected both traditional and newer gender ideologies, despite the inherent 
conflicts.
The increased publicity surrounding the first lady institution, coupled with 
journalists? framing of first ladies as personifications of American womanhood, 
helped to fashion first ladies as important public women. Editors needed stories to fill 
women?s pages and magazines, and because of the visibility and various duties 
associated with their position, first ladies made good copy. During the modern era, 
journalists routinely began to treat the first lady as a newsworthy public figure, 
75
regardless of the disposition of the women who held the position. Unlike their 
nineteenth-century counterparts, first ladies no longer could avoid the spotlight or 
their institutional duties, which subsequently challenged traditional notions regarding 
women?s avoidance of publicity. Journalists often managed this contradiction by 
continuing to frame first ladies as true women or republican mothers, ideologies 
which characterized women?s increasing political activity as extensions of their 
wifely role or domestic concerns. Just as expediency arguments helped to garner 
increased support for woman?s suffrage, reporters? reliance on traditional gender 
ideologies as framing devices helped first ladies to become public women with less 
controversy surrounding their publicity. Thus, the gendered framing of modern era 
first ladies resulted in the emergence of the first lady as a public woman who was 
recognized by the press as a positive role model for American women.  
Competing Gender Ideologies: The ?New? Modern Woman
The modern era was a period of great social change, particularly for American 
women. According to Carolyn Kitch, ?Between 1895 and 1930, the roles and status of 
American women underwent widespread discussion and some profound 
transformations.?
7
During this time, more women were actively participating in 
public sphere activities. Glenna Matthews notes, ?In the first decades of the twentieth 
century women achieved many victories in the public sphere,? most importantly the 
passage of the nineteenth amendment in 1920.
8
 Thereafter, many advocates focused 
their energies on encouraging women?s political participation.
9
Meanwhile, the 
progressive and women?s club movements reached their zenith during the early years 
of the twentieth century, providing for middle-class women a politically-charged 
76
space.
10
Growing numbers of women entered colleges and the workplace, and joined 
organizations that reflected their educational and occupational interests.
11
 All of this 
activity was reported in the women?s pages of major newspapers and in women?s 
magazines, which boasted millions of female readers.
12
 Nancy Cott argues, ?The 
growing frequency of women?s new experiences in public, organizational, and 
occupational life marked one of the ways in which the outlines of twentieth-century
America were already taking shape.?
13
 Despite this increased acceptability of public 
activity, there remained a lack of consensus regarding the ideals of American 
womanhood. In fact, this increase in women?s political participation stimulated the 
public debate over the conflicting gender ideologies of true womanhood, the new 
woman, feminism, and republican motherhood.  
The nineteenth-century notion of true womanhood, which valued piety, purity, 
submissiveness and domesticity, dominated the political and popular culture 
discourse surrounding gender performance well into the twentieth century.
14
Theodore Roosevelt described the ideal American woman as ?the housewife, the 
helpmeet of the homemaker, the wise and fearless mother of many healthy children?
in his famous speech, ?The Strenuous Life.?
15
 His statement exemplified the original 
conception of true womanhood with its strict boundaries between the private and 
public spheres.
16
However, as Carroll Smith-Rosenberg points out, ?Social-structural 
changes further heightened the ironic tensions that developed between the dictates of 
the Cult of True Womanhood and the realities of the bourgeois matron?s life,? and 
such changes prompted women to seek ways to justify ?new roles for women outside 
the family.?
17
 One approach was to defend ?the new ways in an old language.?
18
Cott 
77
contends that many female reformers were quick to claim that ?their ?outside? 
interests were really undertaken in the service of the home, though on a larger 
scale,?
19
 thus extending domesticity into the civic realm. Such ?municipal 
housekeeping? was a hallmark of both progressivism
20
 and social feminism.
21
 The use 
of domestic metaphors and maternal rhetoric, according to Kitch, ?had reverberations 
throughout the twentieth century,? in part because journalists continued to promote 
true womanhood, particularly in publications aimed at women.
22
Both the women?s 
pages in newspapers and women?s magazines used the frame of true womanhood to 
justify women?s public activities, even long after their acknowledgement of the 
growing phenomenon of the new woman.
23
At the same time, women?s roles within the home were impacted by social 
changes that gave women more control over the domestic sphere. Advances in 
science and technology led to the development of household engineering and home 
economics. These so-called ?domestic reformers,? according to Mona Domosh and 
Joni Seager, sought to ?make the private home more like public workplaces, with the 
goal of diminishing the distinctions between women?s work and men?s work.?
24
Domestic reformers like Ellen Swallow Richards and Lillian Gilbreth worked to 
professionalize the homemaker role, highlighting the importance of women?s 
domestic duties.
25
 Collins asserts that Americans at the turn of the century were 
enamored with efficiency and ?scientific management,? leading them to question 
?whether keeping house and raising children should become career specialties rather 
than the vocation of every married woman.?
26
 Books on household management 
proliferated in the late 1800s and early 1900s and domestic science and home 
78
economics courses, for females only, were established in high schools and colleges.
27
A major part of the scientific management of a household was women controlling the 
household budget and purchasing household items, from appliances to food. The 
press, and its advertisers, had long stressed women?s role as the primary household 
consumer, and continued to do so as part of the new home economics trend.
28
Domosh and Seager note, ?As the major consumers within Victorian society, women 
did gain a certain control over their home environments.?
29
 These developments 
helped to foster a sense of domestic empowerment for women within the home.
Many of the domestic reformers who promoted household engineering and 
home economics at the turn of the century exemplified the ?new woman? ideology. 
The new woman ?stood for change in women?s lives and change in America,? 
representing ?new social, political, and economic possibilities for women.?
30
However, the image of the new woman varied greatly between 1900 and 1929, 
starting out as a serious-minded college or working woman interested in social 
reforms and devolving into the flirty flapper whose only interest was having fun.
31
Cott states, ?By the early twentieth century it was commonplace that the New Woman 
stood for self-development as contrasted to self-sacrifice or submergence in the 
family.?
32
One avenue of self-development was a college education; by 1920, women 
made up nearly half of the expanding college population.
33
Many of these college-
educated women became involved in reform efforts like the settlement house 
movement, turning social work into a profession.
34
But most middle-class women continued to enter the public sphere through 
participation in women?s clubs and voluntary associations. Roughly one million 
79
women were affiliated with women?s clubs in 1914.
35
The reform spirit of 
progressivism prompted such groups to take a more overtly political stance, although 
most continued to cloak their new woman practices in the rhetoric of true 
womanhood.
36
These female reformers specialized in lobbying and pressure-group 
politics, and were highly successful in gaining support for reform legislation 
throughout this era.
37
However, by the end of the 1920s, most reform-minded women 
would not have considered themselves new women, primarily because ?the flapper 
was the dominant image of the new woman,? especially in the media.
38
The changes 
in new woman ideology were reflected in journalists? use of the new woman as a 
framing device. As the new woman evolved from serious reformer to sexualized 
flapper, journalists routinely returned to promoting the frame of true womanhood. 
Reporters often pointed to the ?new? new woman as proof that the values of the true 
woman should continue to define American womanhood, creating a backlash not 
unlike the one Susan Faludi argues occurred in the 1980s against second-wave 
feminism.
39
The term ?feminism? also came into common usage during the modern era as 
a way to characterize the increasing political activities of American women. Cott 
states, ?At the very point in the 1910s?the height of the suffrage campaign?when 
the woman movement began to sound archaic, the word feminism came into frequent 
use.?
40
Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the National American Woman Suffrage 
Association, defined feminism in 1914 as ?world-wide revolt against all the artificial 
barriers which laws and customs interpose between women and human freedom.?
41
Feminism often was associated with suffrage, but Kitch notes that women who 
80
?described themselves with this word agitated for reforms broader than suffrage,? 
including temperance, labor reform, and the settlement house movement.
42
Meanwhile, the suffrage movement had ?gained momentum and nationwide support 
by the 1910s,?
43
 in part because some of its leaders rejected the natural rights 
argument supported by early suffrage leaders in favor of an expediency argument. 
This approach ?claimed the vote for women not as an end in itself but as a means to 
rid the society of vice and corruption and to make it a good place for families, 
women, and children.?
44
 Janet Zollinger Giele explains, ?Women?s competence for 
public service was by 1920 understood in a new way?as compatible with her role as 
wife and mother?that a democratic society should recognize.?
45
 Feminism and 
suffrage, like the new woman ideology, started to reflect the rhetoric of true 
womanhood. By 1929, according to a magazine article by journalist and suffragist Ida 
Clyde Clarke, the ?modern feminist? combined the best elements of true womanhood, 
the new woman, and the suffragist, resulting in a ?well rounded, perfectly balanced, 
thoroughly informed and highly intelligent person . . . who manages her home, holds 
her job, and so on, in the normal way.?
46
Thus, the feminist frame, in just a few short 
years, had evolved from a way to describe women?s collective political activities to a 
more individualistic frame that conflated feminism with other existing gender 
ideologies like the new woman.  
The persistence of maternal rhetoric helps to explain why even an eighteenth-
century ideology like republican motherhood continued to have currency as a news 
framing device in the modern era. According to Linda Kerber, the republican mother 
?integrated political values into her domestic life.? Republican motherhood allowed 
81
the American woman to claim ?a significant political role, although she played it in 
the home.?
47
Giele points out that, as ?citizen-mothers,? modern era women felt 
empowered to care for ?society?s needy and dependent members? just as they would 
care for their own husbands and children.
48
 Shawn J. Parry-Giles and Diane M. Blair 
argue that rhetorical activities of American first ladies extended the ideology of 
republican motherhood beyond the home. In particular, republican motherhood was 
useful in justifying social politicking and volunteerism. Parry-Giles and Blair state, 
?Reminiscent of their nineteenth-century predecessors, the volunteer activities of 
twentieth-century first ladies also reflected the ideology of republican motherhood, 
yet simultaneously expanded their space of authority to local, state, national, and 
international communities.?
49
Presidents Wilson, Harding, and Coolidge reflected the 
values of republican motherhood in their public statements regarding suffrage, 
according to Vanessa Beasley. For example, in Wilson?s statement urging Congress 
to support suffrage, Beasley argues that Wilson offered ?good reasons why women 
could be viewed as good citizens while working both inside and outside of their 
homes during the war.?
50
Harding?s inaugural address envisioned republican mothers 
rocking the ?cradle of American childhood? and providing the ?education so essential 
to best citizenship,?
51
 while Coolidge praised women for ?encouraging education? 
and ?supporting the cause of justice and honor among the nations.?
52
Republican 
motherhood was similarly used, albeit limitedly, by modern era journalists to frame 
the volunteer and political activities of first ladies. Like the presidents, journalists 
invoked republican motherhood in their discussions of women?s patriotism and 
82
wartime contributions and their newfound status as citizens in the years immediately 
following suffrage.  
Despite the increasing public presence of women, most continued to avoid 
publicity of their reform activities. With the exception of the leaders of various 
women?s movements, who gave voice to their causes, the majority of women 
continued to work ?behind the scenes? within a distinctly female public sphere. While 
women benefited from the experience of controlling their own organizations, they 
were not truly integrated into the male political sphere.
53
 Thus, their political 
influence often was indirect. J. Stanley Lemons asserts, for example, that female 
reformers were very successfully at lobbying on the individual level, but rarely 
enjoyed, or sought, direct access to legislative bodies. Instead, male lawmakers spoke 
for them within the official political sphere.
54
Avoiding publicity, especially public 
speech, allowed politically active women to present themselves as true women, who 
justified their actions as extensions of their domestic roles.
55
 But in doing so, they 
diminished their political agency and often surrendered their voices to the men, 
including journalists, who would speak on their behalf, as fathers and husbands had 
been doing for years.        
The ideological shifts in the definitions of the modern American woman can 
be traced by looking at the ways journalists, many of whom were women, employed 
these overlapping gender ideologies and dealt with the paradoxes of public 
womanhood throughout this period. Kitch argues, ?The close parallels between media 
imagery and the actual behavior of Americans enabled media of the era to ?report? 
these changes as reality. But these redefinitions were, to a great extent, constructed 
83
and articulated in the mass media themselves.?
56
Because of the gendered nature of 
the first lady position, its expanding duties, and increased publicity surrounding first 
ladies, coverage of the institution became a place where journalists could ?report? on 
these changing gender ideals and offer their own definitions of the ideal American 
woman, which allow for the increasing performance of the first lady as public
woman.
Framing the First Lady Institution in the Modern Era
The gendered framing devices employed by journalists shape the resulting 
narratives about the first lady institution. By conflating performances of the first lady 
position with gender performance, journalists further engender an already gendered 
institution, which can result in constraints on the performance of the position by 
holding first ladies to institutional as well as gender ideals. First ladies not only have 
to measure up to historical standards set by their predecessors, but they must conform 
to social expectations regarding the performance of gender as well. Such framing also 
recognizes the complexities of the first lady position and gender performance. 
Traditional ideologies like true womanhood often are employed to justify the 
expansion of women?s interests to the public sphere. By considering the private and 
public activities of first ladies as newsworthy, journalists give voice to women?s 
experiences. Such publicity normalizes women?s place both in the press and in the
public sphere. Coverage of the first lady institution then acts as a site of contestation 
over the private, public, and political roles of American women. The following 
examples illustrate the ways in which gender framing shaped stories about the first 
lady institution in the modern era.  
84
From True Woman to New Woman: Personification Framing in the Modern Era
Journalists developed specific frames that they used in their coverage of the 
first lady institution in the modern era based on the gender ideologies of the day, 
reporters? understanding of the historical performance of the position, and the 
experiences and activities of each individual woman. Over the years, the first lady 
institution has been shaped by a combination of tradition, public expectations, and the 
performances and personalities of the women who have held the position. Yet this is 
too much information to be summarized in each news story written about the first 
lady, resulting in a dilemma for journalists, who routinely rely on existing knowledge 
in order to contextualize new(s) information.
57
Hence, they rely on ideological 
shortcuts that allow them to sum up over one hundred years of institutional memory 
and the complexities of gender performance in a word, phrase, or name. The resulting 
personification frames allow journalists to present and evaluate information about 
these women, and about the first lady institution, in a manner that fits their narrative 
style.  
When used as a personification frame, a first lady or candidate?s wife 
becomes the embodiment of gender ideologies, representing for journalists 
ideological definitions of American womanhood. This frame allows journalists to 
assess a woman?s qualifications for the first lady role based on her performance of 
gender, which is then conflated with her ability to perform the duties of the first lady 
institution. This framing can be both limiting and empowering, sometimes 
simultaneously.  
85
The first lady has long been considered a symbol of American womanhood by 
the press, public, and scholars.
58
 The Washington Post argued in 1928 that the first 
lady position was ?the highest dignity which can come to an American woman,?
59
and a New York Times article the following year stated, ?Just as every American boy 
may hope to become President, so every American girl may hope to become a 
President?s wife.?
60
According to a 1904 New York Times article, ?The President?s 
wife, the first lady of the land, is always an object of paramount importance, not only 
to the women of the country, but to the men as well.?
61
When framed as a model of 
American womanhood, an individual first lady stands in for a particular gender 
ideology and her performance of gender is upheld by the press as an example for 
American women to follow.
62
This form of personification framing is also commonly 
used in profiles of candidates? wives as a way to gauge their qualifications and 
potential performance of the first lady position.  
As noted earlier, the true woman ideology dominated the nineteenth century, 
so it is not surprising that Edith Roosevelt, who remained true to her Victorian 
upbringing, personified true womanhood for the press. One of the hallmarks of true 
womanhood was an avoidance of publicity. A 1904 New York Times article 
comparing Roosevelt to the wife of her husband?s opponent, Alton B. Parker, 
described both as model true women who remained within the boundaries of the 
domestic sphere and were uncomfortable with any attempt to lure them into the 
public sphere. Roosevelt was praised for avoiding the ?fierce limelight of publicity,? 
claiming that she ?always shrunk from being conspicuous in any way, and in fact 
would prefer to live the quietest and most domestic of lives,? while Mrs. Parker 
86
(whose first name does not appear in the press) was described as a subservient woman 
who avoided ?any publicity, and whose life is so bound up in her husband?s and in 
her own household that the affairs of the outside world . . . affect her not at all.?
63
The 
comments about the women avoiding publicity further anchored them in the private 
sphere, the proper place of the true woman, and also represented the characteristics of 
piety and purity.
64
Both women also were described as domestic, a prominent characteristic of 
true womanhood. Roosevelt, in particular, served as a model of domesticity for the 
press primarily because both she and her husband embraced the true woman ideology. 
According to the New York Times profile, ?Whichever way the election goes, 
however, the women of America will have a good representative in the wife of the 
head of the nation. Homemakers in the best sense of the word are Mrs. Roosevelt and 
Mrs. Parker,? further positioning both women as role models by claiming that ?their 
success in the lines in which they have undertaken were something worth copying in 
these days when so much is said about the frivolity of women, their carelessness to 
their duties, and their lack of interest in anything serious.?
65
This comment mirrored
the views of Roosevelt?s husband, who decried the increasing attention paid to leisure 
pursuits
66
 and women?s subsequent avoidance of motherhood, which was evidenced 
in the declining birth rates at the turn of the century.
67
Roosevelt stated, ?[W]hen 
women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and it is well they 
should vanish from the earth, where they are fit subjects for the scorn of all men and 
women who are themselves strong and brave and high-minded.?
68
 By constructing the 
candidates? wives as personifications of domesticity and thus true womanhood, the 
87
writer not only praised the women, but also offered a critique of any woman who did
not subscribe to domestic commitments, positioning the first lady as a symbol of true 
womanhood.  
Several first ladies of this era found themselves at the center of the debate 
over changing gender roles. During this era, true womanhood was challenged by the 
ideologies of the new woman and feminism,
69
 and one way that the press reconciled 
these competing ideologies was by emphasizing the more traditional aspects of the 
ideologies while still lauding the individual accomplishments of these women. A 
Good Housekeeping article from March 1913 discussed how new first lady Ellen 
Wilson balanced her work and her home life. The article opened with a discussion of 
Wilson?s career as an artist, noting that her paintings ?have been shown this winter in 
art exhibits in New York, Chicago, Indianapolis, and Philadelphia.?
70
 However, 
author Mabel Porter Daggett tempered her discussion of Wilson?s artistic pursuits by 
focusing on her skills as a homemaker, concluding, ?Woodrow Wilson?s wife has a 
talent for painting.  She has a genius for home-making.?
71
 By framing Wilson as both 
a working artist, a public sphere activity, and a homemaker, a private sphere role, 
Daggett positioned Wilson as the embodiment of both the career-minded new woman 
and the domestic true woman.  
Similarly, Lou Hoover embodied the qualities of both the new and true 
woman, according the 1928 Washington Post headline, ?Mrs. Hoover Seen as 
Cosmopolitan, Social Worker, Devoted Mother and Real Companion to Husband.?
The same article concluded that ?Mrs. Hoover will go to the White House with the 
ideal equipment of a point of view of the woman of the world, trained in official 
88
entertaining, combined with a healthy, sane grasp of world needs and things which 
are not strictly social and withal the dreams of the idealist and the social service 
worker.?
72
In a New York Times Magazine profile, Hoover was praised for her 
performance of roles associated with both the true and new woman , ?She is not only a 
homemaker of the first rank and a sympathetic and understanding friend of children, 
but also a scientist, a linguist, an amateur architect, an accomplished sportswoman, 
and an able organizer.?
73
 Hoover represented the growing number of college-
educated women who balanced a number of roles that once were considered 
diametrically opposed. By using Hoover and Wilson to personify this blend of true 
and new womanhood, journalists were able to negotiate the complexities of gender 
performance while offering a preview of their tenures as first lady. Such framing 
allowed journalists to position these women as both modern (the new woman) and 
traditional (the true woman); it also reinforced an expectation that these women 
somehow had to do it all.             
First ladies Edith Wilson and Florence Harding each personified republican 
motherhood in the press, although in different ways. While Wilson confined her 
actions to the private sphere, Harding?s activity took her into the public sphere. 
During times of war, the ideal of republican motherhood, which reconciles politics 
and domesticity,
74
often was used to justify women?s political participation. Such was 
the case with Edith Wilson during World War I. The Ladies? Home Journal of July 
1918 asked, ?What is Mrs. Wilson Doing?? in relation to the war effort.  The article 
claimed the women of the Wilson White House were deeply committed to the war 
effort, ?Nor are these women at work in the war because they are members of the 
89
immediate family of the President, but because they are, like all other women of 
America, deeply patriotic.? Furthermore, the writer stated, ?So loyal are the present 
residents of the White House to the traditions of American home life, so far removed 
are they from all that is out of harmony with democratic simplicity, that their work in 
the war is almost unknown to Washington itself.?
75
The story detailed the various 
support efforts the women were engaged in, such as knitting warm clothing for the 
soldiers, and praised the fact that there was no ?blowing of newspaper trumpets? in 
relation to their work. The article concluded that the work of Mrs. Wilson ?is a 
testimony not only of her own patriotic self-sacrifice, but of the spirit of American 
womanhood in this crisis of our nation?s history.?
76
These words echo republican 
motherhood, which posits that women?s domestic skills can have political worth; 
these same sentiments appeared in President Wilson?s appeal in 1918 that women 
should be granted suffrage as a reward for their war-time service.
77
To paraphrase 
Kerber, Wilson claimed a significant political role, though she played it in the home.
For the press, she came to embody feminine heroism.
78
In contrast, Harding personified the ways in which republican motherhood 
extended into the public sphere. For journalists, Harding embodied her husband?s 
vision of women?s political participation. In his inaugural, within a discussion of 
economic conditions, President Harding stated, ?We want an America of home, 
illuminated with hope and happiness, where mothers, freed from the long hours of toil 
beyond their own doors, may preside as befits the hearthstone of American 
citizenship.?
79
 Harding actively participated in women?s organizations, often writing 
letters of support to be read at their meetings when she could not attend in person, 
90
recognizing that such acts would receive press coverage. Yet her conception of 
political participation, like her husband?s, encouraged women to extend their roles as 
homemakers and mothers to the public sphere.
80
An example is offered in a New York 
Times story about the Southern Tariff Convention of Women. Harding?s letter is 
quoted as saying, ??Full citizenship with all its responsibilities has come to American 
women. It represents their opportunity to serve their homes and their country if they 
wisely exercise it.?? She argued that the tariff issue was ??of the utmost interest to 
women, for they are the makers of household budgets, the managers of homes . . . and 
on them fall large responsibility for those measures of thrift, economy, and careful 
expenditure which greatly concern the welfare of our country?s and the world?s 
affairs.??
81
 While Harding?s comments embodied the patriotism of republican 
motherhood, they also echoed the progressive and social feminism concept of 
?municipal housekeeping,? which struck a middle ground between the activism of the 
new woman and the domesticity of true womanhood.
82
 By allowing her voice to 
circulate in the public sphere, reaching both the female audience addressed in her 
letter and the promiscuous audience of newspaper readers,
83
 Harding also contributed 
to the growing acceptance of the public woman.
In all of the articles mentioned, these women personified gender ideologies, 
reflecting the shifting definitions of American womanhood in the modern era.
Roosevelt embodied true womanhood to the same extent that Hoover was represented 
as possessing all of the qualities of the new woman. Yet Hoover also was framed as a 
true woman, simultaneously representing tradition and change in women?s roles. In 
the case of Harding, coverage of her captured a particular historical moment when 
91
woman?s suffrage and subsequent political participation was widely celebrated and 
embraced. She also embodied republican motherhood, implying that women?s new 
civic roles were simply an extension of their domestic duties. In wartime, Edith 
Wilson, as a good republican mother, personified how women?s domestic skills could 
be used for patriotic ends. For the most part, journalists emphasized what were 
viewed as the more traditional roles of women, namely wife, mother, and hostess, 
despite their increased attention to the expanding roles of women. The new woman 
may have been praised for her individual accomplishments, like Ellen Wilson?s 
artistic endeavors; however, those accomplishments paled in comparison to her 
homemaking skills or devotion to her spouse. Reporters were able to satisfy the 
expectations of people who wanted first ladies to be equally traditional and modern 
by having these women personify both traditional true women and publicly active 
new women.
By the end of the modern era, first ladies were expected to balance the 
domesticity of true womanhood and the republican mother with the social activism of 
the new woman and the political visibility of feminists, despite the inherent 
contradictions of these different ideologies. Yet even when these women embodied 
more traditional gender ideologies, like true womanhood, press coverage ensured that 
their performance of gender roles took place on a very public stage, helping to 
position even the most private first ladies as public women.  
From Hostess to Advocate: Framing the Performance of the First Lady Position
Journalists? use of gender ideologies as framing devices impacted the ways in 
which they covered the duties of the first lady position. The articles from the modern 
92
era show a shift toward a more public woman in the framing of the first lady 
institution that mirrored the changes in women?s roles and the expansion of the first 
lady?s duties.  
At the turn of the century, the frame of wife and mother dominated first lady 
coverage. Most of the stories about Edith Roosevelt revolved around her family, 
which is not surprising since there were six Roosevelt children, ranging in age from 
three to seventeen when they first occupied the White House.
84
A profile of ?Mrs. 
Roosevelt and Her Children? in the August 1902 Ladies? Home Journal praised 
Roosevelt?s devotion to her family, noting that, despite the demands of the first lady 
position, she ?finds time still for the companionship with husband and children, 
which is, after all, the chief end of her life.? Writer Jacob A. Riis proclaimed that her 
ideas ?on home-making and child-training, which, if sometimes called old- fashioned, 
one may be permitted fervently to hope, for the sake of our country, will never quite 
go out of fashion.?
85
Despite acknowledgement of the public duties of first ladies, 
stories about Roosevelt located her primarily in the private sphere, the place where 
true women exerted their moral influence and found happiness by being good wives, 
mothers, and homemakers.
86
 Roosevelt?s influence on her family was noted in a New 
York Times story from the 1904 campaign, which framed her as a supportive spouse 
in the true woman tradition, ?She found time amid the guidance and care of her little 
children and the directing of her household to always be with her husband when he 
needed her, to listen to his plans and again and again to aid him by her quiet counsel 
and good common sense.?
87
 According to these reporters, the ideals of true 
womanhood clearly influenced Roosevelt?s performance of the first lady position. 
93
However, it is interesting to note that, even though stories lauded Roosevelt as a 
model wife and mother, the fact that her ideas were called ?old-fashioned? in a 1902 
article shows that social views on women?s roles were in flux.  
Presidential wives in the modern era increasingly were framed by the press as 
partners who played important roles in both the private and political lives of their 
husbands. This frame drew on the concept of a ?companionate marriage,? which was 
promoted by social scientists, social workers, and journalists as the ?new marital 
ideal.?
88
 Several first ladies were commended for the companionship they provided to 
their husbands. According to the Ladies? Home Journal, the Roosevelts  would spend 
their evenings discussing ?the high ideals they hold in common?in essentials always 
agreed, however they may differ, on points of less concern. For hers is no passive 
reflection of his robust intellect. She thinks as he acts, for herself, with full freedom 
and calm judgment?in this, as in all else, the helpmeet he needs.?
89
The Coolidges 
and Tafts were described in a similar manner. The Ladies? Home Journal said of 
Grace and Calvin Coolidge, ?Quite obviously both of these busy people manage to 
keep up a lot of interests and habits in common . . . now and again some phrase or a 
short conversation proves what a pleasant comradeship exists between the strong, still 
man and his animated, graceful wife.?
90
The New York Times claimed that Taft 
actively worked to keep abreast of her husband?s interests, ?To any subject in which 
Mr. Taft is interested or of which he is making a study she also gives her attention. . . 
. It has intensified the sense of comradeship existing between them.?
91
 Edith Wilson 
was credited by the press with helping her husband to shoulder the burdens of World 
War I. According to the Ladies? Home Journal, ?One can hardly speak of, much less 
94
attempt to measure, the results of her constant, never-failing companionship and 
sympathy.?
92
 The Hardings? partnership combined their private and political lives. 
The New York Times claimed, ?The two Hardings have blended their qualities and 
personalities perfectly through long experience in working together. Theirs has been a 
partnership of their work. . . . Together, they entered politics, Mrs. Harding in the 
background, devoted, confident, and forward looking, while her husband furnished 
the generous, amiable qualities that made him popular.?
93
By positioning these 
couples as exemplars of the companionate marriage model, reporters recognized the 
president?s wife as a partner who played an important role in her husband?s career, 
even if that role was relegated to the domestic sphere.
Another duty of first ladies related to their role as presidential partner is 
hostessing, and modern era journalists recognized both the social and political 
significance of this institutional obligation. Hostessing in Washington, D.C. has 
always been both personal and political, governed by etiquette and political protocol, 
with ?social events serving as both private events and political arenas, often at the 
same time.?
94
Yet hostessing is also highly gendered, considered the province of 
women despite its influence on the public and political lives of men. Catherine 
Allgor, in her study of ?parlor politics? in early America, says of Washington society, 
?Display, luxury, consciousness of public gaze, and the public nature and intention of 
sociability were its distinguishing forms. Homes retained their public, political 
functions rather than closing their parlors for intimate, private consumption.?
95
At the 
same time, White House hostesses had to avoid appearing too detached from the 
?vernacular gentility? of middle-class Americans, whose etiquette carefully blended 
95
aristocratic yet democratic elements while strongly endorsing the idea of separate 
spheres.
96
 In a 1968 book on the ?American social establishment,? Stephen 
Birmingham argues that Washington society differed from the social scenes in other 
major U.S. cities, ?[B]ecause of the nature of American government and politics, 
Washington is a town where everyone is given a fighting chance; in Washington, 
everyone is essentially nice to everyone else?even to total strangers who wander in. 
Those strangers could, if nothing else, be voters.?
97
 Thus, hostessing demanded a 
delicate balance of democratic and aristocratic elements, requiring knowledge of 
etiquette, social customs, White House traditions, Washington and diplomatic 
protocol, and the political sentiments of both the administration and its guests, with 
the hostess always running the risk of being criticized for offending someone.     
First ladies were expected by the press to be experts on etiquette, the 
principals which govern social behavior.
98
In 1909, an article in Ladies? Home 
Journal proclaimed that incoming first lady Helen Taft ?enters the White House 
better equipped than most of the women who have presided there. . . . In addition to a 
familiarity with the usages of polite society, she enjoys a knowledge of precedence,? 
which the author credited to the hostessing experience she garnered as the ?first lady 
of the land? during her husband?s tenure as Governor General of the Philippines.
99
According to the article, Taft?s qualifications included ?an acquaintance with 
ceremonious etiquette which will make her an invaluable helpmate to her 
husband.?
100
 In a similar fashion, a Washington Post profile claimed that Hoover?s 
years of hostessing experience prepared her for the first lady position, ?Official 
entertaining will be no novelty to Mrs. Hoover, who is a true cosmopolitan and 
96
through her eight years as Cabinet hostess in this capital knows the etiquette of 
Washington from A to Z.?
101
Within the hostess frame, knowledge of ?ceremonious 
etiquette? and experience with ?official entertaining? are presented as qualifications 
for the first lady role.        
Modern era journalists also recognized that a first lady?s success or failure as 
a hostess could impact her husband?s presidency, since the numerous social functions 
she presides over ?affect the president?s political agenda and public image.?
102
Birmingham notes that, in Washington, ?Parties become a tool for doing business, 
and therefore, an implement of government. . . . The belief that they are helping the 
ponderous wheels of national government move an inch or two forward adds to the 
Washington hostesses? sense of high calling.?
103
A 1902 Ladies? Home Journal
article about Roosevelt alluded to the importance of first lady as hostess, saying that 
her style ?assured the success of the administration from a point of view often of 
more account than is commonly supposed.?
104
The New York Times argued that Taft 
recognized the political importance of the first lady?s hostessing duties, ?[S]he 
considers a public office a public trust, socially as well as politically, and that the 
personal side of her husband?s administration will be conducted on a plane of the 
highest and broadest democracy, yet with the dignity benefiting the home of the Chief 
Executive of the greatest republic on earth.?
105
This statement reflects the balance of 
vernacular gentility, ?the highest and broadest democracy,? with the ?dignity? 
associated with aristocracy. The New York Times Magazine credited Herbert 
Hoover?s political success, in part, to his wife?s hostessing abilities, claiming that 
?Mr. Hoover could not have gone as far as he did without the calm, assured and 
97
diplomatic backing of his wife. She made their home serene and hospitable, never 
stuffy or ostentatious.?
106
 In this case, an aristocratic approach to hostessing is 
rejected in favor of a more democratic approach. The conflicting expectations 
surrounding the hostessing role highlight the complexities of this particular first lady 
duty. While some of today?s scholars have dismissed hostessing as a merely 
ceremonial role,
107
journalists covering the first lady have long recognized the 
political significance of hostessing, especially given the interconnectedness of society
and politics in Washington, D.C.      
Articles about the first lady institution during the modern era reflected not 
only the expanding duties of presidents? wives, but the changing views on women?s 
roles. By this time, journalists had developed a set of frames that shaped their 
coverage of the first lady institution that reflected the changing expectations for 
women and public life. First ladies were expected to perform multiple duties, while 
continuing to embody often contesting ideologies, primarily true womanhood and the 
new woman. The domesticity of the true woman was the dominant frame in the 
coverage of McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft. Their successors increasingly were
framed as new women, who were socially and politically active, yet the true woman 
frame persisted, often in the same articles. These ideologies, which are contradictory 
in many ways, reflected both the growing duties of the first lady and the tensions that 
existed as modern era women expanded their public roles while continuing to be the
primary caretakers of their homes and families.  
Emergence of the First Lady as Public Woman
98
Stories about modern era first ladies reveal the emergence of the first lady as a 
public woman who was constructed by the press as a positive role model for 
American women. In her book, The Rise of Public Woman, Glenna Matthews argues 
that women achieved ?a new kind of public power? in the modern era, ?[T]hey began 
to win electoral office, they saw the enactment of major public policy for which they 
had struggled, and they enjoyed an increasing public presence.? However, she notes 
that ?women?s power and women?s access to public influence still fell far short of 
that exercised by men.?
108
 For first ladies, their public presence increased in part 
through the heightened press coverage provided by women?s pages and women?s 
magazines, and the gendered framing used to describe their activities evidenced the 
new ?public power? and influence they wielded. As first ladies became more visible 
and vocal in the public sphere, largely via the press, they became public women, 
representing for the press the increasing roles women were playing in the political 
sphere. Yet by framing these women as both ?true? and ?new? women, journalists 
were able to justify the expanded roles of first ladies while continuing to position 
them as models of more traditional conceptions of American womanhood. The 
emergence of the first lady as public woman in press coverage paralleled the rise of 
the rhetorical presidency and the rhetorical first lady during this era, as presidents and 
their wives began ?going public?
109
 more frequently by targeting their messages to 
larger public audiences and developing new strategies for controlling their public 
image.
110
 Articles show that the first ladies of this era ?went public? in various ways, 
all of which were significant in normalizing women?s presence and political 
participation in the public sphere.            
99
Journalists? access to these women was a key factor in the emergence of first 
ladies as public women. By the turn of the century, first ladies were routinely the 
subject of news coverage.
111
 Like their immediate predecessors, modern era first 
ladies developed strategies for dealing with the press, practices which became 
institutionalized by the end of this period and led to the development of the ?office of 
first lady.?
112
 A major step in establishing the office of first lady occurred when 
Roosevelt became the first president?s wife to hire a secretary, whose primary job was 
handling press inquiries. Roosevelt?s strategy was to satisfy the press and public?s 
curiosity while maintaining her family?s privacy, which was accomplished mainly 
through the regular release of photographs of her family and press releases that 
detailed the activities of the Roosevelts.
113
 This approach allowed Roosevelt to avoid 
direct contact with reporters while maintaining a sense of control over publicity 
surrounding herself and her family.
114
 By participating in the image-making process, 
Roosevelt helped to promote constructions of herself as a dedicated wife, mother, and 
true (private) woman while simultaneously garnering the publicity which made her a 
public figure. Thanks to Roosevelt, the first lady?s social secretary became a 
permanent fixture of the White House staff.  
Other first ladies ?went public? by granting interviews. McKinley, Taft, Ellen 
Wilson, Harding, and Hoover all talked with reporters and were sometimes quoted 
directly, which rarely occurred in articles prior to this period. These first ladies 
became public women by allowing their voices to circulate in the public sphere. By 
speaking to the press, they also played a more active role in constructing their public 
image. In some cases, these women boldly engaged in the prominent social debates of 
100
their era, like the question of woman?s suffrage. Prior to this period, no first lady had 
taken a public stance on suffrage. Yet during the modern era, both Taft and Ellen 
Wilson voiced their opinions on the issue to reporters, thereby entering the debate. 
Taft assumed the anti-suffrage stance in a 1908 New York Times article, ??I am not a 
sympathizer with the woman suffragists.?? She explained that her opposition was 
based on the fear that suffrage and political participation would force women ??to 
neglect other duties that they cannot possibly shift to others,?? such as childrearing. 
Her statements echoed her husband?s position on suffrage,
115
 and reflected the anti-
suffrage argument that ?suffrage placed an additional and unbearable burden on 
women, whose place was in the home.?
116
Taft further stated, ??We are not ready for 
women to vote, as not enough of them take an interest in political affairs, and until the 
majority of women want the vote they will scarcely be given the right.??
117
This was 
an interesting comment coming from a woman who was herself very interested in 
politics and actively involved in her husband?s campaign and career.
118
In contrast, Ellen Wilson was framed as a limited supporter  of the suffrage 
cause. In a 1913 Good Housekeeping interview, Wilson credited her daughter Jessie, 
a settlement house worker, with influencing her views on the subject. ??The 
arguments of my Jessie incline me to believe in the suffrage for the working 
woman.??
119
 This quote reflected Wilson?s progressivism and interest in social 
reform, without committing her fully to the suffrage cause. The vagueness of the 
statement, meanwhile, allowed Wilson to comment on the issue without having 
?embarrassed the president who had not yet come out for suffrage on the national 
level.?
120
 Despite Taft and Wilson?s differing views, and the relatively conservative 
101
tone of their comments, the very act of speaking out on a controversial issue was a 
milestone in the emergence of first ladies as public women. By articulating a political 
position in public, which was considered taboo only a few years earlier, these women 
helped to break down the barriers to women?s publicity and political involvement. 
This new level of political and rhetorical activity for first ladies was further explored 
by Harding, whose written statements to women?s political groups were often 
published, and Hoover, who frequently gave speeches and was the first president?s 
wife to deliver a radio address.
121
The first ladies of this period also became more vocal, and visible, on the 
campaign trail, further normalizing women?s place in political life. The most publicly 
active campaigner of the modern era was Harding. According to Watson, ?Florence 
Harding was one of the first spouses to take a prominent and openly public role in her 
husband?s campaign, putting her impressive political skills to work by helping to 
manage the Harding campaign.?
122
 Reporters noted Harding?s influence on her 
husband?s political career. During the 1920 campaign, the Washington Post described 
her as a ?heap of ambitions, dreams, and political aspirations, not for herself but for 
her husband.? Harding, who routinely talked to the press, promoted her role in the 
campaign. In the Washington Post article, Harding told reporters, ??I have taken part 
in all of Senator Harding?s campaigns and no matter how many engagements I may 
have, I never miss an opportunity to be present when he makes a speech. . . . The 
campaign at Chicago during the convention was very arduous, but I have enjoyed 
every moment of it.?? Harding made it clear that she would be participating in her 
husband?s ?front porch? campaign, stating, ??it is there we shall remain this summer 
102
and receive the delegates during the coming campaign.??
123
Harding?s contributions 
to the campaign were acknowledged by the Washington Post, which stated in an 
inaugural article that ?hers had been an active part in bringing about this great 
triumph in her husband?s life.? The article, titled ?Mrs. Harding Shares Tasks of 
President,? contained the following lead, ?Just as through the presidential campaign, 
Mrs. Harding stood like a soldier beside her husband. During the great moments 
when he was delivering his inaugural address, she watched and weighted his every 
word. Yesterday, as always, Mrs. Harding shared his thoughts and aspirations.?
124
Harding, the first president?s wife to cast a ballot for her husband, was praised for her 
interest in politics. A New York Times profile called Harding ?a woman of 
independent ideas? and proclaimed, ?She likes politics. She likes to participate in 
activities until recently regarded as men?s spheres. She heartily believes in woman 
suffrage.?
125
 Through her words and her actions, Harding helped to shape her image 
as a politically active public woman, while the positive press coverage of her 
rhetorical activities furthered legitimized women?s presence in the political sphere.   
While Harding?s successors were not as vocal, they played visible public roles 
in their husband?s campaigns. Coolidge was one of the first candidates? wives to 
appear alone at political rallies, a considerable step forward for public womanhood. 
She gave no formal speeches, but instead spent time interacting with audience 
members.
126
At a rally held by a Republican woman?s club, the New York Times
noted that Coolidge ?shook hands with all present? but ?made no remarks.?
127
Lou 
Hoover accompanied her husband on his ?speech making tours? but, according to the 
Washington Post, ?made no speeches? of her own and took ?no active part in the 
103
campaign.? The article surmised that ?there is no doubt but that her smiling 
personality has been a vote-getter just the same.?
128
 Although Coolidge and Hoover 
took a more passive approach to campaigning, their presence on the campaign trail, 
either alone or standing alongside their husband, signaled the increasing political 
importance of candidates? wives. The fact that women?s campaign involvement 
increased after 1920 can be attributed in part to the passage of the nineteenth 
amendment, and the need to attract female voters.
129
 However, society?s changing 
views on women?s roles also opened the door for politically-inclined wives to assume 
a more public role without fear of serious recrimination from the press and public.
Their quiet yet public performance made such acts of political publicity more 
palatable.  
The political activities of modern first ladies were not confined to the 
campaign trail; some extended their political interests to the public sphere through 
volunteerism and social advocacy. Modern era first ladies regularly acted as honorary 
chairpersons of various volunteer organizations, drawing on their status as public 
figures. A Ladies? Home Journal article about Edith Wilson?s wartime volunteer 
efforts commented, ?Mrs. Wilson is not, of course, unaware of the prestige that 
attaches to her name and position. She has accordingly lent the use of her name, and 
has accepted honorary appointments when convinced that by doing so she could 
further the advancement of commendable causes, even though she might be unable to 
undertake active direction of the work itself.?
130
This quote indicates that first ladies 
like Wilson had become respected public figures, to the extent that their name alone 
could assist an organization. Groups like the Girl Scouts of America recognized that 
104
the first lady?s involvement helped to promote their organization. Both Harding and 
Hoover were honorary leaders of the Girl Scouts, and often were associated with the 
organization in articles.
131
 While Harding acted as a ceremonial figurehead, Hoover 
was actively involved with the group. She served as the national president of the 
organization and led her own troop before becoming first lady; she continued to work 
closely with the national office after entering the White House.
132
Hoover promoted 
the organization as a model of the volunteerism encouraged by her husband in 
response to the Great Depression.
133
The press credited her with having ?sold the Girl 
Scout movement to social and official Washington,? many of whom became actively 
involved with the organization.
134
 First ladies? involvement with voluntary 
organizations reflected the national trend of women?s civic involvement during the 
progressive era.
135
While most first ladies of the modern era confined themselves to charitable 
work, Ellen Wilson?s social advocacy extended into the policymaking arena, and 
serves as another example of the emergence of the first lady as public woman. 
Matthews argues that, during the modern era, ?some women leaders began to engage 
in a new?for women? kind of intense politicking of the two parties and of male 
officeholders.?
136
 Wilson engaged in such politicking in her efforts to improve the 
housing of those living in the squalid alleys of the capital city. Housing reform was a
key component of progressivism. According to Nancy S. Dye, ?In the early years of 
progressive reform, women?s efforts centered on improving the quality of life in 
American towns and cities through providing better city services,? including 
improved living conditions.
137
And after 1910, ?women increasingly turned to the 
105
government, especially at the federal level, to implement their reforms.?
138
Thus, it is 
not surprising that social advocates enlisted the help of a first lady who shared their 
interest in progressive reform. A May 16, 1913, article titled ?Mrs. Wilson 
Slumming? noted that Wilson was touring the alleys, ?seeking first-hand information 
for the movement to improve the living conditions of the poor in Washington.? The 
article concluded that Wilson was ?deeply impressed with the necessity of legislation 
to do away with the alleys.?
139
 While the article recognized the political aspects of her 
alley tours, the title?s play on the word ?slumming? reflects a sarcastic tone that can 
be read as a subtle critique of Wilson?s involvement in slum clearance.  
The press continued to follow Wilson?s work on behalf of housing reform. An 
article from a week later noted that Wilson had donated ?$100 toward cleaning up the 
slums of the capital,? part of a larger fundraising effort, with the money going to 
?further eliminating unsanitary dwellings in the slums, and the substitution of clean 
and wholesome houses that can be cheaply rented.?
140
The article also mentioned 
Wilson?s donation of a White House automobile for tours of the alleys. When
legislation related to slum clearance was introduced on May 24, 1913, the New York 
Times noted that the project was ?indorsed [sic] by Mrs. Woodrow Wilson, who has 
made a personal inspection of the alleys and courts.?
141
 The legislation was dubbed 
?Mrs. Wilson?s bill,? the first to be named for a first lady, and was passed by both the 
House and Senate shortly before her death in 1914, marking the first time that a 
president?s wife was publicly acknowledged for her active involvement in 
policymaking.
142
Wilson?s political activities, from fundraising to lobbying, were 
representative of the forms of political action female reformers engaged in during the 
106
years prior to woman?s suffrage.
143
Although her political influence was indirect, 
reminiscent of the ?parlor politics? of early first ladies, the press coverage of 
Wilson?s involvement added an element of publicity necessary to garner widespread 
public support for such causes. Given the progressive political climate of the time, 
and the active involvement of women in social reform efforts, Wilson?s social 
advocacy and policymaking were, for the most part, positively framed. Such coverage 
of the institution helped to expand the acceptable roles, and the political agency, of 
first ladies.
Despite the emergence of positive representations of public womanhood 
during the modern era, Matthews contends that women faced more constraints than 
opportunities. She paints a bleak picture of public womanhood, noting that ?the 
middle-class white woman of the 1920s confronted unpleasant realities should she 
contemplate becoming publicly active. There was no cultural expectation that a 
woman should be able to ?have it all.? If she chose serious engagement with politics, 
for example, she was unlikely to combine this with a husband, let alone raising 
children.?
144
 Yet this is exactly what modern era first ladies were able to do. Not only 
did these women become more publicly active, they were applauded by the press for 
doing so. Modern era first ladies, as a group, were more vocal, more politically 
active, and more publicly visible than the majority of their predecessors. Even the 
most reticent first ladies, like Roosevelt and Coolidge, played a role in constructing 
their public image and presenting themselves as public figures. 
I contend that the gendered press framing of their public activities helped first 
ladies to avoid the pitfalls of public womanhood that Matthews describes. First ladies 
107
in the modern era were expected to ?have it all,? or at least to be able to balance their 
private role as wives with the public duties of the first lady position. By framing first 
ladies as true women or republican mothers, journalists helped to lessen the criticism 
usually associated with women?s publicity. Their increased presence in the public 
sphere was justified primarily as an expansion of their wifely duties, just as women?s 
increased political participation during this period, including suffrage, was largely 
defended as an extension of women?s domestic concerns. The heightened publicity 
surrounding first ladies was also a product of increased press coverage of and public 
interest in presidents and their families. Combined with a social climate that 
recognized women?s changing roles, such factors facilitated the emergence of first 
ladies as public women.     
Conclusion
Coverage of the first lady institution during the modern era can be viewed as
the basis for contemporary reporting on the first lady. For journalists, first ladies 
personified various gender roles, and coverage of the first lady institution served as a 
site of contestation where the prevailing gender ideologies competed to define 
women?s roles. While the true woman dominated coverage at the turn of the century, 
the ideal never was replaced by the new woman or feminism. Instead, the modern era 
press often used the competing ideologies to frame different aspects of a woman?s 
life, a practice which reflected the complexities of gender performance as first ladies 
increasingly ?went public.? Kitch, who also looks at images of womanhood in the 
modern era, notes that ?the messy representational contradictions? of this era are 
significant both historically and as a model for understanding current media.
145
The 
108
representations of first ladies reflect the expanding expectations and publicity 
associated with the position in the twentieth century and the idea that first ladies must 
somehow be ?simultaneously modern and traditional,? a concept that would lead to 
double binds in later years as the press increasingly critiqued first ladies? gendered 
performance of their institutional duties.
146
Publicity surrounding the first lady institution increased during this era, thanks 
in part to the popularity of women?s magazines and women?s pages in newspapers. 
The positioning of first ladies as public figures in the political sphere helped to 
neutralize the stigma associated with women?s public sphere activity. This was 
accomplished primarily through the press practice of gendered framing. In framing 
first ladies as true women or republican mothers, journalists made the increasing 
political activity of these women appear less controversial by linking their actions to 
women?s traditional roles. The women who held the position handled press scrutiny
in different ways. Some issued press releases as a way of avoiding reporters, while 
others granted interviews. As the era progressed, first ladies made more frequent 
public appearances independent of their husbands, meeting the public, posing for 
photographs, and sometimes making speeches. They also became more involved in 
supporting social and political causes. But because the first ladies of this era played a 
limited role in the construction of their public image, the press had considerable
control in defining and interpreting their actions. The resulting constructions often 
tempered their individual agency by emphasizing their domestic roles. While women 
like Ellen Wilson and Florence Harding served as models of women?s increasing 
political efficacy, the press continued to remind readers that they were also true 
109
women. Such gendered framing in some ways undermined their standing as 
independent public figures, yet it also helped to make their presence in the public and 
political sphere less controversial because their actions were not seen as an overt 
attempt to challenge or change traditional gender roles. 
Press coverage of the first lady institution in the modern era was influential in 
promoting positive representations of public women by positioning first ladies as 
visible public figures and role models for American women. Stories and images of 
first ladies were disseminated to a wide audience through newspapers and magazines, 
establishing these women as prominent public figures acting in the political sphere. 
However, because these articles appeared primarily in publications targeted to female 
readers, first ladies? publicity was gendered and their actions were largely confined to 
a female political sphere. Such gendering justified their status as public women while 
also limiting their sphere of influence. Although none of the first ladies of this era 
achieved the level of celebrity that some of their successors did, each was recognized 
by the press as playing an important role in both their husbands? lives and in 
American culture. Their various ways of ?going public? helped to create a climate in 
which first ladies could be more publicly and politically active without fear of serious 
recrimination. During this era, because of the flexibility of gender ideologies, 
journalists presented first ladies as able to be traditional and modern, private and
public women. Hence, the modern era first ladies did not face the same double binds 
that would prove problematic for their successors, but they did encounter mounting 
expectations. A reporter for the New York Times Magazine noted in 1928 that first 
ladies were increasingly held to a ?superwomanly ideal,? a term that is often 
110
associated with the women?s liberation movement of the 1970s.
147
 In recent years, the 
?superwoman? expectation has been used to describe the struggles facing the 
?modern? woman at the end of the twentieth century.
148
That the writer?s comment 
would not seem out of place in an article published today is further evidence that 
coverage from the modern era continues to serve as the foundation for journalistic 
constructions of the first lady institution.  
111
Chapter Three
First Lady as Gendered Celebrity, 1932-1961
In a 1932 New York Times Magazine article profiling the ?Candidates for the 
Post of First Lady,? reporter Alice Rogers Hagar articulated the difficult duties of the 
first lady: ?The President?s wife must be a silent partner. The unwritten law is that the 
First Lady gives no interviews, makes no public utterances. She appears at State 
functions, where her presence is expected, and she must have a smile for every guest, 
though guests number legions. She must do her utmost to shield the President from 
importunities, even when his secretaries are equally on guard. She must be prepared, 
when he is tired, to cover up his lapses with a friendliness so sincere that they are 
forgotten. She must never show weariness or distress.? Given the demands of the 
position, Hagar argued that it was the job of journalists to ?discover what manner of 
American women are ?candidates? for this most difficult post . . . and to try to 
understand the character, background, training, and talents of the two, one of whom 
will spend at least four years as the exemplar of American living.?
1
The two women in question were Lou Henry Hoover and Anna Eleanor 
Roosevelt. According to Hagar, both ?remarkable women? were equally prepared for 
the post, ?There is no question of comparing them?each is a personality distinct. Yet 
contrasts are few and far to seek, for, broadly speaking, their lives run parallel. In 
greatness of heart, in quality of mind, in education, in spiritual independence, in vivid 
approach to living and in depth of experience they are sisters.? Hagar?s profile 
revealed that both Hoover and Roosevelt were committed to ?outside interests of 
philanthropic or an educational nature.? Hoover was said to have ?aided her husband 
112
in his career,? while the Roosevelt?s ?fine, frank comradeship? was commended. 
Devotion to their children was discussed, but each woman was also applauded for her 
individual accomplishments. In particular, Roosevelt was said to have ?fingers in 
more pies at one moment than most mortals in a lifetime,? attested to by a list of her 
professional and organizational affiliations. Following her assessment of each 
woman, Hagar concluded, ?The Great American Home would seem to be in excellent 
hands for the next four years when we can present two such ?candidates? for the First 
Ladyship as these American gentlewomen, Mrs. Hoover and Mrs. Roosevelt.?
2
 While 
recognizing the superwomanly qualities needed to perform the first lady position, 
Hagar ultimately reinforced the domesticity of the institution in her closing statement. 
This article reflected the increased expectations faced by first ladies, and the 
complexities of performing the first lady position in accordance with gender norms of 
the era.
The first ladies of the early twentieth century, as noted in the last chapter, laid 
the foundation for the modern first lady by institutionalizing many of the duties that 
had been performed by their nineteenth-century predecessors.
3
 They also evidenced 
the rise of the first lady as public woman, which was tied to increased publicity of the 
first lady institution. However, Lewis L. Gould claims, ?Before 1933, none of the 
First Ladies had exploited fully the possibilities inherent within the celebrity status of 
the institution.? For over thirty years, only four women served as first lady: (Anna) 
Eleanor Roosevelt (1933-1945),
4
 (Elizabeth) Bess Wallace Truman (1945-1953),
5
Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower (1953-1961),
6
 and Jacqueline Lee Bouvier 
Kennedy (1961-1963).
7
 It was during the tenure of Eleanor Roosevelt, according to 
113
Gould, that the first lady ?blossomed as a national celebrity in ways that permanently 
altered the expectations for presidential wives who followed her.?
8
 This can be 
credited largely to the regular press coverage Roosevelt garnered through her many 
activities. Articles about Roosevelt were not only a constant fixture of women?s pages 
and magazines, but also appeared at times on the front pages of the New York Times
and Washington Post. Such positioning signaled that stories about first ladies were 
considered of interest to both male and female readers, extending the newsworthiness 
of first ladies beyond a solely female audience. Although Roosevelt?s successors did 
not emulate her approach to publicity, they each had to deal with the issues of public 
image, personality, and celebrity as they related to the first lady institution. This 
heightened publicity surrounding the first lady granted agency to these women by 
recognizing their individuality and legitimizing the roles they played in their 
husbands? careers, but their individuality was sometimes limited by institutional 
expectations of the role and the gender ideologies that were visible in press frames.
This chapter will look at press framing of the first lady institution between 
1932 and 1961. The frames used in stories about the first lady reflected the cultural 
changes of this period, particularly in relation to women?s roles. Women were 
increasingly recognized as citizens who made important contributions to American 
political culture, whether through rationing during wartime or endorsing Cold War 
consumerism. Their contributions, however, were tied primarily to the roles of wife 
and homemaker, reflecting an ideology of domesticity that permeated both the 
personal and political aspects of this era. Many feminist scholars have pointed to the 
postwar era as a period of ?domestic containment,?
9
 which trapped (primarily middle-
114
class white) women in their suburban homes, where they sublimated personal 
ambition and independence to the needs of their families.
10
 The domination of the so-
called ?feminine mystique? during this era, which has been traced to the period 
between the world wars,
11
 became an ideological catalyst that led to the emergence of 
the women?s liberation movement in the 1960s.
12
 This perspective, while valid in 
many respects, ignores the positive facets of the domestic ideology of this era, 
primarily the sense of domestic empowerment, which granted women control over the 
private domain and authority within the home. Homemaking was often treated as a 
profession, an integral part of a two-person career, and the homemaker?s consumer 
responsibilities were imbued with political significance throughout this period. Both 
constructions legitimate women?s roles, even if they are contained within the private 
sphere, and contribute to the second-wave feminist idea that ?the personal is 
political.? Thus, although this ?in-between? period may have lacked the organized 
feminist activity that characterized the so-called first and second waves, gender roles 
continued to be in flux. While frustration with the domestic containment of this 
period unleashed a new tide of feminist activity in the 1960s, the domestic 
empowerment of homemakers, which began to recognize the personal as political, 
helped to foster the female consciousness necessary for social action in the coming 
years.      
The press coverage of the first lady institution during this era reveals the 
expansion and limitation of women?s roles, both of which are significant in the 
history of feminism and contribute to our understanding of women?s place in 
American culture. The journalistic practice of personification framing promoted the 
115
domesticity that pervaded this era. With such ideological short-cuts, Roosevelt 
became a stand-in for both social feminism and republican motherhood, while her 
successors embodied various aspects of the cult of domesticity. Such gendered 
framing also impacted journalists coverage of the duties of the first lady, the majority 
of which reflected the concept of the two-person career, which acknowledges a wife?s 
role in her husband?s career, from hostess to advisor to protector. This type of 
framing recognized the political importance of the first lady, evidencing the domestic 
empowerment of the homemaker role. But such stories also reinforced traditional 
gender roles by framing the first lady?s duties as an extension of her role as wife and 
homemaker.  
Gendered framing was also tied to an increasing focus on the first lady as 
celebrity. As demonstrated in Chapter Two, first ladies began seeking and attracting 
more press attention, which helped legitimate first ladies status as public women 
without fear of reproach. Press frames, which centered on the traits of true 
womanhood, were instrumental in negating the sexualized stigma against women and 
publicity. The first ladies of this era, with the exception of Truman, gained celebrity 
status as personalities independent of their husbands. This press phenomenon fed into 
journalists? notion that first ladies symbolize American womanhood and 
demonstrated the increased publicity focused on first ladies in this period. According 
to Chris Rojek, ?Celebrities simultaneously embody social types and provide role 
models.?
13
 For journalists, through the practice of personification framing, first ladies 
embody gender ideologies and provide role models for American women; hence, they 
become gendered celebrities. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all garnered 
116
gendered celebrity status to the extent that the public and press felt comfortable 
referring to them as Eleanor, Mamie, and Jackie. In articles focusing on their celebrity 
standing, these women?s husbands were rarely, if ever, mentioned, thereby 
recognizing these women as public figures in their own right. However, because 
reporters often focused on the physical appearances of first ladies and their consumer 
behavior, these women were at times reduced to their fashions and other superficial 
representations of their personalities. Gendered celebrity, thus, can be both 
empowering and constraining. The first ladies of this era represented for the press the 
sweeping changes in American culture that occurred between 1932 and 1961, 
highlighting in the process a gendered component of celebrity status. 
Competing Gender Ideologies: From Rosie the Riveter to June Cleaver
The extremes that characterized this era resulted in mixed messages regarding 
the roles women should play, culminating in what some scholars regard as a backlash 
against women in public and political life.
14
 The New Deal included measures that 
increased legal protections for women and children and provided a platform for 
politically-active women to become involved in policymaking. Yet other New Deal 
policies discriminated against working women and limited women?s control over the 
government policies affecting them by placing male bureaucrats in charge of the 
majority of New Deal programs.
15
 During the Depression, when any form of income 
could determine whether a family would survive or starve, women were encouraged, 
and at times forced, to leave the workforce in order to provide job opportunities for 
men.
16
 But when the United States entered World War II, women were recruited by 
the government to take on jobs created by the wartime industry and fill positions left 
117
vacant by the men who went to war.
17
 Following the war, many women were once 
again forced out of the workplace, losing their jobs to returning soldiers; the same 
government that recruited them for wartime work now entreated women to pursue 
careers as homemakers.
18
 A healthy economy and the postwar baby boom helped to 
keep many women in the home throughout the 1950s.
19
 Yet in the following decade, 
these homebound years would be pointed to as the root of women?s discontent.
20
Throughout these years, the gender ideologies that competed to define 
American womanhood reflected the times, particularly the contestation over women?s 
roles in the private and public spheres. The prevailing theme of each ideology was 
domesticity. Although the egalitarian spirit of the early suffrage movement persisted, 
it was overshadowed by so-called social or ?domestic? feminism, which saw its ideals 
reflected in Roosevelt?s New Deal.
21 
The Depression and World War II, times of 
crisis that called for women?s active involvement in the public sphere as well as in the 
home, created a climate in which both social feminism and republican motherhood 
flourished. The postwar years saw a retreat to suburbia and the promotion of 
domesticity and consumerism as powerful Cold War weapons. Following the war, the 
true womanhood ideology, also known as the cult of domesticity, was a convenient 
way to promote women?s return to the home and subsequent retreat from public and 
political life.
22
 However, within the domestic sphere, homemakers were empowered 
in ways that exceeded the moral authority of Victorian era true women. Particularly 
through their role as the primary consumers for the family, women exerted more 
authority within the home than they had in previous generations.      
118
Female leaders who joined together in the fight for suffrage prior to 1920 
went their separate ways soon after the passage of the nineteenth amendment, divided 
mainly by philosophical differences regarding gender. Alice Paul and the National 
Woman?s Party, embracing an egalitarian viewpoint, focused their energies on the 
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), first introduced in 1923. But the majority of 
women?s groups, including the League of Women Voters (formerly the National 
American Woman Suffrage Association) and the National Women?s Trade Union 
League, opposed the ERA.
23
 Members of groups like the LWV and NWTUL, who 
came to be identified as social feminists, believed that women were inherently 
different from men, and needed protective measures to prevent their exploitation in 
the workforce and improve their home lives. Barbara Ryan explains, ?[T]hey worked 
not for equality between the sexes, but rather for legislative provisions for maternity 
and infant health care, restrictions on child labor, and protective labor legislation for 
women designed to shorten their hours of work and define the conditions under which 
they could work.?
24
 Such social feminists were the descendants of the new women of 
the progressive era who argued that ?their domestic duties gave women special moral 
qualities and a special claim to influence in American society.?
24
 J. Stanley Lemons 
argues that ?social feminists constituted an important link in the chain from the 
progressive era to the New Deal,? providing the foundation for the social welfare 
system promoted by the Roosevelts.
26
 Both Eleanor Roosevelt and Frances Perkins, 
FDR?s Secretary of Labor, aligned themselves with leading social feminists and 
fought for protective legislation.
27
119
As in the past, republican motherhood was invoked to justify women?s 
growing political participation. Believing that women?s lives were defined by their 
roles as wives and mothers, social feminists felt that women were obligated as 
citizens to work on behalf of securing political rights and protections for women and 
children, within both the home and the workplace. This philosophy reflected the 
republican motherhood notion that ?a mother, committed to the service of her family 
and to the state, might serve a political purpose.?
28
 Roosevelt often justified her active 
promotion of social reform by characterizing herself as a concerned mother, and the 
majority of causes she supported were aimed at improving the lives of women, 
children, and families.
29
Republican motherhood was also used to frame women?s wartime roles. Gail 
Collins argues that, throughout U.S. history, rules regarding proper female 
comportment have been ?temporarily abandoned whenever the country needed 
women to do something they weren?t supposed to do.?
30
 Such was the case during 
World War II, when many middle-class white women, who for the past decade had 
been encouraged to stay out of the workforce, were ?told it was their duty to take over 
for the men who had gone to the front.?
31
 The government created one of the most 
famous American images, Rosie the Riveter, as part of a campaign that made factory 
work both patriotic and feminine.
32
 Meanwhile, women were reminded that it was 
also their duty to fight the war from the home front by rationing, buying war bonds, 
and volunteering at their local Red Cross or USO canteen.
33
 Nancy Walker contends 
that women?s magazines and advertisers, in particular, constructed even the most 
120
basic of domestic duties as patriotic acts,
34
 integrating political values into women?s 
domestic lives, which is the premise of republican motherhood.
35
But when the war ended, the same government that recruited women workers 
started campaigning almost immediately to get them out of the workforce. Susan J. 
Douglas says that government officials were ?fueled by the fear that there wouldn?t 
be enough jobs for returning servicemen and that depression conditions might 
return.?
36
 So, women were now told that it was their patriotic duty to give up their 
jobs to returning soldiers.
37
 Rather than relying solely on republican motherhood, the 
gender ideology of true womanhood was brought to the forefront as a way of framing 
middle-class white women?s return to the home.    
Following the war, true womanhood and the cult of domesticity, in the guise 
of the postwar homemaker, emerged as the dominant gender ideology. The fictional 
Betty Crocker and June Cleaver were the images of the ?new? true woman?ideal 
homemakers with perfectly coiffed hair.
38
 Collins remarks that, following the war, 
?women seemed to have been catapulted back in time to the nineteenth century, to the 
cult of the True Woman and the corset that went with it.?
39
 According to Ryan, 
?From the mid-1940s until the 1960s, traditional gender role divisions prevailed as 
the mythical ideal for American family life, an anomaly in the demographic and 
family trends that had been occurring in the United States since the turn of the 
century. The age of marriage dipped, the birth rate soared, and compulsory family 
togetherness took hold.?
40
 In 1963, Betty Friedan argued, ?In the fifteen years since 
World War II, this mystique of feminine fulfillment became the cherished and self-
perpetuating core of contemporary American culture.? She claimed that white women 
121
?had no thought for the unfeminine problems of the world outside the home; they 
wanted the men to make the major decisions. They glorified in their role as women, 
and wrote proudly on the census blank: ?Occupation: housewife.??
41
 These middle-
class white women were part of an ?unprecedented domestic revival.?
42
 This 
ideological shift ?made home and family metaphors for America?s identity and 
security? during the Cold War.
43
Some scholars view the resurgence of true womanhood as a backlash against 
advances made by middle-class white women during the Depression and war years. 
Glenna Matthews states, ?Coupled with the general conservativism which had been 
unleashed by Cold War anxieties?not to say hysteria?the backlash proved 
damaging to the cause of public womanhood.? Matthews notes that women?s 
magazines in particular ?enjoined women to sacrifice their own ambitions for the sake 
of husband and children.?
44
 This meant, for many white women, giving up jobs and a 
life outside the home that they enjoyed. Douglas claims the ?backlash against our 
mothers, which began nine seconds after Japan surrendered, makes the backlash of 
the 1980s look flaccid.? She asserts further, ?Because the contrast between the Rosie 
the Riveter campaign and the virulent antifeminism that followed it was so stark, it is 
easy to paint a black-and-white, before-and-after portrait of this period.? However, 
Douglas and others argue that the backlash and its promotion of true womanhood 
reflected earlier debates over women?s changing roles. Ruth Schwartz Cohen argues 
that the ?feminine mystique,? which was a new take on the Victorian cult of true 
womanhood, appeared after World War I, dominated through the Depression, and 
then reappeared following WWII.
45
122
But there was a positive element to the postwar backlash in that it sparked the 
women?s liberation movement of the 1960s.
46
 Ryan claims that the rebirth of 
feminism can be traced to the ?family-centered years of the 1950s? when ?cultural 
ideology defined the wife/mother role as both women?s special duty and path to 
fulfillment.?
47
 As Friedan found when she interviewed white middle-class 
housewives in the 1950s, many already wanted ?something more than my husband 
and my children and my home.?
48
 By the early 1960s, the question regarding the 
status of American women would be taken up by a presidential commission, 
appointed by President Kennedy and chaired by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt.
49
Another positive aspect of the domestic ideology of this era, which has often 
been overlooked by feminist scholars, was a sense of domestic empowerment that 
characterized the homemaker as playing a vital role in American civic and cultural 
life. Nancy Walker, in her study of women?s magazines during this era, says that 
?domestic? was not a narrow term that referred simply to housekeeping, but 
encompassed family and social relationships, personal well-being and appearance, 
purchasing habits, schools and neighborhoods, recreation, and civic involvement. The 
term ?domestic? also connoted that which was not foreign in Cold War rhetoric, 
linking home and family to national security. Walker argues that women?s magazines 
?included debates on the nature and significance of the homemaker?s role that reveal 
the cultural fluidity of such concepts as home and domestic at mid-century.?
50
While a true woman exercised authority through her moral superiority to men, 
the homemaker?s authority came largely from her buying power in the marketplace. 
Advertisers began to recognize women as the primary household consumers in the 
123
late nineteenth century, but the economic pressures of the Depression and World War 
II imbued women?s consumerism with added significance. The homemaker had both 
agency and influence as she made decisions regarding the family spending.
51
 This 
power was extended during the Cold War, when consumption represented ?the 
superiority of the American way of life.? May claims, ?Although they may have been 
unwitting soldiers, women who marched off to the nation?s shopping centers to equip 
their new homes joined the ranks of American cold warriors.?
52
 As Walker concludes, 
?The domestic remained contested ground; the woman who mopped the kitchen floor 
wearing high heels was also a participant in the political process.?
53
 Such domestic 
empowerment helped to politicize the private sphere by linking it to the public 
marketplace and the political arena, and can be viewed as an early articulation of the 
second-wave feminist mantra ?the personal is political.?
54
The social conditions of these decades promoted this domestic ideal, which 
shaped definitions of womanhood in the same ways that true womanhood once 
dictated the performance of gender roles. The postwar backlash and subsequent 
?domestic containment? of the Cold War limited definitions of women?s proper roles, 
and by extension, the performance of the first lady position;
55
 the same ideology also 
promoted a domestic empowerment that acknowledged the social significance of 
homemaking and the growing power of women.  
Framing the First Lady Institution at Mid-Century
The framing of the first lady institution between 1932 and 1961 accentuates 
the ideology of domesticity while recognizing the political contributions of the first 
lady. The press coverage of the first lady institution during this period, which 
124
increased dramatically, brought attention to the contestation over women?s roles and 
the competing gender ideologies, as well as the increasingly public roles women were 
playing. Roosevelt personified for the press the social feminist and the republican 
mother, while her successors embodied the Cold War homemaker. These ideologies 
were also used as framing devices in articles that assessed the performance of the 
various duties associated with the first lady institution. The heavy press coverage of 
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy helped propel them to celebrity status, 
positioning each woman as a role model for American womanhood.
56
Embodying Domesticity: Empowerment and Containment 
Throughout the history of the institution, journalists have presented the first 
lady as a model of American womanhood. However, there was an increase in this 
particular type of framing during this period that mirrored the growing pervasiveness 
of domesticity as the dominant ideology defining gender roles. Both the individual 
women who held the position and the cultural climate of the era amplified journalists? 
constructions of these first ladies as personifications of gender ideologies. Articles 
appearing in women?s pages and magazines focused primarily on women?s various 
domestic roles, infusing women with a sense of domestic empowerment that 
simultaneously contained their political influence. The first ladies of this era were 
more active than their modern era predecessors in terms of constructing their public 
image, either through their visibility or their evasion of the spotlight.
57
 However, 
through practices such as personification framing, journalists remained the primary 
filter through which the words and images of first ladies were disseminated 
throughout the public sphere.
125
For journalists, Roosevelt personified the reformist spirit of the New Deal and 
social feminism, not only through her actions, but through her words. Roosevelt was 
the most active in respect to publicity; she held regular press conferences open only to
women journalists,
58
 gave speeches on an almost daily basis, published a daily 
newspaper column, hosted radio programs, and wrote for various publications, 
activities which garnered regular press coverage and expanded her exposure as a 
public woman.
59
 Because she spoke so frequently, journalists often built their story 
around her quotes, positioning her as the physical embodiment of the ideals that she 
promoted in her speeches. Sometimes journalists went as far as using Roosevelt?s 
name as a frame in the headlines of their stories, attributing the ideas in the story 
directly to her. For example, an article in the New York Times titled, ?Housewives 
Entitled to Fixed Salaries, Like Any Worker, Mrs. Roosevelt Holds,? opened with the 
following sentence: ?The suggestion that wives who stay at home to look after the 
household should receive a definite salary for their work was advanced last night by 
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, wife of the President.? The article went on to note that 
Roosevelt also supported protective legislation for working women, quoting her as 
saying, ??a woman who works to give her children the necessities and some of the 
advantages of life should have her work day limited to eight hours.??
60
 Journalists 
framed such comments as representative of the views of groups like the Women?s 
Trade Union League, of which Roosevelt was an active member. For journalists, 
Roosevelt became the embodiment of social feminism by giving voice to its 
ideological values and by acting out its basic tenets.  
126
Roosevelt?s activism, combined with her focus on domesticity, positioned her 
at times as a personification of republican motherhood. Shawn J. Parry-Giles and 
Diane M. Blair argue that twentieth-century first ladies extended the republican 
motherhood ideology, resulting in the premise that ?being a good first lady meant 
hailing, modeling, and promoting publicly the civic values that good mothers 
historically instilled.?
61
 A 1933 Washington Post article featured a statement from 
Roosevelt telling her fellow homemakers that they had a significant role to play in the 
country?s economic recovery: ??We women have to go about our daily task of home-
making, no matter what may happen, and we needn?t feel that ours in an unimportant 
part, for our courage and our willingness to sacrifice may well be the springboard 
from which recovery may come.??
62
 This statement imbued homemaking with 
political purpose, and empowered women to act as citizens, noting that their daily 
domestic duties have political consequences.  
Such sentiments of domestic empowerment were echoed in articles during 
World War II when Roosevelt urged ?the women of the country to do all in their 
power to help speed victory in the war? as homemakers and consumers. Under the 
headline, ?First Lady Decries Home-Front Complaints and Urges Women to do 
Utmost to Aid War,? a 1945 New York Times article stated, ?Housewives of this 
country, she declared, should be able to take a ration stamp cut to distribute food 
supplies as equitably as possible without feeling that they are being badly treated.? 
According to the story, ?The First Lady asserted that women had a responsibility as 
buyers to stick to essentials and to pass useful articles on to others when they ceased 
to need them.? The article pointed out how Roosevelt exhibited women?s homefront 
127
role by overseeing White House rationing, providing a ?model for American 
housewives.?
63
 Such framing recalls the actions of revolutionary era republican 
mothers, who contributed to the war effort by caring for their farms and families and 
boycotting British goods.
64
 Although these stories conflate domesticity, consumerism, 
and patriotism, thereby defining women?s citizenship in relation to their roles as 
homemakers, they also recognize the significant civic role homemakers play, 
especially during times of crisis. Because women managed the households during this 
era, they were empowered to make decisions that not only impacted their own 
personal domestic spaces, but the nation as well.      
Although social feminism and republican motherhood were both characterized 
by domestic discourse, these ideologies rarely appeared in the postwar era, replaced 
with a more fervent ideology of domesticity which dominated discussions of 
womanhood and the first lady institution. The Cold War incarnation of the cult of 
domesticity, later labeled ?the feminine mystique? by Friedan, constructed women as 
?sexually attractive housewives and consumers under the American capital system.?
65
Such framing conflated domesticity with both femininity and consumerism. May 
argues that ?this vision of domesticity,? which included ?affluent homes, complete 
with breadwinner and homemaker,? was a powerful Cold War propaganda weapon.
66
For journalists, Mamie Eisenhower and Jacqueline Kennedy, and to a lesser extent, 
Bess Truman, personified this ?vision of domesticity.?
For starters, the first ladies of the postwar era were the visual embodiments of 
femininity, looking the part of the average American woman. For postwar Americans, 
fashion represented femininity. Anne Norton contends, ?Through commodities 
128
Americans reveal their conception of their identities. . . . Commodities serve 
Americans as objectifications in the Hegelian sense: as material embodiments of the 
ideal.?
67
 The New York Times? Bess Furman reported that Truman was ?as folksy in 
tone as is the Midwest itself,?
68
 which matched her husband?s ?plain Midwestern 
democracy? image.
69
 In Martha Weinman?s review of first lady fashion, Truman was 
quoted as saying of the first lady, ??Why should she look different from anyone 
else??? Reporters played on this personification, offering ?homespun descriptions of 
her resemblance to ?your next-door neighbor.??
70
 Eisenhower also personified the 
typical postwar housewife and came the closest to representing the American woman, 
according to Weinman, ?Mamie has, in effect, come closer to the ideal than any other 
first lady of memory. . . . In addition to difficult hair, she looks average, as most 
women do; she loves clothes, as most women do; she dresses a bit more youthfully 
than is warranted by Paris standards, as most American women do; and she has a guilt 
about unnecessary spending as, again, most women have.? A ?housewife? was even 
quoted as saying, ??I?ve always sympathized with her because I?ve never been able to 
do anything with my hair, either.?? Weinman concluded that Eisenhower was 
?typical, and thus ideal.? She argued that both Eisenhower and Truman embodied a 
shifting cultural perspective on the ideals of American womanhood:  ?The cozy 
conjunction of a White House wife who looks just like your neighbor roughly 
parallels Hollywood?s abrupt shift in leading ladies from goddesses to girls-next-door 
and is infinitely better suited to these identification-conscious times than the grand-
lady manner of Dolly Madison?s day.?
71
 In a time when both print media and 
politicians were increasingly focused on images,
72
 Truman and Eisenhower visually 
129
represented the average American housewife and Cold War femininity. Such framing 
encouraged readers to identify with the first lady, making the ?ideal? of womanhood 
more attainable by the ?typical? woman, primarily through consumption.    
The emphasis on representing the ?average? housewife was so pervasive in 
the postwar era that the first lady?s image became a campaign issue in 1960. Kennedy 
was more youthful and stylish than both her predecessors and the average American 
housewife, personifying for the press culture and sophistication. According to Gould, 
Kennedy?s legacy ?was an image of beauty, culture, and good taste that no woman 
could easily match.?
73
 But this younger, hipper first lady image was not immediately 
embraced by the public. Kennedy was criticized as being ?too chic,? and some 
reporters argued that her cultured image alienated the ?average American woman,? 
and could cost her husband votes. Weinman claimed, ?This fall, the question of style 
for a President?s wife may be a Great issue.  Can too much chic?or too little?mean 
votes?? She suggested that ?if Mrs. Kennedy could un-chic a bit, she would make an 
admirable fashion diplomat.?
74
 Meanwhile, the ?conservative perfection? of Pat 
Nixon, Kennedy?s ?competition? for the first lady position, was critiqued as having a 
?consciously manipulated air that poses certain problems vis-?-vis the public.? One 
observer stated that ??Pat Nixon always looks too good to be true . . . [and] it irritates 
me.?? By not looking like the average housewife, both Kennedy and Nixon found 
themselves under fire. Weinman focused primarily on controversy surrounding 
Kennedy, including a report that she and her mother-in-law spent ?some $30,000 a 
year in Paris salons? on clothes. Further, Weinman claimed that ?Mrs. Kennedy?s 
coiffure seems to arouse even greater ire than her clothes. A picture of her that 
130
appeared recently in The Times engendered several comments, including one that 
reads, ?. . . we have better-looking floor mops than the bouffant coiffure worn by your 
favorite Bobby-Soxer. (Signed) Twenty Iowa Homemakers.??
75
 It was Kennedy?s 
?devil-may-care chic,? according to Weinman, that troubled American women, who 
could not identify as easily with the chic socialite as they could with her predecessors.
Kennedy?s livid reaction to this criticism in the press also set her apart from 
Eisenhower and Truman, who avoided expressing their opinions in public. Kennedy 
responded defensively to her critics a few days later, attacking Pat Nixon in the 
process. During an informal round of interviews with female reporters, which was 
supposed to focus on her new maternity wardrobe, Kennedy candidly spoke her mind 
about the press coverage of her fashion choices. Nan Robertson?s front page article in 
the New York Times, carrying the headline, ?Mrs. Kennedy Defends Clothes; Is 
?Sure? Mrs. Nixon Pays More,? opened with the following paragraph: ?Mrs. John F. 
Kennedy, stung by reports that women resent her because she is ?too chic? and spends 
too much money on clothes, called her critics ?dreadfully unfair? yesterday.? 
Robertson noted that Kennedy ?expressed hurt and surprise at slurs on her avant-
garde dressing habits,? and quoted her as saying, ??They?re beginning to snipe at me 
about that as often as they attack Jack on Catholicism.?? She further stated, ??A 
newspaper reported Sunday that I spend $30,000 a year buying Paris clothes and that 
women hate me for it. I couldn?t spend that much unless I wore sable underwear.?? 
Kennedy?s tone was both argumentative and flippant as she addressed her critics. 
Kennedy then attacked Pat Nixon, one of the first times a candidate?s wife openly 
challenged her opponent in the press: ??I?m sure I spend less than Mrs. Nixon on 
131
clothes,? the 31-year-old wife of the Democratic candidate said. ?She gets hers at 
Elizabeth Arden, and nothing there costs less than $200 or $300.??
76
 By challenging 
her critics and Nixon, Kennedy violated the norm against women assuming a more 
aggressive rhetorical style in public. However, because Kennedy defended her own 
spending habits by attacking Nixon?s consumerism, she helped to trivialize the debate 
by turning it into a competition between women rather than a matter of larger political 
significance.  
The ?fashion debate? highlights one of the problems of personification 
framing.  Both Kennedy and Nixon were reduced to images that focused on fashion 
and failed to capture the complex personalities and interests of each woman. As 
Kennedy argued, such critiques were ??dreadfully unfair?? because they were based 
on incomplete, and sometimes false, information. Yet these journalists, many of 
whom were women, used these limited public constructions to critique each woman, 
as did Kennedy when she attacked Nixon?s clothing expenditures. Placing such high 
importance on the candidates? wives fashion choices also ignored the complexities of 
the first lady institution. Despite the ?fashion debate,? Kennedy went on to become 
the ?first lady of American fashion,? personifying a youthful yet sophisticated image, 
complimenting her husband?s public image that blended ?Camelot and Catholicism, 
continental chic and touch football.?
77
Throughout this era, journalists continued to position the first lady as a model 
of American womanhood. Each woman personified domesticity, but in ways that 
matched the social conditions of their time and their personalities. For journalists, 
Roosevelt?s advocacy represented social feminism and made manifest the spirit of her 
132
husband?s New Deal. During both the Depression and the war, she embodied 
republican motherhood in articles in which she promoted patriotism and lauded 
women?s contributions to American society. As the cultural climate shifted, first 
ladies personified the ?domestic containment? of the postwar era with its focus on 
traditional gender roles and femininity.  Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy 
represented different, but equally compelling, images of the ideal woman; Truman 
and Eisenhower looked like the typical American homemaker, whereas Kennedy 
resembled the movie stars in the fashion magazines that the typical American woman 
read, making both images familiar to the public. While Eisenhower represented the 
feminine mystique of the 1950s, Kennedy resembled the college-educated 
housewives of Friedan?s study that were becoming disillusioned with the domestic 
ideal and searching for other avenues of personal fulfillment. By spotlighting 
domesticity and making the private lives of these women public, press framing 
encouraged female readers to identify with and emulate first ladies. These changes in 
definitions of domesticity impacted how journalists framed their discussions of the 
duties of the first lady institution.
The Two-Person Career: Framing the Performance of the First Lady Position
The coverage of the first lady position between 1932 and 1961 showed a shift 
in the framing of the institution that reflected an expansion of the first lady?s duties as 
well as the domestic ideologies that governed gender performance during this period. 
The social feminism of the 1930s, mirrored in Eleanor Roosevelt?s active 
performance of the position, slowly gave way to the cult of domesticity embraced by 
her successors. Both of these standpoints promoted a sense of domestic 
133
empowerment, albeit in different ways.  The majority of articles focused on the 
presidency as a two-person career.
78
 This frame limited women to the traditional roles 
of wife and homemaker, but also recognized that wives play significant roles in their 
husbands? careers. While the two-person career frame, which can be traced back to 
the parlor politics of the new Republic, had been used by journalists over the years in 
their coverage of the first lady institution, it came to dominate discussions of the first 
lady?s duties during this era. By this time, journalists routinely covered the first lady 
as part of a presidential couple.
79
 In a 1960 article, the Ladies? Home Journal stated, 
?Politics today is a husband-wife partnership.?
80
 But Gil Troy notes that ?such 
cooperation was seen not as a mark of liberation but as an appropriate extension of 
wifely duties.?
81
 Thus, the two-person career frame was compatible with the domestic 
ideology that was also employed to frame the performance of the first lady position.
In discussing their roles, journalists continued to frame first ladies primarily as 
wives and mothers during this era, a frame which recognized that these women 
initially became public figures through marriage. The New York Times reported that 
Bess Truman was ?devoted to her husband and daughter,?
82
 while Mamie Eisenhower 
?cherish[ed] her role as wife and mother.?
83
 According to a 1952 New York Times
article, Eisenhower was not ?frightened? of her new job ?because it would mean 
playing the role of a wife, entertaining and meeting people, which was no different 
from what she had always done.?
84
 Most stories about Jacqueline Kennedy framed 
her as a ?young wife and mother devoted to her husband and children.?
85
 Even 
Eleanor Roosevelt was lauded by Good Housekeeping for her commitment to her 
family: ?despite her many outside activities, she is a fine and conscientious mother? 
134
and a ?devoted and supportive wife.?
86
 Campbell argues that, in two-person careers 
like the presidency, ?the division of labor will vary with the talents and attitudes of 
the partners and because the wife?s role combines state and domestic duties.?
87
Journalists recognized that, as devoted wives, these first ladies assumed various roles, 
from the more traditional helpmate to public surrogate and political advisor.  
As helpmates, wives were loyal supporters of their husbands? careers. In the 
first story written about new first lady Truman, the New York Times reported she was 
?on call twenty-four hours a day as her husband?s helper.?
88
 This statement implied 
that Truman?s life revolved around her husband, echoing the subservience of the cult 
of domesticity. The notion of being ?on call? around the clock, however, also 
indicated that her husband relied on her. Similarly, a 1956 profile of Eisenhower 
claimed, ?Even as First Lady, Mrs. Eisenhower takes the feminine view. She sees her 
role, and lives it, as a husband-helper.?
89
 In this case, the reporter explicitly links the 
helpmate role to gender ideology by referring to it as the ?feminine view.? Despite 
the submissive tone, the language also implied that both Truman and Eisenhower 
were playing important roles in their husbands? lives, one that had them ?on call? as 
their husband?s ?helper,? which alluded to a spousal advisory role.  
According to the press, one way wives help their husbands is by acting as 
their protector, which is an example of women?s authority in the private sphere. The 
public statements of the first ladies encouraged the protector frame. According to the 
New York Times, Eisenhower believed that her primary job was ?looking after Ike.?
90
A New York Times headline from 1952 proclaimed that ??Policeman for Ike? is wife?s 
idea of her principal role in public life.? According to reporter Laurie Johnston, 
135
Eisenhower stated that she could do more good for her husband by ??playing 
policeman?seeing that he gets to bed on time and doesn?t get irritated by small 
things?? than by making speeches or commenting on political issues.
91
 The image of 
Mamie ordering Ike to bed presents her as the authority figure within the home. 
Kennedy also assumed a protective role. Upon her husband?s election, it was reported 
that ?her greatest immediate desire was that ?Jack must get a month?s rest, or else he 
won?t be able to be a good president.??
92
 Kennedy also insisted that her children were 
her first priority. She told Nan Robertson of the New York Times, ??I?ll do everything 
I can and should do in any official way.  But I don?t want my young children brought 
up by nurses and Secret Service men.??
93
 In this forceful statement, Kennedy 
articulated that she would not allow the duties of the first lady to infringe on her home 
life, thus marking her control of the private domain. The framing of both Kennedy 
and Eisenhower as protectors of the family emphasized the role of women as 
nurturers whose lives were defined by the need to care for their families. However, by 
highlighting the protector role these women assumed over their husbands, reporters, 
many of whom were women, helped imbue them with domestic authority. While such 
framing promoted domesticity, it also empowered each woman to make decisions to 
place limits on her public activities as first lady in favor of her private duties as wife 
and mother, as well as limiting the activities of her presidential husband.  
The role of protector sometimes extended into the public sphere when 
journalists applied the protective helpmate frame to first ladies who acted as 
presidential surrogates. Eisenhower took on many of the ceremonial public 
appearances formerly associated with the presidency. She was credited for having 
136
?taken from the President?s shoulders much of the load of making personal 
appearances and being photographed for worthy causes,? framing her as a helpmate 
and protective wife.
94
 According to the New York Times, many of Roosevelt?s public 
appearances were an extension of her wifely helpmate role, ?Since President 
Roosevelt?s disability makes it difficult for him, in spite of his robust general health, 
to get around, Mrs. Roosevelt has relieved him of a host of social duties performed by 
his predecessors.?
95
 Since Martha Washington?s time, the surrogate role helped to 
justify a first lady?s public activities; in Roosevelt?s case, it allowed journalists to 
explain her expansion of the first lady?s duties.      
The press often framed the Roosevelts? marital partnership as a fusion of the 
personal and the political. Roosevelt expanded the role of presidential surrogate by 
parlaying it into an advisory role; not only did she appear on the president?s behalf, 
she also reported back to him the details of what she saw and heard, acting as his 
?eyes and ears.? For example, her extensive traveling was viewed, in part, as a way of 
helping her husband compensate for his disability, which made it difficult for him to 
make informal public appearances. As her husband?s emissary, she toured numerous 
New Deal program sites and communities during the Depression. Rita S. Halle, in a 
1933 Good Housekeeping article, described Roosevelt as a figurative extension of her 
husband, ?If in this remarkable partnership she is, as it has been said, ?his ear to the 
ground,? it is a natural and not a calculated thing. Because she can go places he can?t 
go, see people he can?t see, and because of her rare gift of articulate expression, can 
bring back to him as no one else can, visualizations which result in benefit to you and 
to me and to all the masses of people who make up America.? However, Halle 
137
tempered her framing of Roosevelt as advisor with the following disclaimer, ?I do not 
mean by this to give the impression that Mrs. Roosevelt interferes, or that she is 
solely responsible for the fine things that the President does. I want to show only that 
her attitude inevitably reflects itself in his actions, just as that of any wife who has 
earned respect for and faith in her views over the years, finds a response in the point 
of view of her husband.?
96
 This claim seems designed to defend Roosevelt from 
critics who asserted that she was abusing the ?pillow talk? power that wives possess 
and overstepping the boundaries of the first lady position. It also reasserted that 
Roosevelt?s political interests were simply an extension of her personal wifely duties, 
which were in part based on her husband?s physical limitations that were well known 
by members of the press yet seldom discussed.  
Other articles clearly framed Roosevelt as one of her husband?s most trusted 
political advisors, extending the two-person career from the home to the office. In a 
1936 profile, New York Times reporter Kathleen McLaughlin called Roosevelt an 
?aide and counselor to the President,? asserting, ?In many places and on varying 
occasions she has been the eyes and ears through which he has saw and heard. Each 
of her jaunts as a presidential deputy terminates with a report to him?orally, if there 
is time on their schedule, typed out in detail if there is not?on different phases of the 
project or community she has been delegated to inspect.? McLaughlin described 
Roosevelt as a ?keenly practical politician,? noting that she ?incorporates into these 
reports her impressions of trends and shifts in the public mind on major enterprises 
and policies of the administration. These the President peruses and sometimes quotes 
to his other counselors.?
97
 In this story, Roosevelt?s actions sound more like those of 
138
a staff member rather than a wife. By overtly framing Roosevelt as an advisor whose 
work was comparable to other presidential counselors, her actions were given more 
political meaning in this story.    
The two-person career frame was also used by journalists to explain the 
increasingly public, although not necessarily active, roles that wives played in their 
husbands? campaigns. Stories about the presence of wives on the campaign trail also 
helped to make these women, even the publicity-shy Bess Truman, recognizable 
public figures. Troy claims that ?Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower each 
discovered how important a high-profile wife could be on whistle-stop campaign 
trips.?
98
 Watson notes, ?Bess Truman was a visible part of Harry Truman?s famous 
whistle-stop train campaigns, with crowds cheering as much for Bess as for the 
president.?
99
 A New York Times article attested to this: ?Important assets to Mr. 
Truman on this trip have been Mrs. Truman and their daughter, Margaret. . . . When 
the train stops at a station, Mr. Truman appears first, makes his little speech, then says 
he would like to introduce his family. First it is Mrs. Truman, then the daughter, and 
they get a big hand.?
100
 The press, though, sometimes framed Truman as a passive, 
and somewhat reluctant, campaigner. The New York Times noted, ?Mrs. Truman?s 
role in the 1948 campaign will consist merely of accompanying her husband on 
trips.?
101
 At a campaign stop in St. Louis, Truman was said to have ?listened more 
passively? to her husband?s speech than her daughter, who ?smiled at the cutting 
thrusts of her father.?
102
 Despite being described as passive at times, Truman was 
mentioned in almost every article about her husband?s campaign, testifying to her 
presence on the campaign trail.  
139
According to press constructions, Eisenhower seemed to genuinely enjoy the 
social aspects of campaigning, but was less interested in the political side.
103
 One 
report noted that she was ?the quintessential political wife, waving graciously and 
smiling at her husband?s side.?
104
 The New York Times said of Eisenhower, ?To 
campaign crowds she showed a double-dimpled smile and a full-armed wave of 
greeting that reflected her liking for people. . . . Often the whistle-stop crowds yelled, 
?We want Mamie,? until she appeared on the back platform.?
105
 Once again, both 
Truman and Eisenhower were framed as helpmates to their husbands, supporting their 
husbands? careers by standing alongside them on the campaign platform. However, 
such appearances furthered their status as public women.
Surprisingly, Roosevelt was also framed as a supportive wife in campaign 
stories. Roosevelt continually told the press that she would not deliver campaign 
speeches, although her regular activities often had her speaking in support of her 
husband?s policies. A 1936 New York Times story stated that Roosevelt ?declined to 
make ?political speeches? on the grounds that she was sticking to a resolution to let 
the President talk politics for the family,?
106
 a statement that sounds much like 
Eisenhower?s claim in 1952 that ??Ike speaks well enough for both of us.??
107
 These 
comments indicate that public speaking, especially on political issues, was still not a 
widely embraced activity for even publicly active women like Roosevelt, who was a 
prolific speaker.
108
 One notable exception was Roosevelt?s delivery of the keynote 
address to the Democratic National Convention in 1940, where she appeared as a 
surrogate for her husband.
109
 Despite being hailed by the New York Times as ?the first 
wife of a President or nominee ever to address a major political party conclave,? there 
140
was little fanfare surrounding her speech. In fact, rather than focusing on the speech, 
the headline proclaimed: ?No Campaigning, First Lady States.?
110
 Both the Times and 
the Washington Post published the full text of the speech, which was standard 
procedure in convention coverage, and the Times commended Roosevelt for ?an 
impressively delivered appeal for a united country.?
111
 Despite the innovation of a 
first lady addressing a nominating convention, the focus of the framing remained on 
Roosevelt as a supportive wife.  
As in most two-person careers, homemaking and hostessing are the domain of 
presidential wives, making them a common frame in coverage of the first lady 
institution. Previous first ladies, when framed as hostesses, were generally lauded for 
their etiquette and social graces; in contrast, the first ladies of this period were 
constructed primarily as smart consumers and skilled, hands-on managers, language 
which reflected the professionalization of homemaking.
112
 Watson notes that the first 
lady ?is the manager of the White House and its ample staff and resources,? 
overseeing everything from daily menus to planning for state events to renovations on 
the historic home.
113
 Roosevelt embraced home economics, which Cott argues, 
?valiantly compared homemaking to nondomestic work, analyzed it with reference to 
its managerial and worker functions or its business and spiritual elements, and 
assimilated it to a professional model.?
114
 According to a New York Times article, 
?Mrs. Roosevelt has given practical expression of her faith in home economics by 
testing out in the White House menus prepared by Miss Flora Rose of Cornell 
University, in which science and economy were combined to afford a maximum of 
nourishment at a minimum cost.?
115
 This was part of Roosevelt?s plan to ?cut down 
141
expenses at least 25 percent? in accordance with her husband?s policy that all 
government departments cut back on expenses.
116
 Truman was described as ?a 
housewife who does her own marketing and cooking?
117
 and who ?takes her 
housekeeping duties seriously.?
118 
According to the Washington Post, ?Her object is 
to provide a pleasant setting for her family, and to keep the budget down.?
119
Similarly, a close friend of Eisenhower was quoted as saying, ??Mamie is a very good 
housekeeper. She knows what?s going on and how the money is being spent. She 
wants an orderly house.?? After moving into the White House, Eisenhower ?took a 
firm hand in the housekeeping, mastering the complexities of the major operation 
quickly and imbuing it with the warmth of her personality,? according to a New York 
Times article.
120
 Despite the existence of a trained White House staff, such press 
accounts assured the American public that these first ladies were actively involved in 
managing the executive mansion?s household budget and operations. Such framing 
highlights the domestic empowerment of the first lady, who exercised complete 
control over the home much like any workplace manager, thus promoting 
homemaking as a career which took on extreme importance in an era marked by the 
Depression and fears of a possible postwar economic slump.
121
Marital partnership and the various roles wives play in a two-person career
were the dominant themes of coverage of the first lady institution during this era. 
Although individual interpretations of those roles varied, domesticity permeated the 
framing of each first lady?s performance of the position. Coverage of the institution 
supports Troy?s contention that, ?During the Roosevelt?s extraordinary tenure . . . the 
idea of the presidential couple as a construct began to emerge. Politicians, reporters, 
142
and citizens began looking at the president and his wife as a team.?
122
 Although the 
partnership frame appeared in earlier coverage, it did not dominate discussions of the 
institution as it did during this time period. The social, political, and economic 
conditions, from the paternalism of the New Deal to the domestic containment of the 
Cold War, provided a context for reporters? focus on presidential couples. Such 
coverage intensified the spotlight on first ladies? performance, turning women like 
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, who regularly appeared in newspapers and 
magazines, into media celebrities. However, gender continued to dictate the press 
framing of these women to the extent that they were constructed by journalists, 
particularly the growing number of women reporters, as role models for American 
womanhood.
Emergence of the First Lady as Gendered Celebrity
A residual effect of the increased publicity surrounding the first lady 
institution, and the gendered framing of the position, is the construction of certain 
first ladies as gendered celebrities. The technologies of this era, particularly the 
development of radio and television, and print?s increased use of photographs, placed 
a greater emphasis on the projection of image and personality,
123
 which has been tied 
to the creation of what Rojek calls ?celebrity culture.?
124
 As Daniel J. Boorstin argued 
in 1961, ?the celebrity is created by the media? and is distinguished ?by his image or 
trademark.?
125
 P. David Marshall defines celebrities as ?overtly public individuals? 
who are given ?greater presence and a wider scope of activity and agency? in the 
public sphere. Marshall further elaborates that, ?Celebrity status also confers on the 
person a certain discursive power: within society, the celebrity is a voice above 
143
others, a voice that is channeled into the media systems as being legitimately 
significant.?
126
 During the modern era, the emergence of the first lady as public 
woman allowed for the development of the first lady as celebrity. As first ladies like 
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy became more visible and vocal public women 
through the mass media, they achieved a celebrity status. Yet their celebrity was 
always connected with gender performance.
127
 Marshall contends that ?the celebrity 
represents something other than itself. The material reality of the celebrity sign?that 
is, the actual person who is at the core of the representation?disappears into a 
cultural formation of meaning.?
128
 With first ladies, the individuality of these public 
women often ?disappeared? as the press constructed them as representatives of 
gender ideologies and role models for American women. Thus, coverage of first 
ladies as gendered celebrities was an outgrowth of the press practice of 
personification framing and the legitimization of the first lady as public woman in the 
previous era. It also represented a press phenomenon where women journalists, 
empowered in their role as writers, helped construct first ladies as gendered 
celebrities.    
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy?s names became synonymous with a 
particular vision of American womanhood at the time when they served as first lady. 
Roosevelt achieved celebrity status through her unprecedented activity and activism 
as first lady. For reporters, Roosevelt represented the expansion of women?s, and the 
first lady?s, political roles during the Depression and wartime era.
129
 Her successors 
embodied the ?domestic containment? of the Cold War and its focus on women?s 
civic contributions as housewives and consumers.
130
 Eisenhower and Kennedy 
144
acquired celebrity largely through the images of femininity they projected. Their 
styles and fashions came to represent the 1950s and early 1960s. Rojek argues that 
?celebrity presents standards of emulation for the mass.?
131
 When treated as gendered 
celebrities, journalists presented these first ladies as role models worthy of emulation 
by American women.  
Roosevelt became a celebrity through her unparalleled activity as first lady 
and through the press framing of the women reporters. She was viewed by many, 
including the women journalists who covered her, as the personification of women?s 
progress and the expansion of the first lady position. Roosevelt earned what Rojek 
calls ?achieved celebrity,? which derives ?from the perceived accomplishments of the 
individual.?
132
 Articles about Roosevelt frequently focused on such accomplishments. 
Women?s magazine writer Rita Halle stated, ?No other First Lady did one half the 
things Mrs. Roosevelt has done, broke precedent the way she has broken it, or was in 
the limelight of the news so much or so often. . . . She breaks precedent by doing 
things, not by failing to do them. The difference between her and the other First 
Ladies is not in the things she leaves undone, but in those she adds to what others 
have done.?
133
 Roosevelt?s precedents contributed to her celebrity, which she 
achieved independent of her husband. According to Elizabeth Gertrude Stein of the 
New York Times, ?Roosevelt is the first to be a public figure and personage in her 
own right. Mistress of the White House, lecturer, a writer, civic leader, she is unique 
in the long line to which she belongs.?
134
 In 1936, reporter Kathleen McLaughlin 
claimed that, ?whatever may be said of her in this controversial period, [Roosevelt] 
will at least go on record as having made articulate that lay figure, the presidential 
145
wife, who from the era of George Washington had been officially mute.?
135
 In a 1944 
profile, McLaughlin again said of Roosevelt, ?She is no whit different from the 
energetic, indefatigable speaker, organizer, and executive who kept the public 
gasping during her first months in the White House. She still tosses off incredible 
numbers of tasks in any working day, still covers challenging distances, still accepts 
and discharges an imposing number of engagements, still extends hospitality to 
individuals, prominent and obscure.?
136
 The focus on Roosevelt?s actions in these 
quotes is reflective of achieved celebrity, which is based on the activities and 
accomplishments of an individual.
One feature of gendered celebrity is a focus on first ladies? ?feminist? 
activities. Roosevelt, of course, became a role model for women?s increasing public 
activity, political advocacy, and individual agency, helping her achieve such celebrity 
stature. Women were encouraged to emulate Roosevelt by becoming more politically 
active. Throughout her tenure, Roosevelt persuaded women to get involved in 
political organizations,
137
 to run for political office,
138
 and to use their political power, 
both through the ballot and by working in their communities.
139
 For example, 
Roosevelt entreated women to support labor unions and women workers by refusing 
to purchase garments made in sweatshops.
140
 Roosevelt went as far as crediting her 
accomplishments to the expanding roles of American women. Upon receiving an 
award as ?America?s best-known woman broadcaster? from the National Association 
of Broadcasters in 1945, Roosevelt stated, ??I couldn?t have done anything as the wife 
of the President unless the women were accepting responsibilities and playing a great 
part in a great period.??
141
 Roosevelt?s achieved celebrity was viewed as exceptional, 
146
particularly by a press corps composed predominantly of women, who Roosevelt 
helped empower through her press conferences. These journalists consistently noted 
that Roosevelt?s activities were unique, not only for women, but for first ladies. Such 
coverage helped extend the boundaries of women?s political activism, showing more 
positive consequences of a first lady?s achieved celebrity status.
142
Eisenhower and Kennedy represented what Rojek calls ?attributed celebrity,? 
which results from ?the concentrated representation of an individual as noteworthy or 
exceptional by cultural intermediaries,? such as the press.
143
 Eisenhower, for the press 
and public, exemplified Cold War domesticity to the point that the mere mention of 
the name ?Mamie? conjured a particular image for Americans in the 1950s. Beasley 
and Belgrade argue that Eisenhower ?embodied the traditional role expected of most 
American women during the 1950s?to be, above all, a devoted wife.? They conclude 
that, for the most part, ?Mrs. Eisenhower was portrayed by the press as a 
personification of the feminine mystique.?
144
 An example comes from Nona B. 
Brown?s article about the 1956 campaign, in which Eisenhower was constructed as 
the personification of domesticity. Brown claimed, ?Mrs. Eisenhower has generated a 
popular picture of herself as a warm, generous, friendly woman who devotes herself 
to her husband and family. This is a first lady stereotype that is immensely popular, 
so Mamie has merely to appear with Ike, even if only on a television screen, to evoke 
the warmest kind of response.?
145
 The Eisenhowers used Mamie?s popularity and 
celebrity status to their advantage throughout their eight years in the White House.
Eisenhower?s celebrity was largely tied to her fashion and appearance, as 
stories focused on the ways in which she personified the image of Cold War 
147
consumption. ?Celebrities,? according to Rojek, ?humanize the process of commodity 
consumption,?
146
 and stories about Eisenhower reflect the humanization of 
consumption. According to the New York Times, ??Mamie? is an affectionately 
regarded and familiar image to millions?with the little hats with matching gloves, 
bags, and shoes; the costume jewelry chosen for the right touch and the charm 
bracelets jangling with the symbols of her husband?s career.?
147
 Marling, who argues 
that Eisenhower visually represented the 1950s, says that some designers ?sniffed at 
Mamie?s relish for dyed-to-match shoes and colored stockings, mink coats, charm 
bracelets and bangs. In the end, however, what she called ?looking high class??
adorning a basic style with marks of familial success and individuality?came to be 
known as ?the Mamie look.??
148
 Marling also asserts that ?Mamie?s fetish for pink,? 
which was widely publicized through the press, ?may have helped to confirm the 
ultimate feminization of the color.? By 1955, ?Mamie Pink? was a popular color for 
everything from dresses and hats to dishware and linoleum flooring.
149
 In 1957, 
Eisenhower wore pale yellow at the Inaugural Ball, and a reporter predicted that, ?as 
a result this color will be showing up in clothing, home furnishings, paints, plastics, 
and automobiles.?
150
 The plethora of products associated with Eisenhower was 
representative of the postwar focus on consumerism. As May explains, ?The family 
home would be the place where a man could display his success through the 
accumulation of consumer goods. Women, in turn, would reap rewards for 
domesticity by surrounding themselves with commodities.?
151
In such stories, 
Eisenhower?s celebrity was linked to her personification of commodification as she 
embodied style and fashion, and in turn, promoted the products associated with her.   
148
Eisenhower?s celebrity was thus attributed to consumption; her image was 
dependent on products, from hats to minks to charms, which in turn inspired the 
creation of more consumer goods that were tied, however loosely, to that image of the 
1950s woman. A New York Times story gave Eisenhower credit for helping to shape 
her image: ?She has carefully considered her own stage presence, never appearing at 
any event without being ?turned out? for the occasion.?
152
 This statement credits 
Eisenhower with carefully cultivating an image which personified the feminine ideal 
promoted by her husband?s administration and represented many ?depression-weary 
Americans [who] were eager to put the disruptions and hardships of war behind them 
and enjoy the abundance at home.?
153
 Like TV?s Joan Clever and Donna Reed, 
?Mamie? became synonymous with white, middle-class women in the 1950s.  
Kennedy was ?something of an idol in the early 1960s.?
154
 Kennedy projected 
a very different image than Eisenhower, representing a younger generation of 
American housewives. Douglas argues that ?Jackie personified a generation of 
women, who, in a variety of quiet, but significant ways, represented a departure from 
1950s stuffiness, conformity, and confinement.?
155
 However, like her predecessor, 
Kennedy?s celebrity was mainly associated with consumption. Marshall argues, ?The 
celebrity is a commodity, and therefore expresses a form of valorization of the 
individual and personality that is coherent with capitalism and the associated 
consumer culture.?
156
 Kennedy?s fashions were treated by the press as not only an 
expression of her personality, but as a visible indicator of the shifting cultural 
climate.
157
 According to a New York Times article, ??Fantastically chic? was the 
phrase most often applied to her.? The story went on to say that Kennedy was ?a 
149
pace-setter who has worn sausage-skin pants, streaked hair, chemise dresses and 
sleeveless tunics long before they became popular currency. At 30, she has the tall, 
slender, and rather muscular figure that seems to inspire creative American designers 
and the younger crop of Parisian couturiers.?
158
Kennedy?s celebrity and image were appropriated by retailers looking to sell 
the ?Jackie look? to American women, who sought to emulate the first lady by 
looking like her. The Washington Post noted that ?the entire fashion industry from 
wholesale to retail is discovering that the ?Jackie Kennedy look? is the hottest 
merchandising gimmick since Shirley Temple dolls.? The article stated that the 
pillbox hat, which has become associated with Kennedy in collective memory, was 
one of the top trends of 1961:  ?Pillbox hats are moving off millinery counters like 
soda pop at a Fourth of July picnic. Bonwit Teller, which advertised the pillbox 
sketched on a model who looked like a twin of the President-elect?s wife, has found 
that customers are asking for ?the Kennedy hat.??
159
 Kennedy?s style came to define 
her to such an extent that an entire museum exhibit featuring her fashions and 
accessories was developed in 2001. According to curator Hamish Bowles, Kennedy 
?was at once a paradigm of old-fashioned dignity, sharing with her husband a love of 
history and a keen appreciation of ceremony, and a reluctant pop-culture icon, who 
like John F. Kennedy, had an intuitive understanding of the power of image in an age 
when television was becoming a potent medium.?
160
 Like Eisenhower before her, 
reporters used the name ?Jackie? as shorthand for the youthful and sophisticated style 
that Kennedy embodied. Douglas contends, ?Jackie was tradition and modernity, the 
old femininity and new womanhood, seemingly sustained in a perfect suspension.?
161
150
Despite her dislike of public life, Kennedy became an international celebrity who still 
represents the ideal of American womanhood in the early 1960s.      
Gendered celebrity can be both empowering and constraining. Celebrity status 
empowers women, and first ladies, by normalizing the presence of women in the 
public sphere as celebrated individuals. According to Marshall, celebrities ?often 
define the construction of change and transformation in contemporary culture. . . . 
They are the active agents that in the public spectacle stand in for the people.?
162
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy each stood in for a different performance of 
American womanhood, representing the changes in women?s lives during these years, 
particularly for the women journalists who covered the first lady on a regular basis. 
Roosevelt embodied the feminist ideal of women?s political activity while 
Eisenhower and Kennedy promoted women?s role as Cold War consumers. Such 
framing, in stories that were featured both on the front pages as well as in women?s 
publications, was instrumental in perpetuating the gendered celebrity of first ladies.  
Through the media and their own image-making activities, these first ladies 
became celebritized public women, helping to alleviate the stigma once associated 
with public womanhood, publicity, and women?s agency. Roosevelt, in particular, 
represented women?s potential as political leaders. Her constant claims that she was 
no different than the average American woman equated her accomplishments with the 
achievements of all women, elevating the contributions of women to civic life. Rojek 
states that celebrity has ?produced recognition and celebration of lifestyles, beliefs 
and forms of life previously unrecognized or repressed.?
163
 Treating first ladies as 
celebrities recognizes the important role these women play in American culture and 
151
celebrates the power and influence of women, even when that power is tied to 
traditionally feminine activities, like shopping. Particularly when celebrity is linked to 
domesticity, the roles that women play in both public and private are elevated, once 
again indicating a sense of ?domestic empowerment,? which characterized much of 
the coverage of first ladies during this era.   
Celebrity, however, can also be limiting. A danger of celebrity is that it 
?articulates the individual as commodity,?
164
 reducing a person to an image that can 
be sold in the public sphere. Such was the case with Eisenhower and Kennedy, whose 
individual agency often got lost in the celebrification process. By linking women with 
consumption, their power was confined to more gendered and thus less threatening 
activities within the male public sphere. Whereas emulating Roosevelt required 
women to become politically active individuals, imitating Eisenhower or Kennedy 
called on women to consume, limiting their public power to buying a toaster in 
?Mamie pink? or wearing a ?Jackie pillbox.? As Jennifer Scanlon notes, ?When men 
spend money they commit a political act; when women spend money, they commit a 
social or cultural act.?
165
 So, despite the political importance given to Cold War 
consumption,
166
 Scanlon argues that the ?consumer culture presented a unified and 
powerful vision of satisfaction not through social change but through 
consumption.?
167
 Certainly the positive coverage given to Roosevelt expanded the 
political boundaries for women. Yet the prevalent focus on consumption reduced first 
ladies? influence; rather than being positioned as models of American citizenship, 
their public performances are treated as representing consumption, which yielded 
visions of limited political influence for American women.  
152
Conclusion
In 1936, writer Fannie Hurst proclaimed:  ?As for the one who follows 
[Roosevelt] into the White House, I say, God help her. I?m confident there will be no 
going back to the pastel tradition? of former first ladies.
168
 However, the position 
quickly reverted to the ?pastel traditions? that Hurst decried, and the White House 
was dominated by ?Mamie Pink? throughout the 1950s. An examination of press 
coverage of the institution reveals a common theme that defined these years, and that 
was an ideology of domesticity that simultaneously empowered and restrained 
American women, including first ladies.
The first ladies of this era personified the various incarnations of the domestic 
ideal, from the maternalism of social feminism and republican motherhood to the new 
cult of domesticity, with its domestic containment and empowerment of the 
homemaker. This era has largely been dismissed in feminist histories because it did 
not feature an active woman?s movement. When this ?in-between? period is 
mentioned, it is usually derided for its focus on domesticity, the so-called ?feminine 
mystique,? which would be pointed to as the source of ?the problem with no name? in 
the 1960s.
169
 If press coverage of the first lady is any indication, however, the 
homemaker was not as powerless as Friedan made her appear. The homemaker was 
recognized by the press, comprised of a growing number of women journalists, as 
exerting authority over her domestic space, particularly through her role as consumer, 
which tied her activities to the public and political spheres, during times of both 
economic crisis and prosperity. This acknowledgement of the political efficacy of 
women?s traditional roles can be viewed as an important first step in creating a 
153
feminist consciousness that recognizes ?the personal is political.? Meanwhile, by 
positioning first ladies as role models for American women, the press helped to 
normalize women?s presence in public life and their increasing political involvement, 
which would set the stage for the emergence of the woman?s movement of the 
following era. The voices of first ladies were increasingly featured in the press 
through direct quotes, and their images as publicly active women were widely 
circulated. These women assumed a much more active role in their own image-
construction, yet their voices and images were still filtered by the press, albeit one 
made up of in part of other women acting outside of the private sphere. By 
recognizing the roles these women played, both as individuals and in their husband?s 
campaigns and careers, women journalists in particular helped to validate women?s 
experiences as significant and newsworthy.  
The first ladies of this era were viewed by the press as part of a marital 
partnership, and press framing of the first lady?s duties focused primarily on the first 
lady?s part in the two-person career. Such framing simultaneously reinforced 
traditional gender roles while imbuing wifely duties with political significance. 
Whether appearing as supportive wives on the campaign stump, acting as presidential 
surrogates, or managing the White House, the personal and public activities of these 
presidential wives became political. Troy contends, ?No First Lady since Eleanor 
Roosevelt?including Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower?could avoid 
involvement in the political fray.  Each presidency since the Roosevelts has thus 
been, to one extent or another, a co-presidency? focused mainly on ?joint image-
making, not power-sharing.?
170
 Press framing of the first lady?s duties supports this 
154
statement as the activities of most first ladies were consistently framed as extensions 
of her role as the president?s wife, thus reinforcing the gendered performance of the 
position. Nevertheless, first ladies, like American women in general, were recognized 
as playing a larger role as citizens. They may have been cast as wives and mothers, 
with their main stage being the home, but they were nonetheless recognized by the 
press as important players in the nation?s political drama.     
One of the most notable changes in this period was the elevation of certain 
first ladies from public women to celebrity status. The development of the first lady 
as public woman in the modern era coupled with the journalistic practice of 
personification framing led to the establishment of Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and 
Kennedy as gendered celebrities during their tenures. These women were recognized 
as public figures in their own right, granting them a level of agency often denied to 
previous first ladies and to women in general. Roosevelt, in particular, was lauded for 
her individual political accomplishments and her contributions both to women?s 
progress and the expansion of the first lady institution. Her successors, Eisenhower 
and Kennedy, were among the most recognizable figures of this era, and their styles 
and fashions were enthusiastically copied by American women. By positioning these 
first ladies as role models, journalists recognized women?s growing public influence 
on American politics and culture. Even when their civic contributions were limited to 
consumption, women were recognized as contributing to the postwar economy, 
thereby imbuing their actions with a sense of political efficacy. Such a focus on 
consumption likewise reveals the ways in which women?s public and political role 
was contained ideologically. Centering women?s agency in shopping for self and 
155
family reduces the chance of their rallying against political oppression at a time when 
women?s public and political influence began to grow.  
The coverage of the first lady institution, particularly through personification 
framing, evidences a period of increased political activity for women and the 
presence of an ongoing debate over women?s roles in American society. These stories 
are instructive to today?s scholars who seek to contest the notion that the struggle for 
women?s rights was limited to the historical periods referred to as the first and second 
waves. However, the pervasiveness of domesticity in the framing of the first lady 
institution and the increased celebrity of first ladies would be challenged by the social 
and political upheaval and changing cultural norms of the following decades. Press 
coverage would focus on the quandary of the next generation of first ladies: whether 
to question or accept domesticity as a defining quality of both the first lady institution 
and American womanhood.
156
Chapter Four
First Lady as Political Activist, 1964-1977
An article in the March 1964 issue of Ladies? Home Journal observed that the 
?evolution of the role of First Lady in America during the past half century has been   
. . . almost as dramatic and sweeping as the expansion of the role of the Chief 
Executive.? The most significant development, according to the author, was the 
power acquired by the first lady through her position as a public figure, ?Regardless 
of how much distaste the First Lady may possess for public life, her role can no 
longer be a private one; she acquires indirect power when her husband takes the oath 
of office as President of the United States. This power, or influence, a complex and 
delicate mixture of various social, political, and moral forces, bears upon nearly every 
important situation and tradition in our national life.?
1
 This quotation recognized the 
influence that accompanies celebrity status in American culture. Even the title of the 
article, ?The Spotlight Shifts in Washington: A New First Lady Moves to Center 
Stage,? indicated the celebrity associated with the first lady position and the evolution 
of their influence, as they moved from public women to gendered celebrities.  
The gendering of first lady celebrity continued as the press constructed these 
presidential wives as role models for American women. The article said of Jacqueline 
Kennedy, ?Her grace and charm as a White House hostess, her quiet pride in her 
family life, and her heroism in the face of a senseless tragedy have been brought to
Americans in hundreds of pictures and articles.?
2
 Kennedy was framed as a hostess, 
mother, and wife, all traditional feminine roles, even though her performance of those 
roles occurred on the most public of stages. Gendered frames were also used to 
157
describe her successor, Lady Bird Johnson, but with different results. The author 
stated, ?It would never do for a well-bred Southern lady to admit to possession of the 
tools of the intellect. Lady Bird?s deceptively feminine demeanor serves as a suitable 
disguise for a woman of stature and substance.?
3
 This article not only highlights the 
performative aspects of both gender and the first lady position, but also foreshadows a 
shift toward a more politically savvy, and active, first lady.
Myra G. Gutin says that, by the 1960s, every first lady ?was a political wife 
and a veteran of campaign and public life.?
4
 During a thirteen year period, four 
political wives held the first lady position, and three of them served incomplete terms. 
Claudia Taylor ?Lady Bird? Johnson (1963-1969)
5
 assumed the role following the 
assassination of President Kennedy. (Thelma) Patricia Ryan Nixon (1969-1974)
6
 left 
the White House upon her husband?s resignation in the wake of Watergate, promoting 
Betty Bloomer Ford (1974-1977)
7
 to the first lady position. Only Rosalynn Smith 
Carter (1977-1980)
8
 served an uninterrupted tenure in the White House. These 
women played active roles in their husband?s political careers, although their 
approaches sometimes differed based on their personalities and interests. As their 
husbands were elected to or assumed increasingly prestigious government positions, 
these women found themselves in the public spotlight, faced with both the benefits 
and constraints of their celebrity.  
This chapter examines the press coverage of the first lady institution from 
1964 to 1977. As in earlier eras, journalistic framing of first ladies mirrored the 
cultural climate, especially in relation to women?s place in society. In the past, true 
womanhood was a prevailing gender ideology; during this period, however, second-
158
wave feminism dominated the discourse and helped to define the ideals of 
womanhood. The perception of domesticity as ?the feminine mystique? gave the 
ideology a negative connotation.
9
 The ideals of feminism and domesticity were often 
viewed as polar opposites, particularly after the appearance of the anti-feminist 
movement that embraced domesticity as women?s ?true? nature. The biggest shift in 
the dominant discourse was seen, somewhat surprisingly, in women?s magazines, 
which have historically promoted domesticity. ?Women?s lib? became a major issue 
for these publications during this era. Articles celebrated the new ?liberated? (albeit 
white) woman, and encouraged their readers to expand their interests beyond the 
home. The first ladies of the era found themselves caught up in the second-wave. For 
journalists, Johnson, Ford, and Carter personified the ?contemporary woman? who 
successfully balanced career and family. In contrast, Nixon embodied the Cold War 
domesticity of the previous era, which was often criticized during the height of 
feminist activity.  
The women?s liberation movement also influenced the way journalists framed 
the first lady?s duties. For journalists, the activities of these first ladies were 
compared to women?s increased activism, and their various performances of the first 
lady position were viewed as an expansion of women?s roles beyond the domestic 
sphere. Journalists indicated that being ?just a wife? was no longer considered 
acceptable for first ladies. Instead, journalists accentuated first ladies political 
activities like presidential advisor, campaigner, surrogate, and independent advocate. 
Such framing infused the first lady institution with a sense of empowerment and gave 
rise to the first lady as political activist. Rather than serving as helpmates, activist 
159
first ladies like Johnson, Ford, and Carter were viewed as playing an influential role 
in the ?co-career? they shared with their husbands; Nixon was conversely framed as a 
more traditional political wife, and thus considered a less influential first lady.  
The political activism of first ladies, or lack thereof, also impacted press 
constructions of these women as gendered celebrities. The rise of a more adversarial 
relationship between politicians and the press during this era resulted in a more 
critical reporting style, which impacted first lady coverage.
10
 Journalists concentrated 
on gauging the increasing political influence of these first ladies by comparing them 
to former first ladies who had achieved iconic status and by scrutinizing their 
performance of gendered celebrity. Such reporting led to critiques regarding the 
extent of their influence, which sometimes resulted in double binds. These double 
binds were often perpetuated by women?s leaders, women?s magazines, and at times, 
women journalists, who simultaneously promoted first ladies as political activists and 
also challenged the appropriateness of their power. Such frames helped establish the 
notion that first ladies were central to women?s culture, with their expertise related 
primarily to women?s issues; women?s issues, though, were still marginalized in the 
male political sphere. And when these first ladies expanded their interests beyond 
women?s issues, critiques of their actions increased. The result was a no-win situation 
for activist first ladies when their influence extended too far beyond women?s 
designated space for political activities. On the other hand, Nixon?s lack of activity 
was also criticized, resulting in a no-win situation for her as well. Thus, coverage of 
first ladies in the 1960s and 1970s in many ways reflected the paradoxes of women?s 
lives that were addressed by second-wave feminism.
160
Competing Gender Ideologies: Liberating Women From the Feminine Mystique
The social and political unrest of the 1960s and 1970s provided a fertile 
environment for the so-called ?rebirth of feminism.?
11
 As noted in the previous 
chapters, feminism never disappeared from the cultural landscape, but the lack of an 
active feminist movement, coupled with the dominance of domestic discourse, 
overshadowed the feminist activity of the post-suffrage era.
12
 Thus, the revival of an 
organized social movement in the 1960s has been referred to as the ?second wave? of 
feminism. According to Barbara Ryan, the ?ideological and material contradictions 
developing in women?s lives?as well as the actual constraints of the homemaker 
role? during the Cold War era played an important part in the resurgence of a feminist 
movement in the 1960s.
13
 As women began to evaluate their lives, Estelle B. 
Freedman claims that, ?The old feminist calls for economic and political equality, and 
a new emphasis on control over reproduction, resonated deeply across generations, 
classes, and races.?
14
 But the ?new? feminism did not resonate with all Americans. 
The movement faced ridicule from many men, women, and media outlets as well as 
vigorous attacks from well-organized opponents who embraced women?s traditional 
domestic roles. Despite these challenges, the call for women?s liberation was 
successful in generating widespread discussions of gender roles during this period. 
The emergence of twentieth-century first ladies as public women and 
gendered celebrities in the press evidenced women?s increasing presence in the 
political sphere, helping to set the stage for women?s political activism during the era 
of second-wave feminism. By ?going public? through the press in the earlier part of 
the century, first ladies helped to alleviate the stigma surrounding female publicity 
161
and normalize women?s roles as public figures in their own right. As some of the 
most prominent political women and gendered celebrities, first ladies represented for 
journalists women?s growing influence, whether as social activists or consumers. 
Although gendered framing continued to characterize first ladies? activities as 
extensions of traditional domestic roles, which alternately served to justify, contain, 
and depoliticize women?s power, the steady expansion of news coverage of the first 
lady institution throughout the century helped to justify women as newsmakers and 
women?s issues and activities as newsworthy. Both the social feminism of women 
like Eleanor Roosevelt and the domestic empowerment and containment of the Cold 
War consumer helped to set the stage for the reemergence of an active women?s 
movement in the 1960s.  
A handful of events in the early 1960s are often credited with prompting the 
development of a social movement focusing specifically on women?s rights. The 
1961 President?s Commission on the Status of Women, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, 
was one such precipitous act.
15
 The Commission?s report, American Women, released 
in 1963, outlined ?discrimination against women in every facet of American life,? 
particularly in the workplace, where women earned up to 40 percent less than their 
male counterparts.
16
 The report was the ?first effort on the part of the Federal 
government to address the question of women in American society,? and led to the 
establishment of similar commissions in all 50 states by 1967.
17
 Members of the 
President?s Commission also lobbied for the Equal Pay Act, passed in June 1963, 
which mandated ?equal pay for equal work? and was the first piece of Federal 
legislation to prohibit sexual discrimination.
18
 The following year, Title VII of the 
162
1964 Civil Rights Act barred discrimination in employment on the basis of ?race, 
color, religion, sex, or national origin? and established the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to field complaints regarding bias in the 
workplace.
19
 When it became clear that the EEOC was not enforcing the ban on sex 
discrimination, a group of delegates to the 1966 Conference of the Commissions on 
the Status of Women came together with activists like Betty Friedan to form the 
National Organization for Women (NOW), which quickly became the leading 
organization in the burgeoning women?s liberation movement.
20
Friedan?s The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, often receives credit for 
providing the ideological foundation for second-wave feminism. According to 
William H. Chafe, Friedan?s book ?generated the kind of attention that made 
feminism a popular topic of conversation once again.?
21
 Juliet Mitchell proclaimed in 
1971, ?If a single inspiration for the movement is to be cited, it was the publication in 
1963 of Betty Friedan?s The Feminine Mystique.?
22
 Friedan claimed that countless 
American women, deprived of the chance to develop their own identity, were 
suffering from a growing discontent with their roles as housewives and mothers.
23
She argued that the so-called ?[feminine] mystique makes the housewife-mother, who 
never had a chance to be anything else, the model for all women.?
24
 Her solution was 
for women to reject the feminine mystique and develop lives of their own, primarily 
through education and careers. Although Friedan?s analysis was heavily biased 
toward the experiences of white, middle- to upper-class women, the popularity of the 
book helped to begin a cultural conversation about women?s roles. Chafe notes that 
163
even if readers disagreed with Friedan?s conclusions, ?they could not help but to 
reexamine their own lives in light of the questions it raised.?
25
So-called radical feminists were some of the earliest women?s rights activists 
of this period. Involvement in the Civil Rights and New Left movements led many 
younger women to question women?s social status, particularly when they found 
themselves consigned to traditional female roles and ridiculed by male members 
when they brought up the issue of women?s liberation.
26
 These women formed a 
number of small groups, which varied in approach but all identified themselves as 
?radical.? Ryan asserts, ?The act of naming their brand of feminism ?radical? helped 
activists to define themselves as substantially different from ?reformist? women.?
27
They were united, however loosely, by the philosophy that the root of women?s 
oppression was a patriarchal social structure based on ?competition, power over 
others, and male superiority.?
28
 In general, radical feminists believed that women?s 
liberation could only occur through a social transformation of the unequal power 
relations between men and women.
29
 Issues of importance for radical feminists 
included reproductive rights, battering and rape, pornography, and sex-role 
stereotyping.
30
 An important contribution of radical feminism was consciousness-
raising and its mantra ?the personal is political.?
31
 Freedman states, ?Through the 
process of consciousness raising, second-wave feminists politicized the dilemmas of 
women?s private lives. The blurring of the public/private divide redefined the political 
to include power relations between men and women.?
32
Liberal feminists represented the mainstream of the women?s movement for 
the media. According to Bonnie J. Dow, ?The public orientation of NOW, and the 
164
visible public events it created, were easier to report.?
33
 Groups like NOW and the 
National Women?s Political Caucus, formed in 1971,
34
 also had identifiable leaders, 
such as Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Congresswoman Bella Abzug?willing 
spokespersons who were experienced in dealing with the media.
35
 Liberal feminists 
tackled a number of issues, from abortion rights to equal pay to the ERA.
36
 According 
to Chafe, liberal feminists ?sought to work within the existing social and economic 
framework to secure reforms for women and progress toward full equality of 
opportunity between the sexes.?
37
 The ?Women?s Strike for Equality? on August 26, 
1970, commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the passage of the Nineteenth 
Amendment, ?marked the beginning of women?s liberation as a mass movement.?
38
The strike also marked a milestone in media coverage of the movement. Dow notes 
that, for the first time, women?s liberation activity reached the status of ?hard news? 
when the strike ?led the evening newscasts on all three networks and received its first 
banner headline and front page above-the-fold coverage in the New York Times , a 
breakthrough in the amount, if not the quality, of coverage.?
39
The women?s liberation movement continued to make headlines as feminists 
claimed a number of key victories in the 1970s. Record numbers of women charged 
their employers with sexual discrimination in hiring and promotion,
40
 including 
female employees at major magazines such as Newsweek, Time, and the Ladies? 
Home Journal, where over 100 feminists staged an 11-hour sit-in.
41
 In 1972, the 
Supreme Court began applying the Fourteenth Amendment to cases of alleged sexual 
discrimination,
42
 and handed down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing 
abortion in 1973.
43
 Legislative victories were a result of the increased activism of 
165
feminists in the 1970s. Klein argues, ?Congress passed 71 pieces of legislation 
concerned with a broad range of women?s rights and needs, or almost 40 percent of 
all legislation aimed at women during this century.?
44
 Among those bills passed in 
1972 alone were Title IX of the Higher Education Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, 
and the Equal Rights Amendment. The latter was overwhelming approved by 
Congress on March 22, 1972, and sent to the states for ratification.
45
 Deglar says that 
supporters believed that ?passage of the ERA would imbed in the Constitution the 
legal basis for the feminist gains of the preceding decade and thus make their repeal 
difficult in the future? and ?hasten the removal of the few remaining legal obstacles to 
full equality of opportunity between the sexes.?
46
 Despite continued efforts in support 
of a number of issues, the ERA and its ratification ?became the mobilizing issue for 
feminist activism?
47
 in the late 1970s and often dominated discussions of the 
women?s movement, especially in the media.   
Congressional passage of the ERA crystallized an organized movement that 
directly challenged feminism by promoting traditional gender roles. In 1972, Phyllis 
Schlafly established the National Committee to Stop ERA. Douglas asserts that 
Schlafly ?became a media celebrity, and the media became her most powerful 
weapon.?
48
 A number of similar organizations soon appeared, including WWWW 
(Women Who Want to be Women), HOW (Happiness of Women), and FOE 
(Females Opposed to Equality).
49
 According to Carl M. Degler, Schlafly ?stumped 
the country for years telling women and legislators that the amendment would deprive 
them of their rights as wives and mothers.?
50
 She claimed that the ERA would lead to 
a variety of problems, from the drafting of women into the military to unisex 
166
bathrooms. Wandersee states that Schlafly played on the security of the Cold War 
domestic ideal, arguing, ?If the states were forced to treat men and women equally in 
all circumstances, the effect would be to weaken the traditional family, and in 
particular, it would undermine the security of the middle-aged full-time homemaker 
with no job skills.?
51
 While liberal feminists argued that the separate spheres 
philosophy should be eradicated, Schlafly and her supporters countered with the 
claim that women and men were biologically different and that the domestic sphere 
should be protected.
52
 Degler concludes, ?The women?s movement, in short, was not 
able to overcome the fears of many women that the amendment would disturb or 
threaten their traditional place in the family, just as many women during the suffrage 
fight earlier in the century had feared its impact on the relation between husband and 
wife.?
53
 The highly publicized protest activities of Schlafly and the anti-ERA 
movement received much of the credit for defeating the constitutional amendment 
and contributing to the backlash against feminism in the 1980s.
54
 Douglas contends 
that ?Schlafly achieved this victory, in part, because she was brilliant at exploiting 
media routines, biases, and stereotypes to make the ERA seem both dangerous and 
unnecessary.?
55
Despite the failure to ratify the ERA, feminists claimed a number of victories 
in the 1960s and 1970s. According to Matthews, ?The ?second wave? of feminism 
brought more women into public roles than ever before,?
56
 including the housewives 
and mothers who joined Schlafly?s Stop ERA movement. Freedman argues that one 
of the most important contributions of the second wave of feminism was ?the 
redefinition of the political to include both public and private realms, both male and 
167
female concerns,?
57
 which extended the work done by earlier public women including 
first ladies. Women?s issues once considered private, like abortion or breast cancer, 
were being discussed in public forums and made front-page news. The widespread 
social discussion regarding gender roles, prompted by second-wave feminism, 
heightened the salience of the issue for the press during this era. Chafe claims, ?By 
the early 1970s, countless Americans were debating what could only be described as 
?feminist? issues, whether the focus was on the Equal Rights Amendment, child care, 
abortion, ?open marriage,? greater sharing of household responsibilities, or the sexual 
revolution.?
58
 Through the press, the first ladies of this era were among the countless 
Americans engaging in public debate over women?s changing roles.   
Framing the First Lady Institution During the Second Wave
Press framing of the first lady institution between 1964 and 1977 mirrored the 
cultural conversation regarding women?s roles sparked by second-wave feminist 
activity. Coverage focused heavily on the public and political activities of the first 
ladies of this period. For journalists, Johnson, Ford, and Carter personified the 
?contemporary woman? who balanced traditional roles with feminist activism. In 
contrast, Nixon embodied Cold War domesticity. While her public activity was on par 
with her contemporaries, she was often criticized for her lack of activism and 
characterized as a throwback to the previous era. The result of such framing was the 
emergence of the first lady as political activist. However, as the period wore on, 
journalists increasingly questioned the extent, the limitations, and the appropriateness 
of first ladies? political influence.  
168
Personifying the Contemporary Woman of the Second Wave 
Just as domesticity defined women?s roles in the previous era, second-wave 
feminist ideals pervaded discussions of American womanhood during the 1960s and 
1970s. Women?s magazines like the Ladies? Home Journal praised ?the power of a 
woman,? proclaiming in the September 1969 issue, ?The contemporary woman?
better-educated, longer-lived, more involved in her community and the world?has a 
greater opportunity to improve and change the society around her.?
59
 The increased 
public and political activities of the first ladies of this era encouraged journalists to 
draw parallels between activism of first ladies and the activism of American women. 
For the press, particularly women?s magazines, Johnson, Ford, and Carter were fitting 
role models for American women, in part because they supported feminist ideals 
without rejecting women?s traditional roles. While Nixon personified the more 
traditional political wife, she was still recognized as a public figure in her own right. 
However, in some cases, Nixon represented the limitations of the ?feminine 
mystique? that was so widely praised just a decade earlier. 
Much like their predecessors, the first ladies of the second wave embodied for 
the press the shifting ideals of American womanhood. The ideal contemporary 
woman, according to journalists, was able to move beyond the confines of the 
domestic sphere without abandoning her family, or her femininity. For example, in 
introducing their ?Women of the Year? in 1976, Ladies? Home Journal stressed that 
their awardees, which included scientists, educators, and leaders from various 
feminist, civil rights, and women?s groups, ?do not mark down the woman who 
moves in a smaller sphere?the wife, mother, and homemaker who expresses herself 
169
in the creation of a home and family. (Indeed, many of these women have played that 
role.) Instead, their example proves that women today have many options, many 
talents, many goals.?
60
 Thus, the contemporary women of the second wave balanced 
domestic duties with careers, civic responsibilities, and interests independent of their 
husbands and children, embodying both the activist spirit of second-wave feminism 
and the domesticity of traditional homemakers. This ?superwomanly? ideal, which 
first appeared during the modern era, would become synonymous with second-wave 
feminism?s contention that women could ?have it all.?
61
For journalists, the first ladies of this era often personified contemporary 
womanhood, serving as role models for women who sought to balance their many 
private and public responsibilities. In a 1965 Good Housekeeping profile, 
anthropologist Margaret Mead defined Lady Bird Johnson as ?a model for any 
responsible American woman, whoever she may be and wherever she may live.? 
Mead noted, ?In her picture of contemporary women Mrs. Johnson includes married 
and unmarried women, career women and volunteers, all of whom she calls on in one 
sweeping challenge to be responsible individuals.? Drawing on Friedan?s work, Mead 
claimed that Johnson was ?not troubled by what has been called the ?feminine 
mystique.? In her own life she has combined home and children and career, hard, 
exacting, successful activities for which she has taken full responsibility, and happy 
cooperation with her husband.?
62
 Another Good Housekeeping article similarly noted 
that Johnson ?proved herself not only a devoted wife and mother, but also as a canny 
business executive and a seasoned political trouper.?
63
 Christine Sadler?s profile of 
Johnson in McCall?s also referred, albeit indirectly, to Friedan?s work, observing, 
170
?Not surprisingly, fancy treatises examining the status of women as an abstruse 
problem amuse her; but her interest in encouraging projects begun by women, or 
encouraging their broader education could hardly be more real.?
64
 Johnson frequently 
spoke to audiences of young women, persuading them to become public women. 
According to a 1964 New York Times article, she told an audience that ?women must 
take their place in public life as well as in home life,? stating, ??Women can no longer 
afford to concern themselves only with the hearth?any more than men can afford to 
concern themselves only with their job.??
65
 Mead concluded that by giving ?new 
dignity to the role of wife, as one facet in the life of a ?total woman,?? Johnson was a 
model of ?what other American women can do and be in the mid-20
th
 century.?
66
 For 
reporters, Johnson?s actions and ideals embodied the spirit of the contemporary 
woman who balanced family, career, and civic responsibilities. She also reflected the 
ideals of the developing women?s liberation movement by encouraging women to 
expand their horizons beyond the domestic sphere.
The ability to balance femininity and feminism was another characteristic of 
the contemporary woman. According to reporters, both Johnson and Rosalynn Carter 
personified this balance. Ruth Montgomery?s Good Housekeeping profile of Johnson 
claimed that ?behind her mild Southern manner is a remarkably capable and energetic 
executive.? The same article noted, ?In addition to being competent, the new First 
Lady is friendly, good-looking, intelligent and faultlessly groomed.?
67
 In these 
quotes, Johnson?s feminine manner and appearance are paired with references to her 
intelligence and abilities. In a similar statement, William V. Shannon of the New York 
Times proclaimed that, in Carter, ?the nation?s women have acquired an articulate and 
171
attractive spokeswoman, one who is a loving wife and devoted mother and also a 
strong, independent personality in her own right.?
68
 By describing Carter as both 
articulate and attractive, a wife and mother and a ?strong, independent personality,? 
Shannon highlighted the balance of feminine and feminist characteristics. Several 
stories highlighted the femininity of Johnson and Carter by drawing on their southern 
heritage. Elizabeth Janeway of Ladies? Home Journal said of Johnson, ?Her voice is 
Deep South . . . but Lady Bird Johnson is neither a Southern Belle nor a Southern 
Bigot. People who have begun to listen to her words instead of her accent find that 
her speech is tangy, terse, and individual.?
69
 Carter was often referred to as a ?steel 
magnolia,?
70
 a phrase associated with Southern women?s mix of gentility and 
strength. A New York Times Magazine feature maintained, ?After only two months in 
the White House, the ?steel magnolia? with the soft drawl promises to be the most 
active First Lady in decades.?
71
 According to the same story, she handled an 
appearance on Meet the Press ?with the aplomb of Scarlet O?Hara,?
72
 referencing 
fiction?s archetypal steel magnolia. Such framing helped to feminize these women, 
particularly their voice, by once again infusing their political acumen with aspects of 
femininity.
The balancing act performed by contemporary women was viewed by some 
reporters as an embodiment of the feminist mantra ?the personal is political.? By 
sharing the most intimate details of her life with the press, Betty Ford personified 
how the personal was inseparable from the political, particularly for first ladies. 
Known for her outspokenness, Ford freely admitted ?to smoking, being divorced, 
seeing a psychiatrist, taking tranquilizers, drinking with her husband and?heaven 
172
forbid?sleeping with him,?
73
 making her someone that women could identify with. 
The Washington Post noted that Ford ?was able to play many different roles and that 
left the public with the notion that she was a completely modern female,?
74
highlighting the point that contemporary women could support women?s liberation 
without rejecting traditional domestic roles. In 1976, Ford was named one of Ladies? 
Home Journal?s ?Women of the Year? for her ?inspirational leadership? in making 
public her personal health crisis. Ford was lauded for ?her courage and outspoken 
candor in her battle with breast cancer? and for being ?an inspiration to women 
everywhere.?
75
 By publicizing her experiences with breast cancer, Ford helped to 
raise awareness of an important women?s health issue.
The contemporary woman, who often ventured beyond the domestic sphere, 
was viewed as a departure from the Cold War homemaker, whose devotion to 
domesticity was derided as the ?feminine mystique? by feminists. For journalists, Pat 
Nixon symbolized the feminine mystique, and was often framed as out-of-step with 
the times. Wandersee notes that ?in the climate of the early women?s movement, she 
served primarily as a negative or passive example of women?s changing roles.?
76
 For 
example, Washington Post reporter Dorothy McCardle called Nixon ?a dutiful wife in 
the old-time sense.?
77
 In a 1970 McCall?s profile, Nixon was described as ?the 
paradigm of the proper, dutiful wife, and the proper, dutiful wife always defers to her 
husband, especially a husband whose career is politics.?
78
 According to Elaine Tyler 
May, ?Women of the fifties, constrained by tremendous cultural and economic 
pressures to conform to domestic containment, gave up their independence and 
personal ambitions.?
79
 Nixon was framed as one of those women whose spirit, as one 
173
reporter observed, had been ?submerged forever in her relentlessly ambitious 
husband?s career.?
80
 In a July 1968 Good Housekeeping article, Flora Rheta Schreiber 
described Nixon as ?selfless,? noting that ?her husband?s career has always come 
first.?
81
When reporters constructed Nixon as the ?dutiful wife,? their tone was often 
negative, mocking the domestic ideal that dominated news framing of women through 
the early 1960s.  
During the second-wave, journalists? practice of personification framing drew 
these first ladies into the cultural debate over women?s changing roles. By 
personifying the contemporary woman or the feminine mystique, the first ladies of 
this period helped call attention to the women?s movement.
82
 By linking first ladies, 
who were treated as role models for American women, to the women?s movement, 
journalists helped to legitimize feminist ideology as an acceptable way to define 
American womanhood. This type of framing appeared most frequently in women?s 
magazines, which embraced the women?s liberation movement while still touting 
domesticity. For these publications in particular, Johnson, Ford, and Carter each 
represented the ?superwoman? who balanced her public and private roles, illustrating 
that women could be both contemporary and traditional. Such personification framing 
led to a focus on the role of first ladies as political activists.  
The Emergence of First Lady as Political Activist
Coverage of the first lady institution during the 1960s and 1970s concentrated 
primarily on the public and political activities of these women, often framing them as 
?active, political partners of the president.?
83
 Even profiles in women?s magazines, 
which traditionally highlighted first ladies? domestic roles, focused more on the 
174
political aspects of the first lady position. The emergence of the first lady as political 
activist was an extension of the first lady as public woman and gendered celebrity as 
well as an outgrowth of second-wave personification framing?s focus on women?s 
activism. By the 1960s, Gutin claims that, ?the First Lady was not only a presence 
and a party hostess, but could also be communicator, advocate, politician, and 
advisor.?
84
 Like their predecessors, these first ladies played various political roles, 
including presidential advisor, campaigner, and social advocate. They also took 
advantage of their status as gendered celebrities, recognizing that their power rested 
chiefly in the publicity associated with the first lady position.  
The public activity of a first lady was an overarching frame that appeared 
throughout this era in stories about the performance of the first lady position. For 
journalists, ?activity? and ?activism? often were conflated, which influenced their 
discussions of the first lady?s duties. Johnson, Ford, and Carter were all defined, by 
the press and themselves, as ?active? first ladies. Johnson was frequently referred to 
as a ?can-do woman.?
85
Good Housekeeping stated that Johnson ?defined her role as 
one whose significance must ?emerge in deeds, not words.??
86
 Her numerous travels 
across the United States, campaigning for her husband, his ?Great Society? programs, 
and her cause of beautification, supported this statement. Ford, during her first news 
conference, told the press she intended to be ??an active first lady,?? working on 
behalf of the ERA and promoting the arts and programs for children and the elderly.
87
Likewise, a New York Times headline proclaimed, ?Mrs. Carter Planning Active Role 
in Capitol,?
88
 and her press secretary Mary Finch Hoyt predicted that ??Rosalynn will 
be more active and effective than any First Lady in years.??
89
 Like Johnson, she 
175
traveled extensively, representing her husband both at home and abroad. And like 
Ford, she lobbied for the ERA, while also acting as an advocate for mental health and 
the elderly and advising her husband on those issues and others. However, these 
quotes indicate that the rise of first ladies? political activism remained gendered as 
these women focused their energies primarily on causes associated with women, 
children, and beautification.  
Nixon was the exception of this group. While the level of her activity was on 
par with her contemporaries, in terms of trips at home and abroad, campaigning, and 
public appearances, her performance of the role was judged as more passive because 
she was less political than her counterparts. Susanna McBee observed in her McCall?s
profile, ?She wants to be an active First Lady. She wants to urge people to work 
voluntarily in their communities, but she seems to think that visiting a few projects 
and making a report will achieve that purpose.?
90
 McBee speculated, ?I believe that 
Mrs. Nixon does indeed want to do inspiring things as First Lady, but she has been 
the docile wife for so long that it is hard now to shift gears.?
91
 Thus, Nixon?s failure 
to politicize her efforts in an era defined by women?s political activism often made 
her the target of criticism.  
While many first ladies throughout history ?functioned as close political 
advisors? to their husbands,
92
 the activist first ladies of this era were more frequently 
framed in such ways by the press. A 1964 article in Good Housekeeping argued that 
Johnson ?has always considered herself?and been considered?her husband?s 
partner in all his affairs,?
93
 while a profile in McCall?s claimed, ?she and the 
President are a team and always have been.?
94
 Johnson was quoted by the Washington 
176
Post as saying that her husband accorded her ??the fine compliment of thinking I have 
good judgment and he also knows that I will tell him as I see it.??
95
 She routinely 
helped her husband prepare his speeches, and he often consulted her regarding his 
?Great Society? programs.
96
 According to a New York Times article about Johnson?s 
mail, the public recognized her advisory role, ?There are more ?tell-it-to-the-
president? letters to the First Lady than there have been in Administrations back to 
Franklin D. Roosevelt.? According to an aide, ??Mrs. Johnson is so interested in 
anything having to do with legislation that people are writing in encouraging her to 
prod the President a little bit on different legislative matters, or telling her to 
commend him on various stands, such as the war on poverty.??
97
 Like Johnson, Carter 
was framed by the press as one of her husband?s closest advisors. The New York 
Times pointed out that ?Mr. Carter has described his wife as his ?best friend and chief 
advisor.??
98
 Carter said, ??Jimmy respects my judgment on things, that?s all.  I think I 
have some influence on him.??
99
 Carter became famous for sitting in on Cabinet 
meetings and for advising her husband on political appointments, which were viewed 
as very political acts.
100
The advisory role of first ladies has largely been played behind the scenes. In 
Ford?s case, reporters emphasized the personal nature of her political influence. An 
article in McCall?s stated, ?While she has not invaded the Oval Office, Mrs. Ford gets 
her views across when she and the President are alone; she calls it ?pillow talk.?? 
According to the story, Ford ?claimed credit for the appointment of HUD Secretary 
Carla Hills. ?I got a woman into the cabinet. I never give up. Now I?m working on 
getting a woman on the Supreme Court as soon as possible.??
101
 In a rare presidential 
177
interview with a women?s magazine, Gerald Ford told the Ladies? Home Journal,
??As a political partner, she is a prime asset.??
102
 He credited his wife with persuading 
him to vote for the ERA: ??She convinced me that women?s rights have to be 
protected and guaranteed by law, just as the rights of racial and religious minorities, if
there is to be genuine equality.?? He also admitted that she advised him on his 
economic program by telling him to ??think about the millions of American women 
shopping each day for their families.??
103
 Whether their persuasive influence occurred 
in public or private, journalists framed these first ladies? advisory role as 
overwhelmingly political, highlighting the contributions these women made to their 
husband?s political careers.    
The campaign roles of wives were also framed as more political, with these 
women acting as independent political actors stumping solo in support of their 
husbands. Johnson actively campaigned, making unaccompanied trips to many areas 
that were solidly Republican.
104
 Her ride through eight southern states in October 
1964 aboard the ?Lady Bird Special? was ?the first whistle-stop campaign journey 
ever taken by a President?s wife on her own.?
105
 Johnson?s press secretary, Liz 
Carpenter, called the whistle-stop tour ?a salvage operation in the wake of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.?
106
 Johnson made speeches at each of the 47 stops over the four-
day period, drawing large, mixed crowds that included many African-Americans as 
well as small groups of heckling Goldwater supporters ?yelling ?nigger-lover 
Johnson? and ?What about Vietnam???
107
 Nan Robertson of the New York Times
observed that ?throughout Mrs. Johnson?s trip, the outstanding visual impression by 
the sides of the railroad tracks was of black hands waving Johnson posters and white 
178
hands holding posters for both presidential candidates,?
108
 thus framing the trip within 
the context of civil rights, a major campaign issue in 1964. Claude Sitton of the New 
York Times credited the ?Lady Bird Special? with garnering several firm 
endorsements from Southern Democratic leaders, tapping ?new sources of active 
support, financial and otherwise,? and arousing ?enthusiasm for the campaign that 
had been sorely missing.?
109
 Robertson offered the following assessment of the 
success of Johnson?s trip: ?On the trip, the President?s wife has spoken to tens of 
thousands of persons at rallies and from the rear of her observation car. But, perhaps 
more important, she has also been on the job constantly between stops, talking to a 
steady stream of politicians and party workers.?
110
 The ?Lady Bird Special? 
capitalized on Johnson?s gendered celebrity, using her popularity to reach out to 
Southern voters who were deeply divided over civil rights. When her husband carried 
four of the eight states in the election, the ?Lady Bird Special? received much of the
credit.
First ladies campaigning independently of their husbands became 
commonplace during this era. Carter, who spent nearly two years on the road 
answering the question, ?Jimmy who?,?
111
 was framed by the press as an active solo 
campaigner. A New York Times article stated, ?Unlike most candidates? wives of the 
past, Mrs. Carter . . . campaigned on her own rather than with her husband in the 
Carters? attempt to reach as many voters as possible.? According to a Carter aide, 
??She didn?t do only women?s teas. She showed up at factories at 4 in the morning, at 
Democratic meetings, at church gatherings, shopping centers and public festivals?
she held her own news conferences and did television interviews.??
112
 Reporters 
179
praised her ability to ?speak without notes? and to connect with audiences from the 
stump.
113
 By highlighting that Carter campaigned alone, spoke to promiscuous 
audiences, and was an effective public speaker, these comments evidence that 
women?s presence in the political sphere was still considered somewhat unusual. 
Carter?s son Jack told McCall?s that ??it was like having two candidates, equally 
attractive. It meant we could travel twice as far and meet twice the number of people. 
I think that won it for us,??
114
 foreshadowing the concept of a ?co-presidency? and the 
?two-for-one? mantra that appeared as framing devices in later news coverage. Carter 
became so well-known for her campaign efforts that in June of 1977, a Washington 
Post reporter referred to the increased presence of wives on the campaign trail as ?the 
Rosalyn Carter phenomenon.?
115
 Ford also actively campaigned in 1976, representing 
her husband at several Republican state conventions during his tough primary race 
with Ronald Reagan.
116
 Upon Gerald Ford?s loss in the general election to Jimmy 
Carter, Ford literally spoke for her husband, who had lost his voice, reading his 
concession telegram to the press and thanking Ford supporters.
117
Nixon was a regular feature on the campaign trail; however, both she and the 
press downplayed the political importance of her campaign presence. Nixon was 
framed primarily as a liaison to women voters, a more traditional campaign role for 
political wives. The New York Times stated in 1968, ?This year, as in 22 of her 56 
years, Mrs. Nixon is out on the campaign trail. She modestly calls herself ?a volunteer 
for Nixon?his eyes and ears with the women voters.??
118
 Nixon announced in a press 
conference that she would play ??an active role?? in the 1968 campaign. According to 
the New York Times, ?She said she would spend her time consulting volunteer groups 
180
and visiting women?s organizations, meeting with the ladies of the press and making 
television appearances.?
119
 However, an article claimed, ?Mrs. Nixon said she had 
never spoken on the issues,? and quoted her as saying, ??I think women do like to see 
women, but sometimes they don?t like to listen to them.  I think women would rather 
hear the candidate speak than have the wife speak for him.??
120
 Her comments 
devalued women?s speech, even to a non-promiscuous audience, reflecting the 
negative connotation long associated with women?s publicity and political activism. 
For reporters, such a statement served as insight into Nixon?s gendered performance 
of the first lady role and also marked a contrast between Nixon and Johnson, her 
activist predecessor.
Another role of the activist first lady was presidential surrogate. Johnson and 
Carter used their campaigning skills and gendered celebrity throughout their tenures 
to garner support and publicity for their husband?s programs. A Good Housekeeping
profile said that Johnson was ?clearly more steeped in practical politics than any other 
First Lady, except perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt in her later years. Clearly, when Mrs. 
Johnson says she plans to help her husband in every way possible, she is uttering no 
platitude.?
121
 One of the ways she helped was by traveling around the country 
promoting her husband?s programs, particularly his ?war on poverty? projects like 
Head Start and VISTA. She made front page news when she visited a ?poverty 
pocket? coal town in Pennsylvania, where she told the crowd, ??Last Wednesday I sat 
in the gallery of the Congress and heard my husband declare war on poverty in this 
country. Today, I feel as if I have been standing on the first battlefield of that 
war.??
122
 She viewed her role as going ?behind the cold statistics to the human needs, 
181
problems, and hopes? of impoverished Americans, thus acting as a human link 
between her husband?s programs and the people, much like Eleanor Roosevelt did for 
the New Deal.
123
 After being named the honorary chairperson of Project Head Start, 
Johnson helped garner publicity for the program by touring project sites and holding 
?poverty project teas? with leaders of national women?s organizations,
124
 making the 
most of her gendered celebrity.        
Like Johnson, Carter was framed as a surrogate for her husband, but her trips 
took her abroad.
125
 Her most notable excursion was a ?12-day tour of the Caribbean 
and Latin America,? which made daily headlines in both the United States and 
abroad.
126
 She told reporters that her visit was ??on behalf of the President to express 
his friendship and good will and to conduct substantive talks with the leaders of these 
nations on issues of bilateral, regional, and global importance.??
127
 As the first 
president?s wife to undertake such an important political assignment abroad, she often 
found herself having to defend her trip. Her response was, ??I think that I am the 
person closest to the President of the United States, and if I can help him understand 
the countries of the world, that?s what I want to do.??
128
 To prepare, Carter ?took 
Spanish lessons three times a week? and was ?briefed by 40 experts on Latin America 
in 13 sessions lasting two to five hours each.?
129
 David Vidal of the New York Times
noted that, before the trip, ?there was widespread skepticism that it could produce any 
results,? particularly since Carter was visiting a region ?dominated by a male culture? 
and ?would be unable to gain the ear of male leaders, often military men, on issues as 
varied and complex as nuclear proliferation, commodity prices, arms sales, trade and 
third-world development problems and, of course, human rights.? However, Vidal 
182
concluded, ?Mrs. Carter has achieved a personal and diplomatic success that goes far 
beyond the modest expectations of both her foreign policy tutors at the State 
Department and her hosts.?
130
Adding the role of diplomat to the first lady?s duties 
increased the political influence of the first lady position.  
Press coverage of first lady activism and advocacy during this era helped to 
institutionalize the expectation that all first ladies actively champion a social cause 
that they were invested in personally.
131
 In some cases, advocacy also led to a first 
lady?s involvement in policymaking. However, as in the past, such activism was often 
gendered, which simultaneously justified and limited first ladies? influence. Johnson?s 
primary personal project was ?beautification.?
132
Like Ellen Wilson and Eleanor 
Roosevelt before her, she took a particular interest in improving living conditions in 
Washington, D.C.
133
 Johnson formed the Committee for a More Beautiful Capital 
with Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall for the dual purpose of making the 
Washington Mall more attractive and ?beautifying Washington?s drabber and more 
squalid residential areas and downtown sections.? At a publicity event, Johnson 
?performed some symbolic gestures by planting a few pansies? but also ?took the 
committee to a former slum area in southwest Washington where luxury apartments 
and public housing structures are now intermingled.?
134
 Johnson lobbied on behalf of 
the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, dubbed ?Lady Bird?s bill,?
135
 and continued to 
call attention to conservation and environmental protection throughout her tenure.
136
However, the label of ?beautification? gendered Johnson?s advocacy, overshadowing 
the more political aspects of her environmentalism.  
183
As gendered celebrities, first ladies were often positioned by the press as 
spokespersons for women?s issues. Ford became a spokesperson for breast cancer 
awareness after she underwent a radical mastectomy just a few weeks after moving 
into the White House.
137
An editorial in the New York Times said, ?Mrs. Ford has set 
an admirable example in dealing forthrightly with an area still frequently beclouded 
by irrational flights from reality.?
138
She wrote about her experience in McCall?s a 
few months after her surgery: ?Nobody used to talk about it years ago and, even now, 
few women will admit to having had a mastectomy. One of the things I?m most proud 
of is that we did talk about it openly and as a result I didn?t feel ashamed or ?dirty? 
because I had cancer.? Ford hoped that, ?if I as First Lady could talk about it candidly 
and without embarrassment, many other people would be able to do so as well. I also 
wanted to feel that something good would come from my ordeal.?
139
 Within a few 
weeks of her surgery, the New York Times reported that ?thousands of women across 
the country have been rushing to seek breast cancer examinations.?
140
Ford was 
recognized by the American Cancer Society in 1976 for her ?candid and optimistic 
response to the disease? and for her continued efforts to educate women about the 
benefits of early detection.
141
Recognizing the power of the publicity surrounding the 
first lady, Ford successfully used her position to raise awareness and help alleviate the 
stigma associated with breast cancer.  
Similarly, Carter used her position to bring attention to her two primary 
issues: mental health and aging. Her appointment as the honorary chairperson of the 
President?s Commission on Mental Health helped garner coverage of the 
commission?s efforts.
142
 She also chaired a ?White House Conference on Aging? in 
184
order to ?help ?personally spotlight? the problems of old people in America.?
143
As a 
spokesperson for these issues, Carter was viewed as representing women everywhere 
who were caring for mentally ill or elderly family members.
144
These stories reveal 
the power of gendered celebrity, but such gendered framing also contained both Ford 
and Carter?s influence to women?s issues, which have traditionally been devalued 
within the male political sphere. Thus, while these activist first ladies were positioned 
as key players in women?s political culture, they remained on the fringes of U.S. 
political culture, gendering and thus limiting their political influence.
The women?s liberation movement also benefited from the first lady media 
spotlight thanks to Ford and Carter?s lobbying on behalf of the Equal Rights 
Amendment. A McCall?s reporter declared that Ford?s ?increasing feminism and 
courage to speak out on issues has brought a totally unexpected bonus to those who 
prefer activism after years of silence from First Ladies.?
145
 Similarly, the Ladies? 
Home Journal asserted, ?[H]er championing of the women?s rights movement?and 
specifically the Equal Rights Amendment?has meant much to its supporters.?
146
According to a February 1975 New York Times article, Ford was ?making telephone 
calls and writing to legislators in several states where the amendment has recently 
come up for action, including Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota, Arizona, and 
Nevada.?
147
Ford described her lobbying as a ??very soft sell?? and explained to 
McCall?s that she ??merely asked that the amendment be allowed to get to the floor 
and to let the people vote their conscience.??
148
 Carter followed Ford?s example, 
making phone calls to legislators urging their support of the ERA. A headline on the 
front page of the Washington Post on January 19, 1977, proclaimed, ?Indiana Ratifies 
185
the ERA?With Rosalynn Carter?s Aid.? According to the article, Carter ?called 
Democratic state Sen. Wayne Townsend, known to be wavering in the caucus, and 
persuaded him to switch his vote,? making Indiana the ?35
th
 state to ratify the Equal 
Rights Amendment.?
149
Later that month, after Virginia failed to ratify the 
amendment by one vote, Carter was reportedly ?working to change votes? by ?calling 
several state legislators.?
150
 The press considered such activism by first ladies on 
behalf of an active feminist movement unprecedented, even though their actions were 
extensions of previous first ladies? social reform efforts. By publicly using the power 
of the first lady position to lobby for feminist legislation, Ford and Cater provoked a 
mix of praise and criticism that often played out in the press.  
During this era, the media spotlight focused primarily on first ladies activities 
outside of the White House. There was a noticeable decrease in the number of stories 
about hostessing and White House homemaking, usually a staple of first lady 
coverage in both newspapers and women?s magazines. When these stories did appear, 
they often reflected the activism of the first ladies. For example, Johnson held a series 
of ?women doers? luncheons to honor women ?who had achieved distinction in many 
fields,?
151
 while Carter turned ?a White House tea for Jihan Sadat of Egypt into an 
open forum . . . on a variety of social issues confronting both the United States and 
Egypt.?
152
 Because the focus was on the public activities of these first ladies, their 
activities within the White House were sometimes overlooked. Dorothy McCardle of 
the Washington Post said of Nixon, ??I don?t think she gets enough credit for what 
she does. There?s been very little fanfare about the way she?s enlarged the Americana 
collection at the White House and restored the authentic nineteenth-century 
186
spirit.??
153
 Once again, Nixon suffered as a result of her perceived political inactivity, 
failing to garner the positive publicity granted by the press to the domestic activities 
of first ladies just a decade earlier.  
An outgrowth of first ladies? escalating political activism during this period 
was the recognition, by first ladies and journalists, of the growing power of the first 
lady position. A 1975 McCall?s profile observed that Ford ?revels in the power the 
position holds and has learned to use that power for causes she espouses.?
154
 Ford 
stated, ??I have learned over the past few months the positiveness of the position?
which I hadn?t realized before. I have come to realize the power of being able to 
help.?? Another article pointed out that Ford ?mentions the word ?power? more than 
once and speaks with pride, for example, of the clout her name now brings.?
155
 Carter 
made a similar comment about the power of the position. According to the 
Washington Post, she told an audience of 2,200 Democratic women, ??One thing I?ve 
had to adjust to is that my influence, no matter what I say, goes across the 
country.??
156
 Such comments pointed to the fact that the power of first ladies was 
largely tied to their celebrity status and the press coverage accorded to them. As 
celebrity political activists whose performances occurred in very public, mediated 
spaces, these first ladies helped normalize women?s political activism and made 
significant contributions to the idea of a public, political woman. However, because 
their celebrity, and hence their power, was being routinely felt in the political sphere 
as never before, these first ladies faced questions about the extent, and potential 
abuses, of their influence as non-elected officials. Thus, as the activism and perceived 
187
power of the first lady position increased, so did the press scrutiny of the first lady 
institution.   
Assessing the Influence of the First Lady as Political Activist
While press framing during this era celebrated first ladies as political activists, 
news coverage also critiqued these women?s growing influence; the resulting 
coverage represented the ideological contestation over women?s changing roles. As a 
story in McCall?s proclaimed, ?While there is a loss of privacy and anonymity as 
First Lady, there is also direction, a well-defined role, an exalted status and a chance 
to influence public opinion that is unparalleled for any other woman in this 
country.?
157
 This quote reflected the first lady?s evolution from public woman to 
gendered celebrity to political activist. The activist first ladies of this era used their 
gendered celebrity to ?go public,? which resulted in the opportunity to influence 
public opinion on a variety of subjects, from the ERA to breast cancer to their 
husband?s economic and health agendas. In doing so, they also witnessed the limits of 
their gendered celebrity, at least in the estimation of journalists, who at times 
challenged this growing public and political influence of first ladies. Such coverage 
started to mark the boundaries of ?proper? first lady performance. Drawing on the 
collective memory of the first lady institution, some journalists sought to put the 
activism of this era?s first ladies into historical perspective by comparing these 
women to iconic first ladies, who represented a particular performance of the first 
lady position. Other reporters used gender prescriptions to judge the various levels of 
first lady activism. The resulting ways that journalists constructed gendered celebrity 
188
in this era created a series of double binds that were ultimately used to question, and 
to contain, the growing political influence of first ladies.
158
Press Memory and Iconic First Ladies
During an era characterized by women?s changing roles and first ladies? 
political activism, reporters increasingly asked the question, ?What should a First 
Lady?s role be, anyway??
159
 To answer this question, press coverage drew upon the 
collective memory of the first lady institution more frequently, comparing current 
first ladies to a handful of their predecessors who, in journalists? estimation, had 
achieved iconic status. S. Paige Baty defines icons as ?culturally resonant units that 
convey a familiar set of ?original? meanings and images.? Baty argues that icons 
?outlast single, short-lived versions of an event, character, or history: they are sites 
for repeated stagings of narratives, the sites on which the past, present, and future 
may be written.?
160
 Icons also serve as sites of ideological contestation, embodying 
particular past performances that can be used to frame current debates. Iconic framing 
is an outgrowth of both personification framing and gendered celebrity. For 
journalists, iconic first ladies personify an historical gendered performance of the first 
lady position that can be used to gauge the activities of present and future first 
ladies.
161
 Such historical memory is dependent on the frames that were used in years 
past to define gendered performances of the first lady position. The difference is that 
often these first ladies, through the work of collective or media memory, are further 
reduced to a single ideology or role.
162
 For reporters, Eleanor Roosevelt becomes an 
activist icon while Jacqueline Kennedy is reduced to a fashion icon, constructions that 
ignore Roosevelt?s focus on domesticity and Kennedy?s outspokenness in defense of 
189
herself. Thus, the complexities of their performances diminish even more as time 
passes. Through such iconic framing, the press shows signs of establishing the 
parameters of first lady celebrity and their ideological performances.
Roosevelt and Kennedy personified contrasting performances of the first lady 
position, with other former first ladies thrown in as points of comparison. Mead 
claimed in her Good Housekeeping profile of Johnson that ?before Eleanor Roosevelt 
and Jacqueline Kennedy, the role of the First Lady was usually played in such a low 
key that it might be said it was hardly played at all.? Mead discussed the impact of 
their gendered celebrity, noting that women ?were inspired? and ?roused to action? 
by Roosevelt while they were ?frankly delighted? by Kennedy?s style.
163
 Other 
reporters offered similar assessments of former first ladies.  West asserted in her 1971 
profile of Nixon, ?We have had First Ladies who fitted easily into familiar categories. 
Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower were round-faced mothers and housewives. 
Eleanor Roosevelt was the homely, intelligent humanitarian.? In contrast, Kennedy 
was described as ?beautiful, glittering and lavish as a star. She hated politics; she was 
high-handed, and she accompanied her husband only when she felt like it.?
164
Susanna McBee offered similar descriptions in a 1970 article, claiming that first 
ladies had two models to follow, ?She may, if she wishes, be like that nice Army wife 
Mamie Eisenhower, or that social anonymity before her, Bess Truman, and do little 
more than go to luncheons.? Or, she could ?pattern herself after such social or 
political or intellectual arbiters as Abigail Adams or Dolley Madison or Eleanor 
Roosevelt.?
165
 Such constructions reduced the complexities of the performance of the 
first lady position to a series of binaries?public/private, active/passive, 
190
political/nonpolitical?that mirrored the double binds used to critique the 
performance of the first lady position during this era. These quotes also established a 
sense of competition between these women by highlighting their differences rather 
than focusing on their similarities.
Not surprisingly, the activist first ladies were frequently compared to 
Roosevelt, the activist icon, and contrasted with their less political predecessors. For 
journalists, Roosevelt was the personification of the activist first lady, setting the 
standard by which her successors were measured. For example, one story proclaimed 
that Johnson would be ?the first First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to make speeches 
on world conditions,?
166
 while another article noted that, ?unlike Jacqueline Kennedy, 
Mamie Eisenhower, and Bess Truman, Lady Bird Johnson has been and continues to 
be deeply involved in her husband?s political life.?
167
Similarly, a New York Times
article about Carter said, ?Neither Bess Truman nor Mamie Eisenhower involved 
themselves in their husband?s political lives.? In contrast, Carter was described as her 
husband?s ??political partner,? a definition that might have applied to Mrs. Roosevelt 
and, to a degree, to Lady Bird Johnson but to few other president?s wives.?
168
Other 
reporters called Carter ?more determinedly activist than any First Lady since Eleanor 
Roosevelt, who is said to be her heroine and model,?
169
 and suggested that she ?may 
become the most influential First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt.?
170
Ford was 
??flattered?? that people called her ?the most outspoken First Lady since Eleanor 
Roosevelt.?
171
 One journalist remarked, ?Mrs. Kennedy beautified the White House 
and Mrs. Johnson beautified the country, but issues were taboo. Mrs. Ford has 
invested her position with a sense of purpose not seen since Eleanor Roosevelt.?
172
191
Journalists claimed that Nixon disliked being compared to previous first ladies, but 
that did not stop reporters from making such comparisons. When asked by one 
reporter, ?How are you different from Dolley Madison? Or Eleanor Roosevelt? Or 
Grace Coolidge?with whom you?ve been compared?,? her response was ?Does it 
matter??
173
 Another profile noted, ?She had to find her own unique style: not Lady 
Bird?s, not Jacqueline?s, not Mamie?s, but her own.?
174
 In these stories, the mere 
mention of a former first lady?s name carried with it a specific, albeit limited, 
memory regarding a particular performance of the first lady position. Despite 
celebrities in their own time, celebrity faded for some, like Eisenhower, once they left 
the media spotlight, reflecting the historical amnesia of the press.      
Comparisons usually oversimplified these first ladies? performance of the 
position, evidencing the limitations of iconic framing and media memory. For 
example, during this activist period, the performances of Truman, Eisenhower, and 
even Kennedy, served as models of political inactivity, a criticism based on current 
standards that did not accurately represent the ways in which these women were 
framed during their tenures. Johnson, Ford, and Carter were viewed as following in 
Roosevelt?s activist tradition. Thus, their travels and public speaking were 
legitimized, as was their involvement in policymaking and playing the role of 
presidential advisor. However, unlike Roosevelt, these women did not have to justify 
their activity as an extension of their wifely role. Thanks to the influence of feminism 
on the gendered framing of the era and the activities of former first ladies, women?s 
political activism was not only accepted, it was expected. On the other hand, the 
192
increasing political influence of first ladies was questioned, particularly because of 
the gendered nature of their power.
Challenging First Ladies? Political Activism
The heightened publicity surrounding these first ladies? political activism led 
to increased critiques of their influence, exhibiting the double binds that public 
women historically faced. P. David Marshall argues that celebrities ?are not powerful 
in any overt political sense; some may possess political influence, whereas others 
exercise their power in less politically defined ways.?
175
 First ladies, however, are a 
unique case because their celebrity and influence are both gendered by being rooted 
in their marriage to the President of the United States, who is arguably one of the 
most powerful men in the world. The first ladies of this era, through their political 
activism, or lack thereof, prompted journalists to ?reconsider the relationship between 
presidential spouses in order to infer the extent and character of a form of influence 
exerted largely outside public scrutiny.?
176
 Thus, journalists took it as their job to 
capture the extent of these women?s influence. This reaction to the political activism 
of this period evidenced the limits of gendered celebrity, representing a backlash 
against the increased political power of first ladies specifically and women in general.
Some of the backlash was generated by the anti-feminist movement in 
reaction to first ladies? support of women?s liberation, coverage of which pitted 
women against each other. As Douglas notes, ??Women Versus Women? was how the 
debate over the ERA was headlined in news articles, TV shows, interviews, and 
documentaries.?
177
 Both Ford and Carter were frequent targets of anti-ERA groups. In 
February 1975, the Washington Post reported that Ford?s response was to ?keep 
193
lobbying for the Equal Rights Amendment in spite of heavy criticism from opponents 
of the measure who picketed the White House? with placards reading ?Stop E.R.A.? 
and ?Happiness is Stopping E.R.A.? Ford viewed the protests as a badge of honor, 
telling a reporter, ??I?m the only First Lady to ever have a march organized against 
her.??
178
 Ford publicly defended the ERA and its supporters. When asked by an 
interviewer from McCall?s ?if she would debate Phyllis Schlafly, the high priestess of 
status quo for women and chief opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment. Said the 
First Lady, who has vociferously lobbied for the amendment, ?I wouldn?t waste my 
time.??
179
 However, Ford challenged anti-ERA arguments in the press: ??You get all 
this silly business about co-ed facilities as an argument against the amendment. Think 
about it: how many campuses have sexually integrated dorms and are perfectly 
accepted??? She also took on Stop-ERA leader Schlafly, saying, ??Phyllis Schlafly 
has her great motherhood thing. I?ve been through motherhood. I think it?s 
marvelous. But I?m not so sure mothers shouldn?t have rights.??
180
 Ford?s vocal 
support of the ERA generated criticism. At first, White House mail was ?running 3 to 
1 against her outspoken support of passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.?
181
 One 
of the letters asserted, ??What right do you have as a representative of all women to 
contact the legislators and put pressure on them to pass the hated E.R.A.???
182
 Ford 
responded in the McCall?s article, saying ??I see no reason why as First Lady I cannot 
go right ahead like any other woman.??
183
 A 1975 profile in Ladies? Home Journal
claimed, ?She has stood by her support of the Equal Rights Amendment, provoking 
some criticism, but making many proud that a First Lady would campaign so 
forcefully for women?s rights.?
184
194
The anti-ERA movement also criticized Carter?s lobbying efforts on behalf of 
the ERA; such criticism was highlighted in the press. Schlafly organized a White 
House protest against Carter, following her calls to Indiana and Virginia legislators 
regarding the ERA. She told the Washington Post that ??state legislators around the 
country resent this improper White House pressure.?? The 150 demonstrators carried 
signs that read, ?Rosalynn Carter?if my daughter is ever drafted it will be your 
fault!? and ?Mrs. Carter, you have no right to lobby ERA!? Carter declined comment, 
but her press secretary said that she would ??continue to work in support of ERA.??
185
Following the protest and a ?surge of critical calls,? Carter ?stopped announcing all of 
her activities on behalf of the E.R.A.,? although she continued to lobby on its 
behalf.
186
 Unlike Ford, who publicly challenged her detractors despite criticism, 
Carter responded to the pressures of her critics by silencing the publicity surrounding 
her activism. But in both cases, supporting the ERA pitted Ford and Carter against 
other women, which undermined the feminist notion of ?sisterhood? and 
characterized the debate over women?s rights as little more than a ?political 
catfight.?
187
Because of their political activism, or lack thereof, coverage of these first 
ladies reflected the ideological contestations over, and cultural ambivalences toward, 
women?s equality that characterized this era. While the activist first ladies were 
praised by the press for their political influence, journalists also accused them of 
overstepping the invisible gendered boundaries that constrain the first lady position, 
resulting in double binds. Johnson was criticized by congressmen and lobbyists for 
her lobbying on behalf of the Highway Beautification Act.
188
Interestingly, Johnson?s 
195
press secretary Liz Carpenter said, ??We never were happy with that name 
(beautification),?? a more gendered term than conservation that did not reflect the 
controversy Johnson stirred, especially ??from national billboard lobbyists who tried, 
and sometimes, succeeded in getting the press to laugh at the tree planting and 
flower-spreading.??
189
 Such gendered framing was deliberately used to depoliticized 
Johnson?s advocacy and undermine her political influence. Johnson?s efforts were 
thus caught in form of the femininity/competence bind, which devalues certain issues 
by labeling them as ?feminine? and therefore unworthy of attention from male 
politicians.
190
Ford, who was often praised by journalists for her ?candor,? was subsequently
accused of being too outspoken, prompting one article to ask, ?How much should a 
first lady say??
191
Ladies? Home Journal claimed, ?Betty Ford has won a reputation 
for speaking out on thorny issues, touching of the kind of controversy that some 
observers say has hurt her husband.?
192
For example, when she told Morley Safer of 
the CBS news program 60 Minutes that she ??wouldn?t be surprised?? if her 18-year-
old daughter Susan told her she was having an affair and engaging in premarital 
sex,
193
 her comments generated ?a breathless front page tempest for days? and led to 
a flood of White House mail.
194
The Ladies? Home Journal carried an article about 
?the Answer that rocked a nation,? featuring reactions from ?famous mothers? 
including Betty Friedan and Phyllis Schlafly,
195
 thus pitting women against women 
and tying Ford?s response to the debate over women?s liberation. Ford was also 
criticized for her statements on legalized abortion, particularly when she asserted that 
she was glad to see abortion ??brought out of the backwoods and put in the hospitals 
196
where it belongs.??
196
 She maintained her pro-choice position despite ?a rash of 
criticism from Right-to-Lifers.?
197
Criticism of Ford?s public statements on sexual 
issues was not surprising given the long-standing negative connotations associated 
with public women, women?s speech, and sexuality. By speaking her mind, Ford 
challenged such taboos, but also invited critics? sexualization of her comments, thus 
violating the double bind of silence/shame used to constrain women?s speech.
198
Journalists? gendered critiques of Carter?s influence represented efforts to 
impose limitations on first ladies? power as gendered celebrities. Reporters speculated 
whether she had too much political power for a first lady. Kandy Stroud characterized
Carter as ?a tough, shrewd power-behind-the-throne, ambitious both for herself and 
her husband.?
199
 Similar comments were made by Meg Greenfield, who claimed there 
were many ?downsides? of a politically active wife, ?She is variously regarded as the 
seductress, the bewitcher, the mysterious power behind the throne, the possessor of 
unfair advantage and the wielder of undue influence.?
200
 These quotes sexualized 
public womanhood, harkening back to the days when women who dared to enter the 
public sphere were called ?Jezebels,? comparing them to the biblical wife who 
exercised ?undue influence? on her husband.
201
 Carter?s Latin American trip sparked 
editorials about the appropriateness of the first lady assuming a diplomatic role. The 
New York Times questioned ?whether it was somehow insulting to send the First Lady 
if the President and Vice President were too busy with other countries,? implying that 
both her gender and unofficial position were an issue. However, the editorial 
concluded that ?it is the quality of her ambassadorship that should concern us, not the 
range of subjects on which the President might wish to exploit her prestige and 
197
proximity.?
202
 Greenfield, in a Washington Post op-ed, disagreed, claiming that ?the 
question raised by her Latin American trip is not whether Rosalynn Carter is capable 
of serving as an agent of her husband?s government, but rather whether she should.? 
Greenfield asserted, ?If Mrs. Carter is going to conduct diplomatic discussions abroad 
and enter into policy matters in a systematic way at home, her efforts and her 
influence are going to have to be judged as those of an ordinary professional.? She 
concluded that ?before it?s over, Mrs. Carter?a remarkable woman?will have 
demonstrated whether or not a political wife who comes out of the kitchen can stand 
the heat.?
203
For Greenfield, the issue was accountability. However, her final 
comment regarding political wives coming ?out of the kitchen? unnecessarily 
gendered the question of Carter?s political activism.
204
 It is interesting to note that 
much of the gendered criticism came from women journalists. Likewise, such 
critiques appeared both in newspapers and in women?s magazines.  
Nixon represented the other extreme, a political wife that was not active or 
outspoken enough, and was thus positioned by journalists as a model of what not to 
be. Female reporters in particular criticized Nixon for viewing herself as a wife first, 
and an individual second. McBee described Nixon as a follower of ?the traditional 
rules? in relation to her performance of the first lady position, ?Be an extension of 
your husband, not a public figure in your own right; avoid all public comments and 
controversy, for a misstatement may damage his career. Mrs. Nixon has been a 
political prop for so long that, at 58, she is having great trouble becoming anything 
more.?
205
 Stroud, who was the first to call Nixon ?Plastic Pat,? offered the following 
assessment of her image, ??I think she lost that spontaneity when she played to the 
198
hilt the consummate politician?s wife. Because she had to be inconspicuous and keep 
in the background, she lost her individuality and much of her confidence.??
206
 For 
these journalists, Nixon personified the ways that the feminine mystique deprived 
women of self-fulfillment, making her a disappointing role model in an era of 
feminist activism. 
Nixon was also criticized for failing to exploit the power of the first lady 
position. In keeping with her more traditional performance of the first lady position, 
Nixon chose volunteerism as her cause; promoting ?volunteerism,? however, was 
viewed as ?safe,? if not downright dull, by reporters. Washington Post reporter Marie 
Smith said, ??Both Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Kennedy had definite interests and 
promoted them effectively. Mrs. Nixon doesn?t.?? McBee offered the example of 
Nixon?s tour of West Coast volunteer projects in 1968, ?Every place she went was 
?fun? or ?exciting? or ?marvelous,? and often all three. Such comments are polite, but 
they don?t really say much about innovative ways that private citizens can 
constructively change their communities?a goal Mrs. Nixon has embraced.?
207
McBee concluded that Nixon?s ?impact outside Washington has been so small it can 
be measured in millimeters.?
208
 Nixon?s lack of political activity and avoidance of 
issues on the campaign trail was criticized by some reporters. In a 1972 article titled, 
?Mrs. Nixon, on 7-State Tour, Shuns Politics,? Nan Robertson of the New York Times
pointed out that Nixon ?made no speeches? and ?never, never talked politics.? 
Reporters, frustrated with the lack of ?newsworthy? activities, pressed Nixon during 
her only news conference, where Robertson noted she was ?forced to tackle, or at 
least parry, the issues.? At the press briefing in Chicago, ?She turned tense and 
199
anxious as she was asked about the war, abortion, amnesty, the Watergate bugging, 
equal rights . . . and other thorny topics. It was, everyone who has followed Mrs. 
Nixon for years agreed, the toughest grilling she has ever undergone.?
209
 Nixon?s 
silence on political issues ended up hurting her, as she found herself forced to address 
such issues by the press, only to be critiqued for her responses, in some cases by 
women reporters who wanted more from a second-wave first lady.    
Thus, the first ladies of this era increasingly found themselves ensnared in 
double binds that reflected both the ideological contestation over women?s roles and 
the limitations of gendered celebrity. While the public and press called on first ladies 
to be more active, they were warned not to overstep their boundaries or abuse their 
power. However if, like Nixon, they were not active enough, they were criticized for 
that as well, setting up a classic ?no win? situation.
210
In a 1977 Washington Post
feature on ?First Families,? historian Joseph P. Lash was quoted as saying, ??A 
President?s wife who undertakes a specific job in the government faces double 
jeopardy; she is without real authority, yet she is expected to perform miracles. When 
she dares to assert leadership, it is resented and resisted and if she does not, officials 
try to anticipate what she wants done.??
211
Such double binds served to contain the 
power of first ladies. Thus, while first ladies? gendered celebrity gave them the 
publicity needed to breakdown barriers for women?s political activism, it was still not 
powerful enough to overcome the obstacles questioning women?s appropriateness in 
the male political sphere. In certain instances, women journalists helped to promote 
first ladies? political power yet also worked to limit it.
200
Conclusion
In 1977, a Washington Post article claimed that the first lady was ?perceived 
as a force in American politics.?
212
 Journalists drew parallels between the increased 
political influence and public activism of the first ladies of this era and the changes in 
women?s lives called for by the women?s liberation movement. However, as their 
power and activity increased, so too did press criticism of the performance of the first 
lady position.  
Once again, the gender ideologies of the period framed discussions of the first 
lady institution. Just as domesticity dominated discussions of American womanhood 
in the previous period, the ideals second-wave feminism shaped the cultural 
conversation regarding women?s changing roles in the 1960s and 1970s. The 
existence of an active feminist movement gave feminists the power to shape the 
conversation regarding gender roles. A stark contrast developed between the 
?traditional? true woman and the ?contemporary? superwoman. In the modern era, 
the traditional ideology of true womanhood was used to balance the ?new woman? or 
justify women?s expanding roles. In contrast, so-called ?traditional? performances of 
gender were more apt to be criticized as a hindrance to being a ?contemporary? (a.k.a. 
?liberated?) woman during this period, which was the case with Nixon.  
Wandersee claims that the first ladies of this period were prevented from 
moving ?beyond the confinement of an exceedingly demanding, yet rigidly defined 
role . . . . Their lives were truly appendages to their husbands.?
213
 Yet press coverage 
of the first ladies of this era contradicts her statement. These women were routinely 
presented as influential and active public figures independent of their husbands, 
201
traveling extensively and routinely speaking with the press as they campaigned 
independently for their husbands and advocated their own social causes. Even Nixon, 
who was the most traditional public wife of the period, was recognized for her 
individual achievements. Her problem, according to her press critics, was that she 
was not politically active enough. During an era of active feminist protest, Nixon had 
the misfortune of embodying the very ideology that feminists were rallying against, 
the ?feminine mystique.? Despite being described as ?warm? and ?friendly? by 
reporters, Nixon often found herself under fire for being a ?traditional political wife,? 
the role that she had been expected to perform throughout her public life.
Gendered framing also impacted the media memories of former first ladies. 
When framed as icons, the performances of former first ladies are further reduced to a 
single personification of ideologies or roles. However, the memory they are reduced 
to reflects the legacy of press framing as well as the politics of the second wave as 
much if not more than it does the first ladies? lived performances.
214
 Iconic framing 
thus reflects the limits of collective memory, particularly the problem of forgetting, 
which Maurice Halbwachs explains as ?the disappearance of these frameworks or a 
part of them, either because our attention is no longer able to focus on them or 
because it is focused somewhere else.?
215
 The focus on first lady?s activism during 
the second-wave impacted which first ladies were remembered, and how their images 
circulated as gendered celebrities. In the process, some first ladies? activities, which 
garnered significant press coverage during their eras, were almost completely 
forgotten by media memory. The result is that, with the exception of a few iconic first 
ladies like Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, gendered celebrity for most 
202
first ladies is short-lived, further evidencing the limitations of both gendered celebrity 
and the media?s historical memory.
As gendered celebrities, first ladies became sites of ideological contestation 
generated by the second-wave, which was constructed by the press as a competition 
between women that devalued the significance of feminist issues and perpetuated the 
patriarchal stronghold within U.S. political culture. The most notable feature of the 
press coverage of this period was an increasingly critical tone as journalists developed 
a more adversarial approach to reporting throughout this era.
216
 David Weaver notes 
that most journalists ?realize that they must meet organizational, occupational, and 
audience expectations. In addition, the news organizations within which they work 
are influenced by societal and cultural environments.? Thus journalists, even women 
journalists, are influenced by the gender ideologies that shape U.S. culture and their 
organizational culture, which in this era required them to challenge political officials, 
including politically active first ladies. Weaver further explains that ?Given these 
layers of influences, it is not too surprising that the individual characteristics of 
journalists do not correlate strongly with the kinds of news content they produce.? 
Despite such cultural influences, Weaver also cautions that ?it would be a mistake to 
think that individual journalists have no freedom to select and shape news stories.?
217
Given the tensions between journalism?s adversarial culture and the politics of 
individual journalists, particularly women reporters who supported women?s 
liberation, it is not surprising that the same journalists who praised the political 
activists as contemporary superwomen who could balance both feminist ideals and
their traditional domestic roles also critiqued these women?s performance of the first 
203
lady position, questioning whether they were becoming too politically active. A 
consequence of such ambivalent reporting was a series of double binds that left first 
ladies in a no-win situation. A Washington Post article pointed out, ?The capacity for 
accomplishment is great, but an activist First Lady is assured of not only rewards and 
heady personal power, but criticism and frustration as well,?
218
 evidencing the double 
binds that were associated with an active performance of the position during this 
period. Conversely, Nixon was disparaged for being an ?old-fashioned? political wife 
and judged as being too passive. The result was a number of highly critical articles, 
which rarely existed in earlier twentieth-century coverage, but would carry over into 
the next era. The empowerment and limitations of first ladies? gendered celebrity 
witnessed during this period would be exacerbated as the feminist backlash gained 
momentum in the 1980s.     
204
Chapter Five
First Lady as Political Interloper, 1980-2001
In a 2000 New York Times editorial, Jan Jarboe Russell noted the quandary 
first ladies have faced over the years, ?From the beginning, Americans have not 
known quite what to do with the wives of presidents. Those who spoke their minds, 
like Mary Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, were vilified for meddling 
in the nation?s business. Those who failed to assert themselves as individuals, like 
Mamie Eisenhower and Pat Nixon, were derided as female furniture.? According to 
Russell, the latest contenders for the position, Laura Bush and Tipper Gore, were 
hoping to avoid this trap by taking a more ?traditional? approach to the role than their 
predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton: ?If Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Gore wants to be a stay-
at-home wife, fine.  However, let?s not expect her to do anything substantial about 
raising literacy rates or improving our mental health. And let us not have a first lady 
answer to any title that begins with ?co?: co-partner, co-conspirator, co-president.?
1
This article evidences the dilemma facing first ladies: how to be a model of American 
womanhood while performing one of the most publicly visible and influential, yet 
undefined and unelected, positions in American culture. 
At the end of the twentieth century, the first lady institution continued to serve 
as a site of ideological contestation over women?s roles, with the debate over gender 
performance arguably more heated than ever. The first ladies of the previous era 
mirrored the activism of the period and were judged in large part against the cultural 
backdrop of second-wave feminism. With the exception of Nixon, who embodied the 
Cold War homemaker, the first ladies of the second-wave era were framed as political 
205
activists. However, their increased influence was met with heightened criticism over 
the power of the first lady position, evidencing the feminist backlash that swelled in 
the 1980s and 1990s. During the final decades of the twentieth century, journalists 
became preoccupied with assessing the influence of the first lady institution and 
questioning the first lady?s ?proper place? in American politics and culture. Gil Troy 
contends that ?even in the vulgar 1990s, vestiges of gentility persist, the Victorian 
ideal still survives. This anachronistic post remains rooted in the leadership models of 
the late-nineteenth-century America in the public role of genteel matron.?
2
 The final 
three first ladies of the twentieth century, and the first to hold the position in the new 
millennium, were faced with negotiating the boundaries that defined and contained 
the performances of the first lady position. Two of these women, Nancy Davis 
Reagan (1981-1989)
3
 and Barbara Pierce Bush (1989-1993),
4
 represented the Cold 
War generation. They were followed by the first baby boomers to serve as first lady, 
Hillary Rodham Clinton (1993-2001)
5
 and Laura Welch Bush (2001-present).
6
 Like 
their predecessors, these women found themselves at the center of the cultural debate 
over women?s roles at the end of the century.   
Press coverage from 1980 through 2001, a period characterized by the so-
called ?postfeminist? backlash, reflected the larger cultural debate regarding women?s 
place and power. Personification framing drew upon, and helped to perpetuate, the 
conflicts between the ?traditional? domestic ideal and the feminist ?superwoman.? 
Reagan and Barbara Bush represented the Cold War domestic ideal, while baby 
boomer Laura Bush embodied the ?new traditionalism? that emerged as an answer to 
the feminist superwoman, personified by Clinton. The result was competitive framing 
206
that pitted these women against one another and reduced the complexities of gender 
performance to a series of dichotomies: feminine/feminist, 
submissiveness/independence, commitment to family/commitment to career. 
Journalists also used gendered framing to judge these women?s performance 
of the first lady institution?s various roles, in the process setting the boundaries for the 
?proper? performance of the first lady position. Helpmate, protector, and volunteer 
were framed as proper first lady duties while advising, policymaking, and advocacy 
sometimes crossed the boundaries by extending these women?s influence too far into 
the male political sphere. Stemming in part from the increased political activism of 
the previous era, questions regarding the political influence of first ladies became a 
defining issue of this period. Reflecting the legacy of ?the personal is political,? 
journalists expressed concerns over the ?hidden power? of first ladies, whether in the 
form of private influence over their husband or personal political ambitions, with 
Reagan and Clinton serving as examples of women who sought to overextend or 
misuse the power of their position.  
As in previous eras, the first lady institution served as a site of contestation 
over women?s place and power at the end of the twentieth century. Well-established 
media frames were influential in defining the boundaries of the ?proper? performance 
of the first lady position, with the primary focus being on containing the perceived 
power of first ladies. Drawing on media memory, journalists used iconic first ladies 
as boundary markers, noting historical limitations on the first lady position. When 
first ladies were perceived to be overstepping the boundaries and straying too far into 
the male political sphere, they were characterized as political interlopers by the press, 
207
framing that sought to contain their ?improper? influence. Meanwhile, the debate 
over women?s place became a central campaign issue, casting candidates? wives as 
key players as each side sought to define ?family values.? Once again, women were 
treated as opponents in a no-win contest that was portrayed by the press as a political 
catfight. All of this attention on the first lady institution, particularly the controversy 
surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1992, caused journalists, female reporters and 
editorialists in particular, to question the expectations and double binds containing 
performances of the position. 
Competing Gender Ideologies: Feminism and Domesticity in a Postfeminist Era
On the verge of a new millennium, Americans were still debating women?s 
?proper? place in society. As Gail Collins states, ?In the year 2000, the country was 
far from having worked out all the issues about gender and sex that had bedeviled it 
from the beginning.?
7
 The 1980s and 1990s were characterized by the conflict 
between the ideals of second-wave feminism and the feminist backlash, resulting in 
what some scholars and journalists have called the ?postfeminist? era.
8
 As noted in 
previous chapters, the concepts of a feminist backlash and a postfeminist ideology are 
not new. Similar ??backlashes? to women?s advancement? have occurred in other 
periods of U.S. history, ?triggered by the perception?accurate or not?that women 
are making great strides.?
9
 Thus, the backlash of the 1980s resembled the reactions to 
women?s increasingly public roles in the early 1900s as well as the Depression and 
World War II eras.
10
In the wake of the social movements of the previous decades, Elaine Tyler 
May claims that it is no surprise that ?the New Right emerged in the 1970s and 1980s 
208
as a powerful political force with the dual aims of reviving the Cold War and 
reasserting the ideology of domesticity.?
11
 The New Right played on the perceived 
generation gap between the activist baby boomers and their more conservative 
parents. The anti-ERA and anti-abortion movements, which embraced the domestic 
ideal, were part of the New Right?s efforts to counter liberal politics, including 
feminism. According to Barbara Ryan, ?The anti-feminist reaction took the form of a 
pro-family movement to bring back the middle- class family model of breadwinning 
men supporting homemaking wives and children.?
12
 Mary Douglas Vavrus states that 
the Reagan and Bush administrations ?were especially influential in legitimating and 
normalizing right-wing rhetoric: a combination of laissez faire economic philosophy, 
conservative social policies, and fundamentalist Christianity,? a tradition continued 
by George W. Bush. According to Vavrus, the New Right was most successful ?in 
defining ?family? in a manner that made it seem like the exclusive domain of 
conservatives?particularly those who claimed to espouse what they called ?family 
values.??
13
 Since the 1980s, ?family values? has become a rallying cry for 
conservatives.  
The rise of the New Right and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 brought 
the feminist backlash to the political foreground. Susan Faludi contends, ?Just as 
Reaganism shifted political discourse far to the right and demonized liberalism, so the 
backlash convinced the public that women?s ?liberation? was the true contemporary 
American scourge?the source of an endless laundry list of personal, social, and 
economic problems.?
14
Topping that list was the disintegration of the nuclear family, 
a primary argument of the New Right. Feminism had become a symbolic lightening 
209
rod for the problems of modern family life at the end of the century. Judith Stacey 
argues, ?Because of its powerful and highly visible critique of traditional domesticity, 
and because of the sensationalistic way the media disseminated this critique, 
feminism has taken most of the heat for family and social crises that have attended 
the transition from an industrial to a postindustrial order in the U.S.?
15
 Thus, 
feminism continued to be depicted by the media as an extreme ideology, despite the 
fact that many of the advances sought by both the first and second waves of the
women?s movement, especially women?s rights to pursue education and employment, 
had been embraced by U.S. culture.
16
The result of the 1980s backlash, according to the news media and some 
scholars, was an era of postfeminism, a term which has been used by journalists to 
indicate the so-called ?death? of the women?s movement.
17
 According to Beth E. 
Schneider, ?Its use implies that the women?s movement in its active, public phase is 
over, if not dead, since a certain spark of freshness and excitement that characterized 
the 1970s generation is missing.?
18
 Stacey defines postfeminism as ?the simultaneous 
incorporation, revision, and depoliticization of many of the goals of second-wave 
feminism? and argues that ?the diffusion of postfeminist consciousness signifies both 
the achievements of, and challenges for, modern feminist politics.?
19
 The primary 
claims of postfeminism are that a collective feminist movement is no longer needed 
because the ?playing field? has been leveled and that women now have the freedom 
to make individual choices regarding their lives.
20
 Rayna Rapp asserts that the 
?depoliticization? of second-wave feminism ?often takes the form of the reduction of 
feminist social goals to individual ?life style,??
21
 which can lead to the 
210
commodification of feminism.
22
 This is similar to what happened during the 1920s 
backlash when the individualistic flapper lifestyle was represented by the media as 
the ?independence? fought for by first-wave feminists.
23
 Kitch contends that the 
postfeminist mentality of the 1920s ?dismissed? feminist radicalism by contending 
that ?the success and happiness of the individual . . . had made collective and group-
based identities unnecessary.?
24
 Similarly, Stacey believes that postfeminism is useful 
in describing the attitudes many women have toward feminism today, particularly the 
ways in which many feminist ideals are embraced while the ?feminist? label is 
rejected. Often called the ?I?m not a feminist, but . . .? phenomenon, postfeminism 
reflects the ambivalence of the woman (usually white and middle- to upper-class) 
who, according to Susan J. Douglas, ?is torn between a philosophy that seeks to 
improve her lot in life and a desire not to pay too dearly for endorsing that 
philosophy.?
25
?Superwoman? is an important concept tied to both postfeminism and the 
feminist backlash. She is a woman who tries to ?have it all? by balancing her 
increasing public sphere activity with traditional domestic sphere duties. The 
?superwoman? ideal, and press criticism of it, dates back to first-wave feminism.
26
During periods of backlash, feminism has historically been ?blamed? for the 
unhappiness supposedly caused by the superwoman ideal, which tells women they 
can ?have it all? yet does not explain the sacrifices they have to make in order to do 
so.
27
 As William H. Chafe explains, ?[W]omen in business and the professions too 
often were expected to be ?superwomen,? adding to their business responsibilities all 
the other activities traditionally associated with women?s roles.?
28
 Vavrus argues that 
211
postfeminists ?take for granted the rights that first- and second-wave feminists fought 
for, such as access to higher education, but simultaneously argue that feminism 
actually harms women, overall, because it gives women unrealistic expectations?
that we can ?have it all.??
29
 Even feminist icon Betty Friedan entered the debate. 
According to Bonnie J. Dow, Friedan?s 1981 book, The Second Stage, was ?not the 
first, but the most visible, in a wave of ?feminist recantation?? that blamed ?women?s 
current troubles with combining marriage, motherhood, and work or with finding 
suitable mates . . . on the misguided goals of second-wave feminism.?
30
 However, 
Vavrus argues that demographic information from this era suggests that ?structural 
inequities? such as the wage gap, lack of affordable day-care, and the ?second-shift? 
at home, were more likely than feminism to be the root of women?s dissatisfaction, 
even for middle- and upper-class white women.
31
 But with a prominent feminist 
leader like Friedan presenting an essentialist argument that the second-wave ?ignored 
the needs of the family, the differences between men and women, and the power of 
women?s traditional roles,?
32
 it is not surprising that the backlash produced ideologies 
that offered an alternative to the ?superwoman.?   
In the 1980s, ?New Traditionalism? emerged as the salvation of stressed-out 
superwomen. New traditionalism was a revamped version of the Cold War feminine 
mystique created by advertisers and targeted to baby boomers. Faludi explains that 
the new traditionalist was ?little more than a resurgence of the 1950s ?back-to-the-
home movement,? itself a creation of advertisers and, in turn, a recycled version of 
the Victorian fantasy that a new ?cult of domesticity? was bringing droves of women 
home.?
33
 The campaign, according to Vavrus, ?consisted of a series of advertisements 
212
that glorified domesticity and vilified feminism for failing women.?
34
 The new 
traditionalist, as described in an advertising campaign for Good Housekeeping
magazine, ?found her identity? by serving home, husband, and children.
35
 Thus, new 
traditionalism, in the spirit of postfeminism, advocated a lifestyle for women that 
involved exchanging their careers for the fulfillment of family life and promoted the 
domestic empowerment of consumerism. Stacey believes that many women and men 
found such pro-family ideologies appealing in the wake of the antifeminist 
backlash.
36
 Vavrus, however, contends that the ?return to the family ideal of domestic 
relations . . . is inappropriate for the vast majority of the U.S. population because of 
economic and occupational demands,? making the new traditionalist an unobtainable 
ideal for many American women, even if they wanted to give up their job.
37
The media?s juxtaposition of second-wave feminism with new traditionalism
during this era of backlash created a dichotomy of feminism versus femininity, of 
nontraditional versus traditional, and of career versus family, which created often 
competing and contradictory prescriptions for women?s behavior. Stacey believes that 
postfeminism represents the middle ground where women attempt to ?both retain and 
depoliticize the egalitarian family and work ideals of the second wave.?
38
 While most 
of these scholars contend that the news media generally promoted new 
traditionalism?s vilification of feminism, journalists also reflected the ambivalence of 
postfeminism simply by taking many of the advances of feminism for granted and 
promoting the superwoman ideal.
39
 May claims, ?Although the cold war and the call 
for domesticity became fashionable once again, consensus no longer prevailed in the 
1980s as it did in the years after World War II. The family landed squarely in the 
213
center of hotly contested politics.?
40
 As visible in press frames, such ideological 
contestation, played out through the first lady performance of ?family values.? 
Framing the First Lady Institution in the Postfeminist Era
Journalists? framing of the performances of both gender and the first lady 
position during the final decades of the twentieth century reflected the ambivalence of 
postfeminism, pitting feminism against traditionalism and reducing women?s lives to 
a series of personal choices regarding the roles they played. Once again, increasing 
coverage of first ladies was coupled with increased scrutiny of the position, as the 
institution functioned as a site of contestation over women?s place and power. By the 
end of the century, the role of the first lady, particularly as a model of American 
womanhood, was a hotly contested topic, resulting in numerous newspaper and 
magazine articles assessing the institution and the women who held the position.    
Feminist Vs. Traditionalist: Personification Framing and Postfeminism
The last two decades of the twentieth century were in many ways a 
culmination of one-hundred years of debate over women?s proper place in American 
society. In the wake of an active feminist movement, women were exercising their 
new legal rights and taking advantage of expanded opportunities in the public and 
political spheres. But like their modern era counterparts, women were also dealing 
with questions concerning how they would balance their new public roles with their 
traditional domestic concerns. At the same time, the Cold War domestic ideal 
resurfaced, and its focus on the nuclear family and women?s primary roles as 
homemakers and consumers was at odds with second-wave feminism?s promotion of 
women?s careers. ?New traditionalism,? a repackaging of Cold War domesticity for 
214
the baby boom generation, was presented as an alternative to the ?superwoman? 
expectation. At the same time, the specter of ?radical? feminism, based largely on 
negative constructions by both conservatives and the media, continued to haunt 
professional women. During this period, the women who were in the running for the 
office of first lady were positioned by many, including journalists, as personifications 
of these competing ideologies.   
The 1980 election of the Reagan-Bush ticket reflected the new era of 
conservative politics rooted in Cold War ideals, including a renewed emphasis on the 
traditional gender roles of male breadwinners and female homemakers. For 
journalists, Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush represented Cold War domesticity. 
Reagan embodied the affluent homemaker and was routinely framed as a ?devoted? 
and ?adoring? wife.
41
 An article in the New York Times Magazine called Reagan ?part 
of the Him Generation?a woman who, in the words of the Tammy Wynette song, 
stands by her man.?
42
 Another story said that Reagan ?was brought up in a traditional 
style, and she knows how to be a wife and run a home.?
43
 Barbara Bush, whose 
?grandmotherly image?
44
 was frequently mentioned in stories, symbolized the 
average homemaker of her generation. A New York Times article referred to her as 
?an icon of an older generation of wives who stayed home?
45
 while another story 
reported that ?conservative Republicans hold Mrs. Bush up as a symbol of traditional 
wifeliness.?
46
According to a Ladies? Home Journal profile, ?She?s raised five 
children, lived in twenty-eight homes in seventeen cities, and been a grandmother ten 
times over, and has spent forty-three years cooking, carpooling, and, as she says, 
?keeping the bathrooms clean.??
47
 In the Bush household, the division of labor 
215
remained along traditional lines. She asserted, ??I don?t fool around with his office 
and he doesn?t fool around with my household.??
48
 This quotation reinforced her 
framing as a traditional homemaker and echoed the domestic empowerment of the 
Cold War era, which granted women control over private matters concerning home 
and family.
The return of the domestic ideal was part of the larger backlash against 
second-wave feminism. Journalists framed comments by both Reagan and Bush as 
representative of the conservative arguments that the women?s liberation movement 
undermined the nuclear family and devalued women?s roles as wives and mothers. 
Profiles of Reagan noted that she opposed ?abortion on demand? and the ERA, the 
two defining issues of second-wave feminism.
49
 Reagan stated she was ?for equal pay 
if both men and women are equally qualified? but chided feminists for ?knocking 
family life,? telling Ladies? Home Journal, ??I?m not for marches or placard waving. I 
think if we stopped giving all movements a ?stage? on TV, there would be fewer 
?performances.??
50
 Meanwhile, Barbara Bush defended homemaking as a career. 
McCall?s reported, ?She genuinely enjoys her role as wife, mother and grandmother. 
Asked whether she regrets not having graduated from Smith College (she left after 
less than two years to marry George Bush) and pursuing a professional career, she put 
it this way: ?Why, I have had my own career as a homemaker. I chose my life and I 
have no regrets.??
51
 In another interview, she blamed second-wave feminism for 
steering women away from the homemaker role. Bush told the New York Times that 
??women?s lib has made it very hard for some women to stay home; the payoff if you 
do stay home is enormous.??
52
 Speaking out against feminist activism and in defense 
216
of the homemaker role contributed to the press framing of Reagan and Bush as 
embodiments of the feminist backlash.    
Journalists often juxtaposed images of the traditional homemaker of the Cold 
War generation with the careerism of feminist baby boomers, and for journalists, 
Hillary Rodham Clinton was the embodiment of the feminist ?superwoman.? Many 
articles framed Clinton as ?Hillary the Superwoman? who personified the ?working 
mother who does it all and has it all?
53
 and represented the ?professional women? of 
the baby boom generation.
54
 The New York Times noted that Clinton had ?come to 
symbolize the strong, independent woman of the late 20
th
 century.?
55
 A Washington 
Post article dubbed Clinton ?the very model of the modern working women,? noting 
that ?like most American women, Hillary Clinton has to struggle to balance the many 
facets of her life.?
56
 According to a 1992 Ladies? Home Journal profile, Clinton saw 
herself as ??a working mother trying to balance all these responsibilities, very much 
like those that are faced by millions of American homes.??
57
 In a series of articles 
looking at Clinton?s first hundred days as first lady, she was commonly cast ?as a 
woman trying to balance work and home, able to work round the clock on health care 
yet manage to make scrambled eggs for a sick Chelsea.?
58
 The ?superwoman? 
framing continued in the 1996 campaign. One New York Times editorial called 
Clinton a ?Supermom? who ?packs an appeal as a mother as well as a loyal wife and 
professional balancing her obligations on a high wire.?
59
In the wake of the feminist backlash, Clinton also personified what many 
conservative critics deemed to be the negative aspects of second-wave feminism.
60
 In 
a New York Times editorial, Backlash author Faludi contended that Clinton was 
217
positioned as ?an emblem of the modern women?s movement,? threatening 
conservatives with ?her professionalism, her role in her husband?s career, her feminist 
views, her failure to produce a brood of young ?uns and last, but not at all least, her 
financial independence.?
61
 Throughout the 1992 campaign, Clinton was portrayed as 
?a hard-edged careerist,?
62
 ?a radical feminist in demure Talbot?s clothing?
63
 and ?an 
unwifely feminist with undue influence on her husband?s policy-making? Gloria 
Steinam with the claws of Madame Nhu.?
64
 Her comments that she was ?not some 
little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette? and that she could have 
?stayed home, baked cookies and had teas,? which were often repeated during the 
campaign, were interpreted as showing contempt for homemakers.
65
 At the 
Republican National Convention, she came ?under full-scale attack as the 
Republicans try to turn her into a symbol of anti-family values.?
66
 Although 
conservatives were credited with creating these negative constructions, journalists 
promoted these backlash images by using them repeatedly to frame their discussions 
of Clinton.  
The backlash also generated an ?alternative? ideology to counter the feminist 
superwoman: the new traditionalist. New traditionalism was a useful framing device 
for journalists and conservatives because it bridged the generational divide by 
encouraging baby boom women to embrace the Cold War domestic ideal and reject 
the careerism of second-wave feminists like Clinton. New traditionalism took center 
stage in 1992 when Marilyn Quayle, ?wife of the vice president and everything, she 
implied in a speech, that Hillary Clinton is not,? addressed the Republican National 
Convention. The New York Times called Quayle a ?self-sacrificing 90s Supermom? 
218
who served as ?the campaign?s generational foil to Mrs. Clinton.?
67
 Another article 
claimed Quayle ?was the model baby boomer conservative: a career woman who for 
all but a few years of her adult life had refrained from actually practicing her 
career.?
68
 A New York Times editorial asserted that Quayle?s thinly-veiled attacks on 
Clinton were also a challenge to the ?superwoman? ideal: ?That her law career never 
had a chance to bloom, as Hillary Clinton?s has, doesn?t mean she?s any less of an 
intellect?and makes her more of a wife and a mother. Take that, all you women 
who?ve fought to have it both ways?balancing careers with loving care of your 
families.?
69
 The most quoted line of Quayle?s speech, ??[m]ost women do not wish to 
be liberated from their essential natures as women,?? was interpreted as support for 
?talented women who are not threatened by giving up their careers to stay home with 
the kids.?
70
 Tipper Gore was also framed as a new traditionalist who ?balance[d] out 
Hillary Clinton? on the 1992 Democratic ticket. One profile described her as a 
?perfect baby boomer wife who . . . had chosen to stay home with her children while 
her husband plunged into politics.?
71
 In the 2000 presidential race, Gore was often 
compared to fellow new traditionalist Laura Bush. Bush was consistently framed by 
journalists as a ?loyal wife? and a ?fiercely devoted mother.?
72
 According to the 
Washington Post, ?Bush came of age in the ?60s, but, as was the case with her 
husband, the cultural revolution passed her by.? However, the story also noted that 
?while she had the ?luxury? of staying home to raise the twins, she nonetheless 
considered herself a ?contemporary? woman,? who married late (at 31), earned a 
Master?s degree, and worked a decade in Texas public schools ?before settling down?
and willingly ?trading her career for motherhood.?
73
 As a news frame, new 
219
traditionalism was presented as a ?choice? made by these postfeminist women, an 
alternative to the careerism promoted by second-wave liberal feminism and 
personified by Clinton.   
As in the past, the contestation over women?s changing roles played out in 
press coverage of the first lady institution. Candidates? wives were positioned by 
reporters as models of American womanhood, personifying the ideals of Cold War 
domesticity, second-wave feminism, and new traditionalism. However, such 
personification framing severely downplayed the intricacies of gender performance 
by reducing these women to a single ideology that ignored the complexity of their 
lives. Some journalists recognized the reductive aspects of gendered framing. For 
example, Marjorie Williams of the Washington Post said that ?Barbara Bush, Hillary 
Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Marilyn Quayle all represent some rough attributes of their 
various generations, ideologies and backgrounds. . . . But for the three younger 
women in the race, there has been tension between their expectations as post-feminist 
baby boomers and the traditions of politics.? Williams argued that all three were 
?grouping toward some uneasy amalgam of autonomy and sublimation?in which 
their own legitimate ambitions and careerist personae are melded into their husband?s 
career. . . . At least Barbara Bush spares us the maddening fiction of the new woman 
embedded in the old family.?
74
 But the performance of gender for even ?traditional? 
political wives like Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan was far more complex than 
Williams and her colleagues often recognized, particularly in relation to their duties 
as first lady.  
220
The Emergence of First Lady as Political Interloper
Just as in previous decades, journalists used gender to frame their discussions 
of the performance of the first lady position, and in doing so defined and reified the 
boundaries of first lady performance based on gender prescriptions. Coverage of this 
era reflected the juxtaposition of traditionalism and feminism in the gender debate, 
with reporters viewing some roles as falling within the boundaries of ?proper? first 
lady performance while others were framed as crossing such boundaries. According 
to press coverage, proper first lady comportment included acting as her husband?s 
helpmate and concerning herself primarily with traditional women?s public activities. 
In contrast, using the ?hidden power? of the position to advance her own personal or 
political agenda, whether as an advisor, policymaker, or independent advocate,
75
 was 
treated as overstepping the boundaries of first lady performance. And when these 
boundaries were violated, journalists? framed these women as political interlopers
who trespassed too far into the male political sphere. In such instances, journalists 
made the personal political for U.S. first ladies. By highlighting the inappropriateness 
of their actions, such framing contributed to assumptions that first ladies? influence 
should be contained to women?s issues, hence limiting the power of this unelected 
position. 
The frame of helpmate, which was frequently used by journalists throughout 
the first half of the twentieth century to describe first ladies? duties, reappeared in this 
era. Like many of their predecessors, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush 
were all framed as helpmates. Reporters claimed that Reagan?s ?greatest role was that 
of supportive wife?
76
 and observed that ?she wants only to help her husband.?
77
221
According to the Ladies? Home Journal, ?She?s proved that there?s still a place for 
the old-fashioned wife whose main function is helping her husband.?
78
Reagan told 
Ladies? Home Journal, ??I know it?s old fashioned, by my first duty is to be the best 
wife I can be.??
79
 Barbara Bush was viewed similarly. The New York Times declared 
Bush ?the quintessential traditional political wife?deferential to her husband and 
ambitious for him, determined to remain uncontroversial, deeply involved with her 
family.?
80
A Washington Post profile called her ?a steadfast helpmate, tending her 
family?s needs while her husband worked his way to the presidency.?
81
 Similarly, 
daughter-in-law Laura Bush was described primarily as a helpmate. In a Washington 
Post profile, her husband was quoted as saying, ??I have the best wife for the line of 
work I?m in. She doesn?t try to steal the limelight.??
82
During rallies with her 
husband, the New York Times noted that ?Mrs. Bush leads the George Bush cheering 
section.?
83
Another Times article claimed that she was ?an integral part of her 
husband?s success, not because she is a second engine of his ambition, but because 
she is a shock absorber, keeping him calm, keeping him steady and, occasionally, 
keeping his mischievous and arrogant streaks in check.?
84
During the campaign, Bush 
frequently traveled with her husband because, according to the Washington Post, ?the 
governor functions better when his wife is with him . . . she?s a calming presence.??
85
As in previous eras, the helpmate frame simultaneously constrained and empowered 
these women. By framing their influence as wifely concerns, their contributions were 
confined to the private sphere, yet still important to their husbands? successes.
The frame of protector, an extension of the helpmate role prevalent in the 
early Cold War, reemerged during this period as well. Reagan was frequently framed 
222
as her husband?s ?chief protector.?
86
During the 1980 campaign, Reagan ?came out 
swinging? over what she called ??a character assassination?? of her husband.
87
 She
said in a campaign advertisement she resented President Carter?s ??vicious?? attacks 
on her husband ?as a wife and a mother and a woman.?
88
 As first lady, the New York 
Times noted that she kept track of ?Mr. Reagan?s schedule and anything that she 
considers might be harmful to his political or personal interests.?
89
 The protector 
frame was also applied to Barbara Bush. A 1989 New York Times story stated, ?Just 
as Nancy Reagan protected her husband?s stately persona, challenging advisers when 
her Ronnie was being overstuffed with facts or overbooked for public appearances, so 
Barbara Bush keeps a tigress?s eye on people who make her husband look bad.? A 
White House official said Bush ??feels protective of the man and the office. And if 
she feels her man or the Presidency is being trivialized, she will certainly let you 
know.??
90
 According to Ladies? Home Journal, Bush ?insisted? that she never lobbied 
her husband because ?the President needs a respite from the pressures of the office. ?I 
love my husband too much,? she says, ?to add to his burdens.??
91
 As with earlier first 
ladies, the protector frame served as a form of domestic empowerment, recognizing 
these women?s power within the private sphere. However, because their protection 
sometimes extended into political affairs, this form of domestic empowerment was 
scrutinized to a further extent than that of their predecessors. For example, Reagan 
was harshly criticized for having too much power over her husband?s schedule, 
whereas Mamie Eisenhower, who as protector also kept a close eye on the activities 
of her husband, did not face the same level of press questioning.
92
223
Criticism of Reagan?s private influence evidenced fears of the ?hidden power? 
of first ladies, a phenomenon that intensified during this era.
93
Speculation regarding 
first ladies? hidden power appeared most often in stories that framed these women as 
presidential advisors. Articles about both Reagan and Clinton constructed them as 
influential presidential advisers, which often led to the charge that they were ?the 
power behind the throne.?
94
 Reagan?s influence was characterized as stemming from 
her close relationship with her husband. According to a 1980 New York Times 
Magazine profile, ?She is constantly by her husband?s side, and he considers her his 
best friend. She often attends staff meetings, and her husband uses her as a sounding 
board, discussing with her almost every important decision he makes.?
95
 A New York 
Times story in 1985 assessed Reagan?s ?evolving and growing role? that combined 
?what her friends call a powerful protective streak for her husband and her own input 
in the day-to-day workings of the Administration.?
96
 As a result, reporters questioned 
her level of influence, like when she appeared to prompt her husband?s answer to a 
question about talks with the Soviet Union.
97
 Accounts of her role in dismissing key 
aides throughout her husband?s political life, particularly chief of staff Donald Regan, 
also ?contributed to the image of Nancy Reagan as a behind-the-scenes 
manipulator?
98
 and, thus, a political interloper. Both Reagan and her husband 
responded to such charges by downplaying her influence. A 1984 Washington Post
article noted that her husband ?was clearly annoyed by reports that she is ?the power 
behind the throne, directing me or something.??
99
 Another story stated, ?Denying that 
her influence is pervasive, Mrs. Reagan said: ?I read that I make decisions and I?m the 
power behind the throne, and that I get people fired. I don?t get people fired.??
100
 But 
224
after years of such denials, Reagan ?acknowledged wielding power over her husband 
on some personnel decisions, and added, ?In no way do I apologize for it.?? 
According to the New York Times article, which appeared after the 1988 election, she 
claimed she felt ?compelled to exert influence in President Reagan?s eight years in 
office because she did not believe that his staff generally served him well.?
101
 The 
timing of the article seems to indicate that Reagan felt safe to admit her influence 
only after it was politically expedient and such comments could not be used against 
the Republican ticket in the election. It also suggests that the politicization of the first 
lady?s power was so feared that Reagan wielded it far away from the media spotlight.  
Journalists speculated that Clinton was not just the ?power behind the throne? 
but a usurper interested in personal political power. The Clinton campaign?s claim 
that voters would get ?two for the price of one?
102
 raised fears of a first lady as ?co-
president,?
103
 which became a dominant theme in the framing of Clinton as a political 
interloper. Clinton?s husband regarded her as ?a political and policy adviser? and 
promised she would play a prominent role in his administration.
104
 According to 
Ladies? Home Journal, ?When a reporter asked him who would be his Robert 
Kennedy?his most trusted policy adviser and confidant?Clinton answered without 
hesitation that it would be his wife.?
105
 Fears of ?undue influence? of an ?unelected 
individual?
106
 became a common topic of reporters? stories and a central campaign 
issue. A 1992 New York Times article stated, ?Many people who are uncomfortable 
with the notion that she might act as an unelected co-president have been quick to 
revive the phrase Mrs. Clinton used early in the campaign: ?If you vote for him, you 
get me.??
107
 Another Times story noted that ?the couple?s ?buy-one-get-one-free? 
225
approach soured when voters began viewing Mrs. Clinton as a hardheaded careerist 
who dominated her mate and seemed contemptuous of ordinary housewives.?
108
According to other reports, the perception was ?of a woman who wants power for 
herself,?
109
 and campaign researchers discovered that ??more than Nancy Reagan, she 
is seen as running the show.??
110
 Such negative perceptions, tied to press framing of 
Clinton, prompted an image makeover that downplayed her role as presidential 
advisor and instead presented her in the more traditional first lady roles of ?loyal 
helpmate and attentive mother.?
111
Scrutiny of Clinton?s advisory role continued when she assumed a 
policymaker role. The press noted that Clinton was going beyond the boundaries of 
first lady performance when she was appointed to ?the most powerful official post 
ever assigned to a First Lady,? chairing a committee ?to prepare legislation for 
overhauling the nation?s health-care system.?
112
 Reporters highlighted the 
unusualness of a first lady venturing so far into traditionally masculine political 
territory. The New York Times reported, ?Breaking decades of tradition, Hillary 
Rodham Clinton will set up shop in the West Wing of the White House, alongside the 
President?s senior staff members, where she will help formulate policy on health care 
and other domestic issues.?
113
 She made front-page news when she traveled to 
Capitol Hill for a ?closed-door policy discussion with leaders from both parties.? 
Calling the visit a ?vivid display of her clout,? the New York Times claimed that the 
trip, ?extraordinary for a First Lady, was the latest manifestation of her influence? 
and that ?on a symbolic level,? the meeting underscored the importance ?of Mrs. 
Clinton within the power structure of Washington.?
114
 The language in these articles 
226
underscored the boundary-violating aspects of Clinton?s role. By tying her visits to 
her ?influence? and ?power? rather than framing them as a routine part of her position
as a task force chair, journalists implied that her actions were atypical for a first lady.
After the failure of health care reform, Clinton ?retreated? from taking the lead in 
shaping policy, playing a ?less public? role according to press reports.
115
 A 1997 
article claimed that her ?failed attempt? at reforming health care ?taught? Clinton the 
limitations of the first lady position.
116
In the wake of the critical press coverage of both Reagan and Clinton as 
political interlopers, their successors were often framed as avoiding advisory or 
policymaking roles. In an attempt to distance themselves from the criticism faced by 
their predecessors, both Barbara Bush and Laura Bush claimed to be uninvolved in 
their husband?s work. A Ladies? Home Journal article, indirectly referencing Reagan, 
noted that Barbara Bush ?does not wish to be seen as the power behind the throne. 
Her political instincts, she insists, are ?around zero.??
117
 The Washington Post echoed 
that theme, claiming Bush ?does not seek an active political or policy role.?
118
 Stories 
about Laura Bush?s disinterest in acting as a presidential advisor made direct 
references to Clinton. According to reporters, Laura Bush was ?not involved in the 
mechanics of her husband?s career in the mode of Hillary Clinton.?
119
 The New York 
Times said, ?Mrs. Bush made it clear that her interest was in helping him, not 
promoting herself, and that she was not offering voters two for the price of one.? 
Bush claimed she was ??not that knowledgeable about most issues,??
120
 and as first 
lady ?declared policy questions off limits.?
121
227
While these women did not generate the same level of criticism as their 
predecessors, journalists remained skeptical regarding first ladies? efforts to downplay 
their political influence. Barbara Bush?s evasion of an advisory role was viewed by 
some journalists as a calculated attempt to avoid criticism. A Ladies? Home Journal
article noted that Bush ?won?t even hint at substance in public. Some might call her 
self-imposed silence muzzling; to others it?s simple wisdom.?
122
 The Washington 
Post asserted that ?behind the non-threatening white hair and wrinkles ticks the mind 
of a politically shrewd woman who choreographs her moves as carefully as her 
husband does his own,?
123
 thus highlighting Bush?s ?hidden power.? Reporters were 
quick to note occasional cracks in her fa?ade. When she made an ?off-the-cuff? 
remark on gun control in 1989 that was at odds with her husband?s views, her press 
secretary announced she would ?stop talking publicly about controversial issues.?
124
However, she ?made a sharp break with her practice of not speaking out on policy 
matters? when she told reporters during the 1992 campaign that abortion was ??a 
personal thing?? and should not be included in the GOP platform.
125
 According to the 
New York Times, she quickly silenced herself and ?retreated from the fuss she 
created, insisting that she had no place in policy-making.?
126
 This quote implied that 
Bush recognized her status as political interloper and retreated in order to quell 
criticism. Such coverage also indicated that journalists continued to be suspicious 
about the extent of her political interest and private influence.  
The coverage of these women reflects Karlyn Kohrs Campbell?s assertion that 
?presidential wives raise the more problematic issue of the relationship between 
women, sexuality, and power,? a relationship that came under scrutiny during the 
228
previous era.
127
 A 1992 article echoed Campbell?s view: ?All First Ladies influence 
their husbands to some degree. . . . Voters can live with this influence, as long as it?s 
relatively subtle and can fall under the rubric of a wife looking after her husband?s 
interest.?
128
 For journalists, the Bush women usually fell safely under that rubric, 
whereas Reagan and Clinton were charged with overstepping such boundaries, 
evidencing a greater concern over the private power of first ladies during this era.  
Concerning their social influence, the first ladies of this era concentrated their 
efforts on helping women and children, leading journalists to frame their advocacy 
almost exclusively as an extension of their role as mothers. Barbara Bush?s support of 
numerous causes was framed as ?noblesse oblige.?
129
 David S. Broder of the 
Washington Post said, ?She comes from a tradition that says those who are favored 
with wealth and power thereby acquire reciprocal obligations to those who lack any 
advantages.?
130
 One article claimed that Bush ?has always been noted for her lady 
bountiful, noblesse oblige attitude toward capital causes.?
131
 The Washington Post
stated in 1992 that, ?for the last four years, every benefit has had Barbara Bush as an 
honorary chairman,? recognizing the power of lending her name to cause.
132
 She 
demonstrated the ?compassion? promoted by her husband?s administration when she 
?cradled an infant, kissed a toddler and hugged an adult AIDS victim? at a hospice for 
AIDS-infected infants. An AIDS activist told the Washington Post, ??You can?t 
imagine what one hug from the first lady is worth. . . . that?s worth more than a 
thousand public service announcements.??
133
 Her primary cause was literacy, though, 
which reinforced the maternal aspects of her volunteerism.
134
 Like her mother-in-law, 
Laura Bush devoted herself to literacy as well as other educational issues. In a story 
229
about Bush?s plans to recruit new teachers and promote early childhood learning, Ann 
Gerhart of the Washington Post called her ?a high-profile cheerleader for public 
education? who could ?back up her rhetoric with a remarkable talent for reading 
upside down while showing a picture book to students.? She noted that Bush had 
?taken care to showcase herself as an informed supporter of her husband rather than a 
policy advocate.?
135
 Such gendering of Bush?s advocacy, by both herself and through 
Gerhart?s framing, depoliticized her efforts.  
Advocacy efforts were used to help rehabilitate the public images of both 
Reagan and Clinton by containing their influence to women?s issues. Reagan?s ?Just 
Say No? to drugs program aimed at children and teenagers
136
 was credited with 
?bringing her popularity to an all-time high.?
137
 Following the failure of health care 
reform, Clinton?s policymaking and advising were largely characterized as advocacy 
efforts on behalf of women and children, framing that helped to contain her power 
and limit her influence to gender-appropriate issues. In 2000, the Ladies? Home 
Journal listed ?extending health care to children? and ?helping to change the adoption 
and foster care system? as Clinton?s principle advocacy accomplishments as first 
lady.
138
 Clinton, as ?the most traveled first lady in history,?
139
also acted as an 
advocate for women internationally. In a story about her 1997 tour of Africa, the 
Washington Post called her an ?international feminist . . . urging ?solidarity? among 
women of the world,?
140
 noting that ?as in her other trips, she has convened round-
table discussions at nearly every stop in Africa to talk with local women?s leaders 
about the challenges facing them in their home countries, from family planning to 
education and economic advancement to domestic violence.?
141
 She promoted the 
230
same causes domestically, including family planning, early childhood education, and 
start-up aid for small businesses.
142
James Bennet of the New York Times observed in 
1997 that ?while the White House may lump her various causes under the anodyne 
rubric of ?children?s issues,? Mrs. Clinton is still pursuing a far broader agenda of 
causes?including foreign development, immunization in the inner cities and 
expanding financial credit for women?than almost any predecessor in the undefined 
role of First Lady.?
143
By acting as advocates for women and children, Shawn J. 
Parry-Giles and Diane M. Blair argue that first ladies ?helped to define the parameters 
of women?s political space? and in many ways ?reified the nineteenth-century 
assumption that women?s political space was somehow different from men?s.?
144
Their more traditional gender performances also helped to diffuse press criticism of 
their advocacy.  
Throughout this era, gender continued to define role performance in ways that 
increasingly constrained these women?s actions to a greater extent than their 
predecessors. It was as if the first lady position, particularly under Reagan and 
Clinton, had exceeded its limits in influence both privately (Reagan) and publicly 
(Clinton). Any exercise or perception of power, even in the private sphere, was 
scrutinized by journalists. The resulting coverage focused on conflicts, contrasts, and 
criticisms of the women who held the position and the first lady institution.
Exploring the Boundaries of First Ladies? Gendered Celebrity
Throughout its history, the first lady institution has served as a site of 
contestation regarding women?s ?proper? place. The women who held the position 
became powerful symbols of women?s roles and the first lady?s duties through the 
231
practice of personification framing, evolving from public women to gendered 
celebrities to political activists. By treating first ladies as public figures functioning in 
the political sphere, their news coverage helped to normalize women?s public 
participation and political efficacy. However, because their performances were 
judged in relation to the prevailing gender ideologies of their eras, their influence was 
consistently restricted to serving as role models for American women or champions 
of women?s issues. Thus, the performance of the first lady position has often been 
viewed as tangential to women only instead of all citizens, furthering the assumption 
that women and women?s issues remain less central to U.S. political culture. As Linda 
Witt, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews argue, ?the press coverage of women in 
politics is an artifact of this country?s age-old but unresolved debate over women 
citizen?s proper roles versus ?proper women?s? place.?
145
 By the end of the century, 
the performance of gender roles and the subsequent gendered performance of the first 
lady institution were the subject of a heated debate. Journalists, through their 
gendered framing of the first lady institution, helped create boundaries of 
empowerment and containment that marked the ?proper? performance of the first 
lady position. Iconic first ladies and gendered prescriptions were used as boundary 
markers, delineating the elasticity and limitations of first lady performance. When a 
first lady was suspected of straying too far into the male political sphere, the press 
framed her as a political interloper, evidencing a discourse of containment regarding 
first ladies? political activities as well as the cultural fears over women?s power and 
place within U.S. political culture. 
232
Iconic First Ladies as Historical Boundary Markers
Journalists continued to compare and critique first ladies past and present as 
they sought to define the ?proper? role of the contemporary first lady. Reporters 
increasingly looked to the legacy of the first lady institution in an effort to 
contextualize, albeit in a limited way, current coverage of president?s wives. In such 
stories, iconic first ladies, representing an amalgam of gender and role performance, 
functioned as boundary markers, delineating the historical limits of the gendered 
performance of the first lady position. These iconic first ladies were used by 
journalists to frame their contemporary counterparts, evidencing the historical extent 
and limits of gendered celebrity as well as the consequences of press framing.  
Activist icons were often used by journalists to establish the boundaries of the 
first lady?s political influence, particularly in relation to their advisory role. For 
example, Gwen Ifill of the New York Times said in 1992, ?The role of the President?s 
wife has always been a subject for debate, particularly during the years of such close 
Presidential confidantes as Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosalynn Carter and 
Nancy Reagan. But Mrs. Clinton?s much more publicly acknowledged influence has 
raised new questions.?
146
 Because Clinton?s influence seemingly extended beyond her 
predecessors, she was viewed as exerting too much power. Reagan?s and Clinton?s 
political influence was often measured in comparison to Eleanor Roosevelt and 
Rosalynn Carter, who represented the extremes of the first lady?s advisory role. In 
terms of Reagan?s influence, one profile asserted, ?Nancy Reagan is a modern 
political wife, far more involved in the political process than, say, Mamie Eisenhower 
was, but she should not be compared to Rosalynn Carter, a very active First Lady.?
147
233
A 1984 New York Times article by Dowd stated that Reagan was ?careful not to 
appear too influential,? quoting an aide who said, ??She doesn?t want to come across 
as an Eleanor Roosevelt or a Rosalynn Carter.??
148
 Yet, despite these efforts to 
distance herself from activist icons, Reagan was judged by journalists to be a more 
powerful ?hidden hand? advisor in some respects than either Roosevelt or Carter, 
evidencing the anxieties over the first lady?s private power in the post-second wave 
period.   
Because she overstepped the boundaries of first lady performance, journalists 
lumped Reagan in with activist icons Roosevelt and Carter in their coverage of 
Clinton. A 1992 New York Times article said that Reagan was remembered ?as a 
behind-the-scenes manipulator who was the real power behind a pliant husband.?
149
In some articles, Reagan was mentioned in tandem with Carter, like a Washington 
Post story that referred to Reagan and Carter as ?objects of continual controversy.?
150
Next to Reagan, Clinton was most frequently compared to Roosevelt, whom she 
routinely cited as one of the women she most admired.
151
 According to a Washington 
Post article, ?many liberal women have elevated Hillary Clinton to Eleanor Roosevelt 
status.?
152
 Clinton frequently noted that, like herself, Roosevelt was criticized by the 
press even before she moved into the White House,
153
 and said she often pondered 
what Roosevelt would do in certain situations.
154
 In these stories, activist icons 
marked the extremes of a first lady?s influence, noting that such performances 
regularly generated controversy and criticism by being ?too influential,? ?very 
active,? or ?the real power.? Rather than acting as positive models of first lady 
performance, the activist icons primarily served as cautionary tales regarding the 
234
consequences of overstepping the boundaries, helping to create limitations on the 
political influence of the first lady advisory role.      
Activist icons also served as contrasts to more traditional first ladies. Barbara 
Bush ?cautioned reporters that she disliked comparisons to Eleanor Roosevelt, who 
was not as beloved in the Republican household where Barbara Bush was reared as in 
many other Depression-era homes.?
155
 A New York Times profile of Bush claimed, 
?Unlike Nancy Reagan or Rosalynn Carter, she professes not to have much interest in 
her husband?s business.?
156
 Clinton?s activism was used to frame Laura Bush as a 
?more traditional? first lady. Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times stated, ?Mrs. 
Bush has made it clear that she will not be a policy-making first lady in the mold of 
Mrs. Clinton, an ambitious, outspoken, high-profile lawyer who alienated much of 
official Washington and many Americans with her determination to be a player on 
hot-button issues like health care.?
157
 Such contrasts reassured readers that these first 
ladies had no plans to overstep the boundaries of their position as their activist 
predecessors did, evidencing the reification of such gendered restrictions that press 
coverage helped promulgate.    
To assess current first ladies, journalists also used references to iconic 
political wives, who were remembered primarily for their more passive performance 
of the first lady position. Ladies? Home Journal proclaimed Barbara Bush ?the most 
popular first lady in years?arguably the most beloved since Bess Truman,?
158
 an 
assessment echoed by first ladies scholar Betty Boyd Caroli, who told the Washington 
Post, ?She reminds me of Bess Truman.?
159
 A New York Times story likened Bush ?to 
Jacqueline Kennedy for her skill at molding her public persona and for her upper-
235
class savoir-faire.?
160
 Bush cited Pat Nixon as a role model, calling her ??courageous, 
loyal?? and ??down-to-earth.??
161
 These comparisons to more traditional political 
wives implied that Bush was personally disinterested in politics, which in turn 
contributed to her popularity. Similar framing was used with Laura Bush. According 
to a New York Times profile, ?Some historians predict that the first lady she may 
come to resemble most is Mamie Eisenhower.? First ladies scholar Gil Troy claimed, 
??Laura Bush is most like Mamie Eisenhower in that she will resolutely in public 
refuse to appear to be interested at all in wielding power in any way. Like Mamie, 
you?ll get that traditional, reassuring feminine presence.??
162
 These articles reinforced 
journalists? framing of Barbara Bush and Laura Bush as ?more traditional? first 
ladies, whose performance of the first lady position did not court controversy because 
it remained safely within gendered boundaries. Within this context, Truman, 
Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon were remembered for distancing themselves from 
politics, a major shift from the previous era of feminist and first lady activism, when 
these women were judged more critically for their lack of political activity.  
First lady as fashion icon frequently appeared as a frame in discussions of the 
first lady?s cultural influence. When it came to fashion, reporters repeatedly measured 
Reagan against Jacqueline Kennedy?s memory. The New York Times stated that ?no 
one could compete with Mrs. Kennedy for stylishness until Mrs. Reagan came along 
with her high-fashion wardrobe.?
163
 A Washington Post article surmised that ?not 
since Jacqueline Kennedy have a first lady?s clothes, figure, friends, family life and 
age aroused such interest.?
164
 The Ladies? Home Journal declared, ?Her taste and 
style have the fashion industry declaring that this First Lady is doing more for 
236
American clothing than anybody since Jacqueline Kennedy.?
165
 Through such 
favorable comparisons to Kennedy, reporters elevated Reagan to fashion icon status; 
just as Kennedy symbolized ?the exciting early sixties,? Reagan represented ?the 
high-living eighties.?
166
 As the Washington Post asserted, Reagan ?symbolized 
conspicuous affluence,?
167
 providing journalists with a real-life version of the 
opulence represented in television shows like Dynasty . According to a story about the 
1981 inaugural, ?Limousines, white tie and $10,000 ball gowns are in . . . as Nancy 
Reagan sweeps from fete to fete in a glittering full-length Maximilian mink.?
168
However, Reagan also faced criticism for her extravagant tastes.
169
 The New 
York Times claimed in 1981 that Reagan was ?being hailed by some as a glamorous 
paragon of chic and criticized by others for exercising her opulent tastes in an 
economy that is inflicting hardship on so many.?
170
 One article pointed out Reagan?s 
coverage was reminiscent of the criticism Kennedy faced for reportedly ?spending 
thousands of dollars on clothing from Paris designers,? although critiques of Reagan 
were much more consistent, and negative, than Kennedy?s.
171
 For journalists, Reagan 
violated the boundaries of gendered celebrity by being too out of touch with the 
average woman, a critique also leveled at times against Kennedy. Because Reagan?s 
extravagant tastes were difficult to emulate, she thus failed to serve the first lady?s 
function as a role model for American women, further revealing the ways in which 
first lady iconicity worked to contain contemporary performances of first lady roles.  
During this era, journalists used iconic first ladies to mark the boundaries of 
the gendered celebrity of the first lady. As in the previous era, Eleanor Roosevelt and 
Jacqueline Kennedy anchored the extremes of first lady celebrity and ideological 
237
performance, with Roosevelt representing the political influence of activist icons and 
Kennedy signifying the cultural influence of fashion icons. While Barbara Bush and 
Laura Bush remained safely within the boundary markers, Reagan and Clinton were 
frequently framed as trespassing such boundaries, either by being too political or too 
extravagant. Such framing delineated historical boundaries of gender performance 
that were used by reporters to critique current gendered performances of 
contemporary first ladies.  
Boundaries of Empowerment and Containment
The boundaries of gender and role performance constructed and reified by 
media framing have simultaneously empowered and contained the women who have 
held the first lady position. As Winfield claims, ?For more than two hundred years, 
the American media have both judged and relayed societal expectations about what is 
acceptable or not acceptable behavior for a first lady.?
172
 By defining what was 
deemed a proper or improper performance of the first lady position, journalists 
created many of the invisible boundaries that first ladies were subsequently accused 
of trespassing. 
The age-old question of women?s ?proper? sphere of influence was still a hot 
topic in the 1990s. Women?s roles, in families, in the workforce, and in politics, were 
a central issue of the 1992 campaign. As Judy Mann of the Washington Post put it,
?The domestic debate in this year?s election is going to be about the proper role of 
women in society. This is why Hillary Clinton is such a flashpoint. It is why Barbara 
Bush is not.?
173
A Washington Post Magazine article by Marjorie Williams contended 
that the 1992 election represented ?a symbolic referendum on all America?s 
238
conflicted feelings about feminism, family and child-rearing,? claiming that ?both the 
warring campaigns and the news media have found these four women irresistible as 
manipulable symbols of some of the most powerful themes in Americans? lives.?
174
According to the New York Times, the strategy was ?to paint Mrs. Clinton as a radical 
feminist, in contrast with her Republican counterparts: Barbara Bush, quintessential 
grandmother, and Marilyn Quayle, who, like Mrs. Clinton, is a lawyer but has put 
aside her own career to support her husband?s.?
175
Mann argued that the two major 
parties were offering opposing images of women?s place, with the Democrats 
?welcoming women into the public sphere and starring them as candidates who wield 
power on behalf of other women,? and the Republicans ?playing the Barbara card, 
playing to the themes of family values and family protection, more code words for 
pushing women out of the public sphere and enshrining them in the private sphere 
where they can shine as nurturers, mothers, and support players.?
176
 Such 
constructions promoted the domestic empowerment of women over private family 
matters, evidencing the legacy of ideologies like true womanhood and republican 
motherhood, yet contained women?s influence to the home, relegating women to the 
fringes of political culture and implying that women?s ?proper? place was still the 
home. The resulting ?family values? debate was primarily framed as a competition 
between the wives.
When ?family values? took center stage as a campaign issue in 1992, so too 
did the more ?traditional? candidates? wives, who were empowered by strategists, 
pundits, and the press as embodiments of their husbands? ?family values.? Barbara 
Bush was so frequently referred to as her husband?s ?secret weapon?
177
 that one story 
239
called her the ?un-secret weapon? and ?the worst-kept secret of the 1992 
campaign.?
178
According to the New York Times, ?Her political mettle, backed by 
favorability ratings in public opinion polls that are nearly three times higher than her 
husband?s, scares Democrats.?
179
 Both the traditionalist Bush and new traditionalist 
Marilyn Quayle were featured speakers at the 1992 Republican National Convention. 
The Washington Post reported, ?Barbara Bush and her family values message?both 
in carefully chosen words and unmistakable image?have made it to center stage this 
year, casting her in a more visible campaign role than she has ever played before.?
180
The Republicans thus pitted Bush?s popular grandmotherly image against the feminist 
careerism of Clinton, framing Bush with a rhetoric of familial and thus political 
empowerment.
In fact, Clinton was consigned to the background at the Democratic 
convention, ?listening to her husband speak and wearing the traditional gaze of the 
political spouse.?
181
As Anna Quindlen noted in a New York Times editorial, Clinton 
would have caused ?an uproar? if she had taken the podium at the DNC, ?People 
would have said she was ambitious and power mad.?
182
 The ?retro-mom and retro-
granny combo?
183
 of Quayle and Bush avoided such criticism, according to Mann, 
because ?[u]nlike Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush and Marilyn Quayle are support 
players. Hillary Clinton is a player, and there?s the rub.?
184
Thus, like many of their 
predecessors, traditional gender framing was used to justify Bush and Quayle?s 
political participation, whereas the presumed interloper status of Clinton was used as 
a justification for her political containment. Catherine Manegold of the New York 
Times claimed that ?after hailing Hillary Clinton as a model new woman able to 
240
balance a family and a thriving law practice, Democrats retreated in the face of 
stinging criticism? and changed Clinton?s image to ?a presumably kinder, quieter 
wife and mother who beams incessantly at her man.?
185
Similarly, a Times editorial 
said, ?She?s softened her hair, wardrobe and makeup, and even seems to have 
abandoned her yuppie headband?all with the none-too-subtle intent of making her 
appear more maternal, domestic, average, likeable.?
186
Hence, Clinton was put in her 
?proper (gendered) place? and her alleged quest for personal power was contained, at 
least for the moment. However, the press remained suspicious of Clinton and viewed 
her image makeover as a possible rouse to mask her political ambitions.  
As personifications of gender ideologies, these women were pitted against 
each other, a point made by several female journalists. Manegold concluded that the 
result was little more than a ?political catfight? pitting ??good mom? versus ?bad 
mom?? while ignoring issues.
187
 Similar comments were made by Amy E. Schwartz 
of the Washington Post, who argued that both the campaign and the media were 
?pitting women against one another, Marilyn vs. Hillary, Barbara vs. Hillary, even, in 
some earlier coverage, Tipper vs. Hillary?is an old-fashioned way to replace a 
straightforward policy fight with a presumably more entertaining catfight.? These 
quotes support Douglas? contention that ?the catfight remains an extremely popular 
way for the news media to represent women?s struggles for equality and power.?
188
According to Schwartz, ?The notion that women owe the family some specific 
amount, which can be measured and therefore judged, is intertwined with the idea 
that one woman can be contrasted to another in a good girl/bad girl scenario.? She 
concluded that ?there is something morally disgusting about the spectacle of 
241
politicians, candidates, and commentators sitting around and calibrating the exact 
amount of personal sacrifice by women . . . that qualifies as upholding ?family 
values,? and damning certain women?s self-sacrifice or self-subordination as 
inadequate.?
189
 The result, as Williams observed, was that ?our conversation about 
women?s responsibilities and women?s lives is artificially polarized by the two 
options of professional self-fulfillment and children?
190
 rather than reflecting the 
complexities of women?s lives. While these female journalists pointed out how the 
?catfight? frame served to politically contain and devalue these women and the family 
values debate, they failed to note that many of the articles that pitted these women 
against each other were written by women or appeared in women?s publications, thus 
making women complicit in creating containment boundaries.  
A result of the debate over the ?proper? roles of women and first ladies was a 
series of unattainable ideals and a no-win situation. Ann Gerhart, in a Washington 
Post profile of Bush, pointed out the tendency of journalists to create such ?either-or? 
double binds, ?In this Age of Celebrity, how we love to stereotype public 
personalities to fit our mood of the moment. We are so eager to take all of the ?ands? 
of a complex personality and replace every single one with an ?or.?? Gerhart offered 
the example of Clinton, who ?stars as the Neo Feminazi Witch or the Fully 
Actualized Modern Female, depending on which type is doing the typing.?
191
In the 
case of Laura Bush, Gerhart claimed that reporters were obsessed with questions like,
?Is Laura Bush a ?50s retro wife? Or a thoroughly modern woman? Whatever that 
means. Is she publicly genteel and privately tart? Is she a stealth adviser, influential 
behind the scenes, or a dutiful helpmate, fading into the background??
192
Similar 
242
comments were made in a 1992 story about Barbara Bush. Previewing her convention 
speech, a Washington Post article asked ?which Barbara Bush will be speaking? The 
devoted wife, loving mother, down-to-earth grandmother. . . . Or the cagey political 
partner, who will capitalize on her image as the most popular first lady in decades, to 
keep her man in the White House??
193
 According to the Washington Post?s Sally 
Quinn, Reagan ?got criticized no matter what she did. She played the adoring, 
supportive wife and got killed for it?especially for ?the Gaze.??
194
 Such frames 
worked to contain the influence of first ladies, but because the boundaries of gendered 
performance were so confining, the result was a no-win situation, not for just first 
ladies, but for all women.
Female journalists, in particular, recognized that unrealistic expectations for 
performing the first lady role created double binds, many of which developed in the 
previous area as a reaction to the activist first ladies. Quinn concluded ?it is a 
thankless and confusing role?you are damned if you do and damned if you don?t. 
The First Lady (the title itself is hopelessly outdated) has always been in limbo, in a 
twilight zone.?
195
 Joyce Purnick asserted in a 1992 New York Times editorial, ?Even 
as the public learns to accept flawed candidates, it persists in demanding some 
idealized, elusive perfection from political wives. And just whose perfection is it 
anyway?? This ideal, according to Purnick, forces first ladies to walk a tightrope
between ?too much? and ?not enough,? resulting in criticism stemming from such 
double binds: ?Eleanor Roosevelt was too independent. Jacqueline Kennedy too 
passive. Nancy Reagan too controlling. Barbara Bush too gray. Hillary Clinton . . . 
too independent.? Purnick wondered ?what it is in the American psyche that wants its 
243
political wives to be Stepford Wives, fantasy femininity??
196
 Quindlen made a similar 
observation, noting that ?the remarkable thing about how long the fantasy of the 
adoring and apolitical First Lady has endured is how few occupants of the job have 
conformed to it.?
197
 Marjorie Williams urged journalists, politicians, and the public to 
put an ?end to the phony family politics that now turn political wives into Rorschach 
images? and ?role models? when their lives are actually ?fantastically distorted by the 
practice of politics.?
198
 By pointing out the boundaries containing the performance of 
the first lady, these women journalists, like many of their predecessors, helped defend 
the political activities of first ladies. Yet they also reified those boundaries by 
normalizing the first lady role as a no-win situation, particularly by referencing the 
iconic, and thus reductionist, first ladies to bolster their claims.       
Consequences of Violating the Boundaries: The Case of Hillary Rodham Clinton
While many journalists recognized the double binds that complicated the 
performance of the first lady position, the press continued to participate in the 
containment of first ladies, particularly those who sought to cross those boundaries 
constraining the first lady position. The coverage of Clinton is an example of the 
consequences faced by a first lady who, as a political interloper, refused to be 
contained by gender prescriptions, historical standards, or media frames.  
Of the four women in the 1992 race, Clinton ?carried the biggest share of the 
symbolic weight,?
199
 becoming a critical site of contestation over women?s place and 
power at the end of the twentieth century. In 1992, Ladies? Home Journal proclaimed, 
?Hillary is the campaign.?
200
Columnist Ellen Goodman said the ?Hillary Watch? was 
actually ??a conversation about social and generational issues. It fits into the ?Year of 
244
the Woman? and the year of the baby boom generation taking power.??
201
 In a front 
page Washington Post story from 1992, Howard Kurtz observed, ?Hillary Clinton has 
become a blank canvas upon which ideologically inclined authors paint their brightest 
hopes and darkest fears.?
202
 Similarly, the Post?s Martha Sherrill claimed that Clinton 
had come to ?signify much more? for American women, ?Women all over?
Republicans, Democrats, feminists, anti-feminists?have endless opinions about what 
she should be.?
203
 Journalists also made endless observations regarding what Clinton 
should be. Quindlen noted that Clinton was ?a lightening rod for the mixed emotions 
we have about work and motherhood, dreams and accommodation, smart women and 
men?s worlds.?
204
Frank Rich of the New York Times argued that reactions to Clinton 
dramatized ?how many Americans, and not just men, are still flummoxed by women 
occupying traditionally male turf. So much for three decades of ?consciousness-
raising.??
205
 Quindlen surmised that ?so much of the discussion has not been about 
her at all. It has been about how we feel about smart women, professional women, 
new women.?
206
 Clinton?s symbolic importance as a personification of contemporary 
womanhood positioned her, according to the press, as ?one of the most controversial 
women of our time,? ?one of the [Democratic] party?s most polarizing figures? and a 
?cultural lightening rod? for criticism on a host of subjects.
207
Because of her ideological significance, conservative critics constructed 
Clinton as a woman who refused to be contained, an image that was perpetuated by 
the media as they repeatedly referenced such negative constructions, which countered 
expectations of the first lady. According to a 1992 Ladies? Home Journal profile, 
Clinton?s critics saw her as a ?tactlessly outspoken, driven woman who is using her 
245
husband as a surrogate for her own ambition.?
208
 One article reported that some 
voters found Clinton ?pushy, strident, too independent?
209
 while another said she 
?was seen as tough, aggressive, angry, humorless, power hungry.?
210
 These 
descriptions suggested that a woman?s ambition, when unchecked, was a threat. Witt, 
Paget, and Matthews claim that Clinton inadvertently ?played into one of the 
conceptual frames by which news of women is defined: She confirmed male fears of 
a too-powerful woman who doesn?t mind her proper place.?
211
 As such, Clinton was 
framed as a political interloper who sought to advance into the political realm by way 
of the bedroom.
In an effort to contain Clinton, conservative critics used a series of phrases, 
often repeated in the press, aimed stigmatizing Clinton. Popular descriptors included 
?a radical feminist,? ?a hard-edged career woman,? ?a feminist shrew,? ?the Yuppie 
Wife from Hell,? ?Lady Macbeth? and both ?the Evita Peron? and ?the Winnie 
Mandela of American politics.?
212
 These negative monikers created by conservatives 
dominated media coverage of Clinton. According to the New York Time?s Robin 
Toner, ?at least 20 articles in major publications this year involved some comparison 
between Mrs. Clinton and a grim role model for political wives: Lady Macbeth.?
213
Such negative constructions of Clinton as public woman was reminiscent of press 
framing from the earliest decades of this country?s history, when presidents? wives 
like Dolley Madison and Rachel Jackson were labeled ?Jezebels.?
214
 In Clinton?s 
case, ?Lady Macbeth? replaced ?Jezebel? as the epitaph for a political wife who 
sought to use her husband to achieve her own ends as a public woman. Like the 
biblical Jezebel, Lady Macbeth exercised ?undue influence? on her husband, leading 
246
to his downfall.
215
 By casting Clinton as a modern-day Lady Macbeth, critics 
constructed her as a political interloper to be feared for her refusal to be contained as 
well as for the potential consequences of women?s unchecked power in the male 
political reserve.
According to journalists, Clinton?s behavior was aberrant because she failed 
to show the reluctance expected of first ladies by admitting, and even relishing, her 
power. As Faludi noted, ?what galls her detractors isn?t so much that she is 
independent?but that she enjoys it.?
216
 Robert Pear of the New York Times claimed, 
?Presidents? wives have always exercised influence and power, but they have often 
been reluctant, in their public comments, to acknowledge their full scope, for fear of 
offending voters.? Similarly, James Bennet, also of the Times, asserted that ?Some of 
her allies believe that Mrs. Clinton?s public image suffered from her early honesty 
about her influence. Previous First Ladies, they argue, cannily downplayed their 
influence.?
217
 Such assessments are supported by the findings of this study. Faludi 
noted that the problem with Clinton was that she was acting as a ?public woman? 
without the requisite modesty usually used to justify women?s public activity. 
Echoing Matthew?s work on public womanhood, Faludi explained, ?Enthusiastic 
activism is cast in the same dim light as sexual activity. Indeed, the phrase ?public 
woman? has traditionally meant a prostitute; the lady of the evening and the lady of 
social advocacy often seem interchangeable in society?s eyes.? Clinton presented 
herself as ?an independent woman who has happily and openly ventured into the 
stream of public life?
218
 and, as noted above, was met with sexually-charged 
comparisons to real and fictional ?Jezebels? who were seen as political interlopers.
219
247
Clinton?s critics were successful, to an extent, in containing her political 
influence and silencing her. After undergoing an ?image makeover? prior to the 1992 
Democratic National Convention in order to quell criticism, the ?new Hillary? was 
presented as a ?more traditional?
220
 political wife. As the New York Times observed,
?The campaign dismissed any suggestion of independence on her part and presented 
her to voters as something closer to a cookie-baking mom than the candidate?s chief 
advisor.?
221
The campaign went as far as silencing Clinton at the convention by 
denying her a speaking role. Another article from 1992 claimed that Clinton?s 
?potential White House role has been reduced to ?a voice for children,??
222
 thus 
containing her influence to traditionally maternal issues. During the 1996 race, 
Clinton ?remained on the fringes of the race, avoiding overly partisan comments and 
presenting herself as a respectful wife, a devoted mother,? which was attributed to 
another ?makeover.?
223
One story reported that ?her tone of voice was compassionate, 
nurturing? and ?any talk of programs and policies was attributed solely to ?the 
President? or ?my husband.??
224
The Washington Post observed that, in the 
Democrat?s efforts to reclaim ?family values? in 1996,
225
 Clinton was cast as ?the 
concerned mom insisting family issues should be above the crass considerations of 
politics. Her role allows her to speak to women voters without annoying men and 
without stepping on the message of her husband.?
226
Following the failed attempts to 
reform health care, Clinton largely retreated from policymaking efforts. A 1997 New 
York Times article stated, ?Scorched by the fallout after Mrs. Clinton?s leadership in 
seeking universal health care coverage, the White House has labored to play down her 
influence, describing a conversion from policy-maker to speech-maker, helpmate, and 
248
goodwill ambassador.?
227
 While the news media was not alone in containing Clinton, 
press frames contributed to and perpetuated her containment. Clinton largely avoided 
the press following the health care initiative. According to one report, she ?felt singed 
by encounters with the news media and largely eschewed them in recent years.?
228
Despite her efforts to conform to the mediated boundaries of the first lady 
position, the images of Clinton as a politically ambitious woman who refused to be 
contained continually reappeared in the press throughout first lady tenure. When she 
ran for Senate in 2000, many stories had a ?told-you-so? tone, justifying their framing 
of Clinton as a political interloper. As one editorial noted, ?We should know from 
observing Hillary Clinton that a woman who has her own fierce ambitions cannot 
easily give up her personality to a subservient role. That particular game of pretend is 
up.?
229
 That same year saw the return of a ?more traditional? first lady to the White 
House, one who did not seek to challenge the boundaries containing the gendered 
performance of the first lady position.
Conclusion
A 2000 New York Times editorial posed the question, ?Does it still make sense 
to have a first lady who is not hired, elected or paid by anyone, but is treated like 
knockoff royalty and held to archaic standards of behavior??
230
 Given the press 
coverage of the last twenty years, the question is relevant. As more women run for 
political office and have careers of their own, reporters increasingly question what to 
make of political wives who garner power through marriage yet play an important 
role in a two-person career like politics. Journalists themselves are facing a double 
bind: how to cover a position that is both traditional and nontraditional. This would 
249
force them to abandon the false dichotomies and competitive frames that make for 
entertaining and easy-to-write stories. It would also require them to rethink the 
boundaries of performance and containment they have helped to create and sustain.
Journalists? use of gender framing in this era limited representations of gender 
performance. The conflicting gender ideologies of feminism and traditionalism were 
frequently juxtaposed with political wives personifying one or the other, a reductive 
and simplistic form of framing that ignored the complexities of gender performance 
and first ladies? lives. For example, Barbara Bush told McCall?s in 1992, ??You 
know, I don?t sit home and bake cookies all day long.  I?m a little tired of that 
[impression].??
231
 While coverage generally praised traditionalism, some journalists 
were critical of this return to constructions of women they viewed as constraining and 
limited. One author concluded that Clinton, ?and not someone like Barbara Bush, 
truly represents the majority of American women today.?
232
 Thus, these women 
ended up in a no-win situation, constantly facing both praise and criticism.  
Such gendered framing carried over into discussions of the first lady role. 
When these women acted as helpmates and advocated causes benefiting women and 
children, they were deemed to be acting within the ?proper? boundaries of first lady 
performance and their coverage was more positive, often reflecting the domestic 
empowerment of previous eras. However, when first ladies were perceived to have 
too much power, either in public like Clinton or in private like Reagan, their coverage 
was critical. Both Reagan and Clinton represented political interlopers who abused 
the power of the position, whether by acting as the ?power behind the throne? or by 
embodying personal political ambition like Lady Macbeth. 
250
Hence, the framing of the first lady institution from 1980-2001 focused 
largely on the gender debate over the ?proper? place and power of women in general 
and the first lady in particular. The culmination of over two hundred years of 
gendered framing was the creation of boundaries that served to alternately define, 
empower, and contain the gendered performance and political influence of the first 
lady position. Iconic first ladies were used by journalists to mark the historical 
boundaries of first lady performances, helping to naturalize the limitations for first 
ladies. These same boundaries were subsequently used to define proper comportment 
for contemporary first ladies. The women who embraced domesticity were pitted 
against political interlopers like Clinton. The ?traditional? wives were allowed access 
to one of the most exclusive political arenas, the convention floor, precisely because 
they served as symbols of women?s place and promptly retreated to the home once 
the campaign ended. In contrast, the framing of Clinton as a political interloper 
functioned as a rhetoric of containment in relation to her political influence by 
implying she was someone to be feared, shamed, and silenced. Thus, at the end of the 
century, journalists were still pondering the ?proper? place of women and the 
?proper? role of the first lady, coming no closer to a resolution than their 
predecessors, yet still using many of the same frames rooted in the gendered 
prescriptions of the early nineteenth-century to assess the performance of the first 
lady position. 
251
Afterword
A recent Washington Post story on Laura Bush offered the following 
observation regarding media coverage of first ladies, ?First ladies seem to be publicly 
defined in relation to one another. Is a first lady or a prospective first lady like Jackie 
Kennedy or Nancy Reagan? It?s like descriptions of hail?is it the size of a marble or 
a golf ball??as if first ladies exist as some kind of environmental phenomenon that 
come in a handful of predetermined sizes.? According to the story, Bush believes that 
?the American public actually has broad and nuanced perceptions of first ladies.  But 
the media are inclined to use a shorthand. ?It?s easier to put people in a box, let it be 
either/or.?? Despite pointing out the limitations of media framing, this article used the 
same framing formula, focusing on the differences between Bush and Teresa Heinz 
Kerry right down to the headline that claims, ?On the Campaign Trail, Laura Bush is 
180 Degrees from Teresa Kerry.?
1
 While many aspects of media coverage have 
changed since a magazine offered ?A Comparison? of Ida McKinley and Mary Bryan 
in 1900, there are still some striking similarities, particularly when it comes to the 
gendered framing of the first lady institution.
2
This project examines the ways that journalists framed stories about the first 
lady institution throughout the twentieth century and assesses specific implications of 
such framing practices. This process was necessarily selective and interpretive, given 
the scope of the study and sheer wealth of press coverage devoted to first ladies. As I 
analyzed the articles, I was particularly sensitive to cultural patterns and recurring 
frames that shaped first lady coverage throughout the twentieth century, especially the 
ways in which coverage of the first lady institution reflected the intersection of 
252
gender, publicity, and power within each historical era. Through the journalistic 
practice of personification framing, first ladies served as sites of ideological 
contestation over women?s roles as represented through the gendered coverage of the 
first lady position. First ladies were routinely positioned by the press as role models 
for American women, resulting in the emergence of first ladies as public women, 
gendered celebrities, political activists, and political interlopers in various eras. Such 
publicity made first ladies some of the earliest, and most visible, public women, 
helping to legitimize women?s political activity and influence. However, while their 
status as public women and gendered celebrities resulted in both access to and 
influence within U.S. political culture, first ladies remained on the fringes, with their 
influence largely limited to domestic matters and women?s issues. And when their 
influence trespassed too far into the male political reserve, the coverage exhibited a 
rhetoric of containment that suggests the political activities of certain first ladies 
violated the gendered boundaries that the press helped erect. As I review the 
contributions of this study, I detail five key implications that emerge from my 
analysis of the press and its framing of the first lady institution throughout the 
twentieth century. In the process, I will also assess the implications? applicability to 
the 2004 campaign coverage of Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz Kerry.
3
Personification Framing: First Ladies as the Embodiment of Gender Ideologies
First, my analysis identifies and names the journalistic practice of 
personification framing, in which an individual is positioned as the embodiment of an 
ideological performance, thus rendering the complexities of that performance quickly 
and easily comprehensible. Framing first ladies as personifications of the dominant 
253
and competing gender ideologies reflects the contestation over women?s roles within 
the limited narrative framework of a single story. Examining the ways in which first 
ladies function as embodiments of gender ideologies reveals how media texts serve as 
sites of cultural conflict over women and politics. 
The gender ideologies that compete to define American womanhood are 
based, in some way, on the concept of separate spheres. Tensions exist between 
ideologies that promote the domestic sphere as women?s primary place and those that 
extend women?s roles into the public and political spheres. True womanhood, a 
Victorian era ideal that dominated gender prescriptions at the turn of the twentieth 
century, prized women?s domesticity and viewed the home as women?s proper place. 
Throughout the century, true womanhood?s focus on domesticity continued to 
influence gender prescriptions, serving as the basis for the domestic ideal of the Cold 
War homemaker as well new traditionalism?s ?return to the home.? Even feminism, 
with its call for expanded rights for women, at times reflected the tenets of true 
womanhood. Early twentieth-century social feminism and the ideology of the new 
woman shared the true woman?s belief in women?s moral superiority; they used such 
expediency arguments to justify women?s social reform and political activities as a 
necessary extension of their domestic roles. Similarly, the ideology of republican 
motherhood validated women?s civic participation and was frequently used to frame 
women?s volunteerism. Political activism, though, was the hallmark of second-wave 
feminism as the women?s liberation movement sought to improve women?s political, 
economic, and legal standing within U.S. culture. The feminist mantra ?the personal 
is political,? with roots in the post-World War II era, helped to justify women?s 
254
empowerment by blurring the boundaries between the private and public spheres. 
Many women throughout the years, first ladies in particular, found themselves 
balancing their domestic duties with their growing roles outside the home, prompting 
the notion of the ?superwoman? who successfully moved between the private and 
public spheres.   
The press coverage of first ladies reflected the competing gender ideologies of 
their eras, often symbolizing both traditional and modern ideals of womanhood, thus 
serving as a site of contestation over women?s roles. While Ida McKinley and Edith 
Roosevelt personified true womanhood at the turn of the twentieth century, their 
modern-era successors were viewed as balancing the domesticity of true womanhood 
with the civic engagement of the new woman and republican motherhood. However, 
because public women were still viewed as suspect, the increased political activity of 
first ladies sometimes raised questions. For journalists, gender ideologies helped to 
explain women?s participation in social and political reform. The maternalism of 
social feminism and republican motherhood, for example, helped to justify the 
advocacy efforts of Ellen Axson Wilson, Florence Harding, and Eleanor Roosevelt. 
By characterizing their activities as extensions of their roles as wives and mothers, 
press framing aided in quelling criticism of first ladies? political activities and helped 
to normalize women?s presence, albeit limited, in the political sphere. The locus of 
women?s political power shifted primarily to the private sphere during the postwar 
period. Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Pat Nixon all 
personified the domestic ideal of women as homemakers, helpmates, and Cold War 
consumers. Even Roosevelt?s efforts were often constructed as extensions of the 
255
home. Such framing imbued women?s roles with a sense of domestic empowerment 
while simultaneously containing women?s political influence to matters concerning 
home and family. 
By the time Nixon became first lady, the ideals of second-wave feminism 
were influencing press discussions of women?s roles and the Cold War domestic ideal 
was widely derided as the ?feminine mystique.? As such, Nixon was criticized as a 
throwback to the previous era, while her counterparts were framed as contemporary 
women who, like many of their modern-era predecessors, embraced the political 
activism and independence promoted by second-wave feminism without rejecting 
their roles as wives and mothers. The adversarial press culture that flourished during 
this era also led journalists to critique the activism of Lady Bird Johnson, Betty Ford, 
and Rosalynn Carter, questioning women?s growing political influence. Such 
ambivalent coverage created double binds by simultaneously praising and critiquing 
first ladies? political influence, framing some first ladies as too political and others, 
like Nixon, as not political enough. 
The backlash against second-wave feminism at the end of the twentieth 
century perpetuated the double binds used to critique first ladies? performance of 
gender. This period saw a return to the domestic ideal, as embodied by Nancy 
Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush, which was pitted by the press against 
second-wave feminism as personified by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Such framing 
created a sense of competition between these women that reflected the larger cultural 
debate over women?s roles. While personification framing was able to capture the 
contention over women?s roles in various eras, such framing reduced the complexities 
256
of women?s lives by relying on gender ideologies as short-cuts that often 
oversimplified discussions of gender performance.  
The contestation over women?s roles continues in the current postfeminist 
climate, with new traditionalist Laura Bush playing the more domestic role of the 
supportive political wife, pitted against feminist Teresa Heinz Kerry, who is often 
framed as a more independent?and controversial?political player. As Ginia 
Bellafante of the New York Times explains, ?Another battle of sorts has intensified 
following the Democratic National Convention?this one over the many contrasts in 
taste and appearance and comportment between the potential first ladies. It is a 
pageant that many might prefer did not exist, but which nonetheless occupies a corner 
of voters? minds.?
4
 In news reports, Bush is routinely framed as ?a calm, loving 
helpmate and mother.?
5
 According to the New York Times, ?Campaign strategists . . . 
are putting Mrs. Bush forward as a model wife and traditional first lady who is a 
Republican antidote to Mrs. Heinz Kerry.?
6
 A New York Times editorial claimed that 
even President Bush, in joking that the best reason to vote for him was to keep his 
wife in the White House, was ?pushing the comparison between Mrs. Bush, a 
political spouse in the traditional model, and Mrs. Kerry, the unconventional widow-
heiress.?
7
 These stories reflect the competitive framing that has characterized 
coverage in the postfeminist era and represent a limitation of personification framing, 
which portrays women as the embodiments of contrasting gender ideologies.
Journalists? descriptions of Kerry help to frame her as an unconventional 
political wife. Kerry has been referred to by journalists as ?eccentric,? ?odd,? 
?kooky,? ?unique,? ?authentic,? ?strong-willed,? and ?imperious.?
8
 Kerry is most 
257
often described as ?outspoken? and ?unscripted,?
9
 characteristics that have drawn 
both praise and criticism. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times proclaimed, ?She?s 
unlike any other political wife I?ve ever seen?unscripted and ready to do as she 
likes, in her intriguing, world-weary way.?
10
 In a New York Times profile, Jodie 
Wilgoren said that Kerry ?says what she thinks, when she thinks it.? Wilgoren 
highlighted the unusualness of such behavior, noting that Kerry ?goes beyond the 
typical spousal cheerleader to give longer, freewheeling remarks? at campaign rallies 
and freely speaks on policy issues, ?sounding more candidate than companion.?
11
Following Kerry?s speech at the Democratic National Convention, Evelyn Nieves of 
the Washington Post asserted that, ?although she did not use the word, she defined 
herself as a feminist.? Kerry told the crowd, ??My right to speak my mind, to have a 
voice, to be what some have called ?opinionated,? is a right that I deeply and 
profoundly cherish,?? expressing her hope that one day women, ??instead of being 
labeled opinionated will be called smart and well-informed?just like men.??
12
 Joyce 
Purnick of the New York Times, also pointing to Kerry?s convention comments, 
asserted that her lack of ?patience for Stepford-like pretense? was not likely to ?fly 
with an electorate that admires the modest Laura Bush.?
13
 This comment again pits 
these women against each other and reinforces their personification of competing 
ideals of American womanhood. 
The practice of personification framing continues to use gender ideologies to 
frame political women, with the conflict between ideologies often constructed as a 
clash between the women embodying these ideals. The double binds characterizing 
such coverage often results in a no-win situation for these women. For speaking out 
258
and asserting her independence, Kerry is alternately lauded as a feminist and 
condemned for being too outspoken, gendered framing that results in the age-old 
double bind constraining women?s public speech. Likewise, while Bush?s modesty is 
sometimes extolled, her more traditional performance of the political spouse role is 
also criticized at times for being too submissive. Through such framing, journalists 
help to define the gendered boundaries that influence the coverage of first lady role 
performances. 
News Frames as Boundaries of Empowerment and Containment
The second implication of this analysis is related to the role of press framing 
in depicting the ?proper? performances of the first lady institution. By reporting on 
the various duties of first ladies, journalists legitimize those roles as part of the first 
lady institution. Stories about the increasing public and political activities of 
presidents? wives helped to expand the boundaries of first lady performance, 
positioning first ladies as public women, gendered celebrities, and political activists, 
all of which empowered women as citizens to varying degrees. 
As public women and gendered celebrities, the press positions first ladies as 
role models for American women, hence the empowerment of their gendered 
celebrity says something about women?s status in U.S. political culture. Gendered 
celebrity and its requisite press coverage made many first ladies prominent public 
figures in their own right, placing them at the center of women?s public culture. Some 
first ladies represented the domestic empowerment of women, particularly as 
consumers. Both Florence Harding and Eleanor Roosevelt promoted women?s 
consumerism as an act of citizenship. Other first ladies, like Mamie Eisenhower, 
259
Jacqueline Kennedy, and Nancy Reagan, endorsed Cold War consumption through 
their personal style, which American women were encouraged to emulate by the 
press. First ladies have also used their status as celebrities and political activists to 
work on behalf of issues impacting women and children. Ellen Axson Wilson, 
Eleanor Roosevelt, and Lady Bird Johnson all promoted housing reform in 
Washington, D.C. Betty Ford?s candor regarding her personal battle with breast 
cancer helped to alleviate the stigma associated with the disease. Both Barbara Bush 
and Laura Bush promoted literacy and educational programs. Hillary Rodham Clinton 
worked not only to reform health care, but also the foster care and adoption systems 
in the United States. By lending their names to causes and advocating social reform, 
first ladies expanded upon the tradition of upper-class women?s volunteerism. 
Coverage of first ladies? public activities helped to normalize women?s place in the 
public sphere, yet also worked to establish boundaries that contained women?s 
political influence to domestic matters. 
Problems existed, though, when first ladies overstepped these boundaries; the 
result was the framing of these women as political interlopers, which functions as a 
rhetoric of containment with visible results in certain cases. Rosalynn Carter, for 
example, stopped releasing information regarding her lobbying efforts on behalf of 
the Equal Rights Amendment after being accused by ERA opponents of overstepping 
the boundaries of first lady political influence. Nancy Reagan repeatedly refuted 
claims that she wielded hidden-hand influence over her husband during his tenure, 
only admitting to the press the extent of her influence as she prepared to leave the 
White House. Barbara Bush publicly denied having interest in political matters; when 
260
she violated the boundaries by speaking out on issues, she quickly censured herself, 
claiming that her personal opinions were not of political importance. Most strikingly, 
Hillary Rodham Clinton underwent an ?image makeover? during the 1992 campaign, 
taking on the more traditional role of helpmate in order to counter criticism that she 
was a political interloper whose personal political ambitions included serving as ?co-
president,? framing that dominated her press coverage. All of these first ladies were 
charged at some point with being ?the power behind the throne,? a sexualized 
discourse that has long been used to critique and contain women?s political influence. 
Thus, gendered media frames function alternately as boundaries of empowerment and 
containment, giving journalists extraordinary power in defining and assessing the 
gendered performance of the first lady position.
Such boundaries have implications for first ladies as well as all women within 
U.S. culture. Their status as gendered celebrities impacted first ladies? ability to 
extend their influence beyond issues tied to the domestic sphere. When first ladies 
ventured too far into the male political sphere, their actions were contested, often 
through press coverage that characterized such activities as violations of the 
boundaries of proper first lady comportment. As role models and prominent political 
women, press coverage of first ladies implies that women, while influential in regards 
to domestic and maternal matters, remain on the fringes of the larger U.S. political 
culture, which continues to be a primarily male domain. 
To that end, framing of the first lady institution throughout the twentieth 
century evidences the powerful role journalists play in shaping social reality. 
Zhongdang Pan and Gerald M. Kosicki argue that ?frames define the boundaries of 
261
the discourse concerning an issue and categorize the relevant actors based on some 
established scheme of social taxonomy.?
14
 In the case of first ladies, gendered frames 
have defined the boundaries of both gender and institutional role performance, 
categorizing first ladies based on their private and public activities as well as their 
political influence. By positioning first ladies as role models for American women, 
journalists have promoted ideologies that delineate the boundaries of gender 
performance and seek to define women?s ?proper? place in U.S. political culture. In 
doing so, journalists play a significant role in shaping both cultural and political 
norms. As Stephen D. Reese notes, framing perpetuates ?certain routine and 
persistent ways of making sense of the social world, as found through specific and 
significant frames? that ?find their way into media discourse, and are thus available to 
guide public life.?
15
 Because of the cultural significance attributed to the first lady 
institution, largely by the press, the ways in which media frames empowered and 
contained first ladies as political women helped to make sense of women?s presence 
in the public and political spheres and have guided public expectations regarding 
women?s gendered performance of their various social roles.
Current campaign coverage evidences that journalists are continuing to define 
and monitor the boundaries of first lady empowerment and containment that question 
a first lady?s place in the political sphere, and the extent of her political influence. 
Such coverage evidences both the double binds and competitive framing that continue 
to characterize coverage of candidates? wives. While Bush has operated safely within 
the mediated boundaries of proper first lady performance, her lack of political activity 
has sometimes been critiqued. Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times noted, 
262
?Even after four years in the White House, the unflappable Mrs. Bush never seems to 
get into trouble. There are no famous Laura Bush false steps or East Wing to-dos.? 
Stanley concluded that Bush ?has a dignity and discipline in public life that few first 
ladies have managed.?
16
 This quotation infers the existence of boundaries delineating 
the public performance of the first lady position that must be negotiated. On the 
campaign trail, Bush has adopted the more traditional wifely role of helpmate, serving 
as her husband?s surrogate with women voters and picking ?campaign stops that will 
bolster her wholesome, nonpolitical image.?
17
 According to the Washington Post, 
Bush ?will rarely discuss herself at any great length beyond how it relates to her role 
as the president?s soul mate, best friend, and chief character witness.?
18
 A New York 
Times profile claimed that Bush ?is clearly aware of her image as a first lady who has 
not been involved in policy making or political infighting,? noting that she 
?assiduously avoids contentious issues,?
19
 positioning her on the fringes of the 
political sphere. Her apolitical image, however, has sometimes garnered press 
criticism. The Washington Post, for example, referred to a recent Bush campaign 
swing as ?her two-day tour of scripted sweetness and devotion to George W. Bush?
in other words, her ?I?m not Teresa Tour,??
20
 a comment that subtly critiques Bush 
while playing up the perceived competition between these women. In stories about a 
?rare? foray into policy issues, Bush was characterized as ?defend[ing] the limits her 
husband had imposed?
21
 on stem cell research and offering ?spousal support for her 
husband?s policy.?
22
 Such framing downplayed the political aspects of her comments. 
Thus, while Bush?s influence is contained within the boundaries of proper first lady 
performance, the tone of her coverage sometimes suggests that she is too contained. 
263
Kerry, in contrast, has been the subject of considerable press criticism for 
violating the boundaries and for what is perceived to be her refusal to be contained. 
Some journalists, on the other hand, have welcomed Kerry?s spontaneity. Kerry is 
defined as the ?free campaign spirit?
23
 that ?elicits strong and sometimes nasty 
reactions.?
24
 One story noted that Kerry ?wants to hold on to her own identity and 
quirky persona,? telling the New York Times, ??I won?t be packaged.??
25
 When Kerry 
told a conservative newspaper editor to ?shove it,? the confrontation led the news,
26
resulting in ?what many Democrats had dreaded . . . the candidate?s wife running off 
the carefully laid rails at the Democratic National Convention.?
27
 When asked if she 
?regretted the outburst,? she said she did not.
28
 Kerry aroused criticism a week later at 
a Milwaukee campaign stop when she responded to Bush supporters chanting ??Four 
more years!?? by telling the crowd, ??They want four more years of hell.??
29
 Stories 
claimed that the Kerry campaign resorted to a ?let Teresa be Teresa philosophy,? in 
part because she gave them no choice, evidencing for the press her refusal to be 
contained. A former staff member told the New York Times, ??There was a feeling 
early on that she was a liability. The fact that she was from another country, the fact 
that she wasn?t programmed, wouldn?t stay on script.??
30
 But current campaign 
officials claim that Kerry?s overall effect on the campaign has been positive, 
?infusing it with some welcome spontaneity and excitement.? Like Bush, Kerry 
reportedly connects ?especially well with women,?
31
 and nearly half of her solo 
events have been ?geared toward women, focusing on child care, health care, and the 
environment.?
32
 By framing her interests as ?women?s issues,? the story (and the 
campaign) depoliticizes Kerry?s prior involvement in policymaking as head of a 
264
major philanthropy and think tank. Being described as ?organic? and ?mother-
earthy?
33
 has also helped to foster a maternal image. Yet her potential role as a 
presidential advisor remains a point of contention in the upcoming election. Howard 
Kurtz of the Washington Post claimed, ?The subtext to the debate is whether this 
strong-willed woman will wield considerable influence in a Kerry White House.?
34
Even though Kerry?s interests have been framed as ?women?s issues,? there is still 
concern that she will overstep the boundaries of first lady influence and become a 
political interloper.
Like their predecessors, Bush and Kerry are being positioned by the press as 
gendered celebrities. Both are empowered as political surrogates, helping their 
husbands connect with women voters, in part by touting the candidates? domestic 
agendas. Yet much of the coverage scrutinizes these women?s performances, 
perpetuating double binds. The key bind is based on the critique that Bush is too 
personally and politically contained while Kerry is too empowered through her 
alleged refusal to be contained. Kerry, as a potential political interloper, is viewed at 
times as a political liability. The controversy surrounding her outspokenness, a clear 
violation of gendered boundaries, has generated more press coverage than Bush?s 
more traditional spousal role. However, the coverage of both women suggests that the 
expectations promoted by journalists? critical culture are so caught up in double binds 
that no first lady (or would-be first lady) can seem to get it just right.  
Iconic First Ladies as Boundary Markers
Evidencing the role of collective memory in press framing, iconic first ladies 
function as key boundary markers in press assessments of the gendered performance 
265
of the first lady position. Barbie Zelizer explains, ?Journalists become involved in an 
ongoing process by which they create a repertoire of past events that is used as a 
standard for judging contemporary action.?
35
In this case, journalists elevate a select 
group of first ladies to iconic status, positioning them as representatives of a 
particular gendered performance of the position. In turn, these mediated memories set 
both historical and contemporary standards for judging current and future first ladies.
These same iconic first ladies, though, can function differently depending on the 
historical context in which they are being used. As Schudson notes, ?the past is 
forever subject to reconstruction and rewriting to accord with present views.?
36
The 
press practice of comparing and contrasting first ladies past and present also employs 
a competitive framework that highlights these women?s differences rather than their 
similarities, reflecting the press memory of these women?s performances and limiting 
their potential influences. 
The memories of several iconic first ladies have been used to frame coverage 
of Kerry and Bush. Hillary Rodham Clinton serves as a typical iconic frame for 
Kerry. Clinton?s memory has been primarily reduced to images from the 1992 
campaign. Kurtz observed, ?As a potential first lady with a penchant for controversy, 
Heinz Kerry has been a magnet for media attention good and bad, in much the same 
way that Hillary Rodham Clinton was in 1992.?
37
 Purnick?s article about Kerry?s 
convention speech speculated that as Clinton was ?listening to the wife of Senator 
John Kerry demand her independence, her right to speak her mind and to ?have a 
voice,? Senator Clinton?s thoughts wandered back to the days of headbands, cookies, 
and Tammy Wynette, to the time when she learned the etiquette of a political wife the 
266
hard way.? By comparing Kerry?s outspokenness to some of Clinton?s most infamous 
comments, Purnick implied that Kerry was in danger of violating the proper 
?etiquette? of political wives; Clinton functioned as a reminder of such boundaries. 
Later in the story, Purnick outlined the boundaries marked by other iconic first ladies: 
?Only Eleanor Roosevelt broke the mold. Jackie Kennedy was admired for her sense 
of style. Nancy Reagan, a force on the inside, was famous for her adoring gazes on 
the outside. Lady Bird Johnson, the savvy businesswoman, promoted the innocuous 
concept of highway beautification.?
38
 In Purnick?s assessment, only Roosevelt was 
able to move beyond the boundaries that have historically contained the political 
influence of first ladies. The act of such boundary crossing represents Roosevelt?s 
iconic legacy in the media?s memory. Forgotten also are Johnson?s political 
contributions to the environment, Kennedy?s commitment to historical preservation, 
and Reagan?s efforts to promote an anti-drug culture among U.S. youth.
While Kerry has elicited comparisons to Clinton, iconic first ladies have been 
used by journalists to define Bush in reference to what she is not. In a Washington 
Post editorial, Michael Kinsley observed that ?Laura Bush has not had her Lady 
Macbeth moment. This is the period . . . when the media discover that the president?s 
wife is the power behind the throne. She is not the sweet helpmate she appears to be. 
Underneath, there is steel.? According to the article, ?Rosalynn Carter, Nancy 
Reagan, and Barbara Bush all had their moments,? as did Clinton, but Laura Bush has 
been the exception. Instead, Kinsley claimed, ?she has loyally played along with the 
treacly conceit, assigned to her at the beginning of the administration, that her only 
public policy passion is libraries.? Furthermore, Kinsey declared that her recent 
267
comments on stem cell research were ?hardly her breakthrough moment.?
39
 To begin 
with, these constructions reify the sexualization of women in politics, conflating first 
ladies political activities with performances of sexuality. The article also further 
evidences the double binds that first ladies face. On one hand, Bush is implicitly 
condemned for not at least attempting to break out of the containment like her 
predecessors Carter, Reagan, and Barbara Bush. On the other hand, the press 
continues to frame her as a first lady who appropriately remains within the gendered 
boundaries of her position by accentuating her loyalty to her husband. 
The use of iconic first ladies to reify gender boundaries says much about the
ways in which media memory operate. In a story about first lady style, Jacqueline 
Kennedy once again is reduced to a fashion icon. The article stated that ?the scrutiny 
and fascination with the style of first ladies began with Jackie Kennedy, and 
redoubled with Nancy Reagan and Hillary Rodham Clinton.? However, the story 
maintained that focusing on fashion is not an exclusively modern phenomenon. Kerry 
was compared to Grace Coolidge for their looks of ?vague aversion to the constraints 
of political life,? The story also discussed the style of Francis Cleveland, Julia Tyler, 
and Dolley Madison.
40
 Stories that feature iconic first ladies offer mini-history 
lessons to readers, highlighting the memories of certain first ladies that the press 
helped to create by writing the first draft of history. Over time, such chapters are 
reduced to single remembrances or mere captions. The number of articles referencing 
iconic first ladies has grown considerably since the 1960s, evidencing the celebrity 
status of first ladies like Roosevelt and Kennedy. Stories from the last twenty years 
268
have also reflected the growing scholarly interest in first ladies, routinely quoting first 
ladies scholars or referencing recent books about presidents? wives.        
Journalistic Conventions as Acts of Engenderment
This study shows that gendered framing has also impacted story placement 
over the years. The majority of stories about first ladies appeared in women?s 
magazines and women?s pages targeted to a female audience. Even in later eras, when 
the women?s pages became ?Style/Lifestyle? sections, most first lady stories ran in 
these sections. Relegating first lady stories to women?s publications implied that they 
were newsworthy primarily for other women. Such placement reinforced first ladies? 
status as role models for American women, but also devalued their importance as 
public figures and political agents, containing their influence while politically 
empowering men further.
41
 While first ladies were represented by the press as central 
to the public and private life of the nation, their positioning asserted that they were 
much less pivotal to U.S. political culture in general. When stories about first ladies 
managed to make the front pages or national sections, journalists often made a point 
to explicate the newsworthiness of the first lady?s activities in order to justify the 
article?s placement. Having to qualify the newsworthiness of a first lady, often by 
highlighting the unusualness of her actions, further underscored the notion that first 
ladies have limited significance within U.S. political culture. Since the late 1970s, 
stories about first ladies have slowly started to shift from the ?Style? to the ?National? 
section and the editorial pages, although front-page coverage is still limited. 
Campaign coverage in particular helped to justify higher-profile story placement, 
particularly in years when the wives have been key players in the campaign. 
269
However, unusual behavior is still treated as more newsworthy, a claim confirmed by 
current coverage. Not only has Kerry generated more news coverage than Bush, 
stories about Kerry have more frequently been featured in the front section of the 
newspapers.
42
Gendered elements, including story placement and personification framing, 
also contribute to the characterization of first lady coverage as ?soft news.? News 
about national political figures has traditionally been treated as ?hard news,? 
appearing in the front sections of newspapers. Even articles that could be 
characterized as ?soft news,? like the president weekending at Camp David, have 
appeared in the ?National? section (sometimes even making the front page on a 
?slow? news day). First ladies have rarely been treated as ?hard news,? and when they 
have been, once again the unusualness of their actions is a feature of the coverage. 
Such framing places first ladies on the fringes of political culture, often characterizing 
them as interlopers when they moved too far toward the center of political activity, 
which has occurred in stories about Kerry. Even Bush has noted that she has been 
framed, somewhat unjustly in her opinion, as someone who is far-removed from 
political culture. According to Randy Kennedy of the New York Times, Bush said 
?she was often frustrated by being portrayed in the news media as shy and retiring, a 
reluctant speaker, someone who knows little about her husband?s policies,? telling 
Kennedy, ??Even when I do speak about policy it?s still sort of disregarded, and I 
think it?s just a stereotype.?
43
 Hence, labeling stories about first ladies as ?soft news? 
also helps to contain women?s political influence by reifying gendered boundaries 
that imply women?s political activities are less newsworthy than those of men.  
270
Women Covering Women: Discourses of Empowerment and Containment
The majority of stories about the first lady institution over the years have been 
written by women journalists, and most of the reporters who have been routinely 
assigned to cover first ladies have been women. Women covering women helped 
solve problems of propriety particularly during eras when addressing promiscuous 
audiences violated norms of gender etiquette. Thus, speaking to women reporters was 
considered acceptable, and such journalistic practices helped break down barriers to 
women?s presence in the public sphere. Yet there was also the assumption that 
women understood each other and shared similar interests, rooted primarily in home 
and family. As first ladies became more publicly and politically active, the number of 
stories written by male journalists increased. However, as pointed out throughout this 
study, the gender of the reporter has not prevented the journalistic practice of 
gendered framing from dominating the coverage of the first lady institution.  
The relationship between first ladies and women journalists over the years 
warrants further study. In some ways, women journalists benefited from being 
assigned to cover first ladies. For example, Eleanor Roosevelt?s practice of limiting 
her press conferences to women forced some news organizations to hire women and 
helped ensure that other female reporters would keep their jobs during the 
Depression. Roosevelt?s constant activity and activism gave women reporters plenty 
to write about, sometimes helping to land them on the front page and ensuring that 
their work was read by a larger audience. Similarly, Lady Bird Johnson?s active 
schedule kept the women of the press corps busy, helping to earn them front-page 
bylines on occasion. In turn, women journalists often promoted the gendered celebrity 
271
and political activism of first ladies. Women reporters, particularly those working for 
women?s magazines, also wrote countless stories touting the domesticity of first 
ladies, often helping to promote the notion of women?s domestic empowerment. First 
ladies, through the visibility and duties associated with their position, were easy for 
women journalists to position as role models for their female readers. Thus, these 
women helped to empower first ladies by contributing to the emergence of first ladies 
as public women, gendered celebrities, and political activists throughout the twentieth 
century. 
Eventually, though, as coverage of the first lady institution became more 
critical, women journalists actively participated in critiquing first ladies, thus playing 
a major role in reifying the boundaries of first lady and gender performance. While 
the constraints of double binds were frequently pointed out by women writers, they 
were also complicit in their creation, particularly when they characterized first ladies 
as political interlopers. Thus, women journalists have acted as both supporters and 
critics of first ladies, creating an interesting dynamic between these public women. 
This study of first lady press coverage evidences that progress over the past 
century is visible as first ladies? participation in public life is normalized and even 
anticipated. First ladies are expected to use their influence to promote social causes, 
continuing women?s legacy of volunteerism. Some have used the power of their 
position to push for political initiatives, venturing into the male-dominated political 
sphere: Eleanor Roosevelt promoted numerous reform efforts; Ellen Axson Wilson 
and Lady Bird Johnson helped to draft federal legislation; Betty Ford and Rosalynn 
Carter lobbied for political and public support of the ERA; Carter, Hillary Rodham 
272
Clinton, and Laura Bush all testified before Congress. The public and political 
activities of first ladies, even when they aroused criticism, played a significant role in 
expanding the boundaries of first ladies? influence, helping to legitimize women?s 
entrance into the political sphere. The turn of the twenty-first century saw a first lady 
move from the White House to the floor of the U.S. Senate, evidencing that some of 
the boundaries of containment can be eroded.  
At the same time, some of the same obstacles to women?s participation in the 
political sphere in particular still persist. The question of women?s ?proper? place in 
political culture is as relevant today as it has been during any historical period. Press 
framing of the first lady institution still places first ladies at the heart of women?s 
public culture, yet continues to consign them primarily to the periphery of U.S. 
political culture. By positioning first ladies as role models for American women, 
journalists imply that women also function largely at the margins of U.S. political 
life, despite the increasing numbers of women (including a former first lady) pursuing 
political careers. This study exhibits the ways in which gender influenced the media 
coverage of some of the earliest, and most visible, public women. Just as first ladies 
are bound by a tradition dating back to Martha Washington, journalistic practices 
rooted to a great extent in nineteenth-century gender prescriptions continue to define 
coverage of first ladies. Until such practices are more forcefully challenged, possibly 
by the first woman who runs for the presidency, women will continue to be relegated 
to their ?more traditional? supporting role in U.S. political culture. As a recent article 
asserts, ?The public will some day accept a fully independent first lady.?
44
 Someday, 
but not yet.
273
Introduction Notes
1. Pennsylvania and Daily Advertiser, 26 May 1789, 1.  
2. Lewis L. Gould, American First Ladies: Their Lives and Legacies (New York: 
Garland Publishing, 1996), xix.   
3. Betty Boyd Caroli, First Ladies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 
xvii.  
4. My understanding of the distinctions between private, public, and political 
spheres comes from both Habermas and feminist interpretations of the concept of 
separate spheres. In his article ?The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article? [New 
German Critique 3 (1974): 49], Habermas offers the following definition of the public 
sphere, ?By the ?public sphere? we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which 
something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all 
citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes in every conversation in which private 
individuals assemble to form a public body. They then behave neither like a business or 
professional people transacting private affairs, nor like members of a constitutional order 
subject to the legal constraints of a state bureaucracy. Citizens behave like a public body 
when they confer in an unrestricted fashion?that is, with the guarantee of assembly and 
association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions?about matters of 
general interest.? Habermas? reference to publishing has led some scholars, like Michael 
Schudson, to argue that the press has always been ?a central institution of the public 
sphere? [The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life (New York: The Free Press, 
1998), 32]. Meanwhile, Habermas? distinction between the public and political spheres 
has been the starting point for many feminist critiques. Mary P. Ryan notes that 
274
?Habermas? construction of the public sphere had a singular advantage for feminists: it 
freed politics from the iron grasp of the state, which, by virtue of the long denial of the 
franchise to women and their rare status as public officials, effectively defined the public 
in masculine terms? [in ?Gender and Public Access: Women?s Politics in Nineteenth-
Century America,? Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun (Boston: MIT 
Press, 1992), 261]. Ryan believes that the boundaries between public and political, and 
even private, were historically more fluid than the constructions offered by contemporary 
scholars. She argues that ?the public as read through women?s history spotlights the
simple colloquial meaning of ?public,? that of open access to the political sphere. The 
women?s politics of the last century warns against a spatial or conceptual closure that 
constrains the ideal of the public to a bounded sphere with a priori rules about appropriate 
behavior therein? (?Gender and Public Access,? 285). Meanwhile, the metaphor of 
separate spheres also dominates women?s history, and is used to describe ?an ideology 
imposed on women, a culture created by women, [and] a set of boundaries expe cted to be 
observed by women,? according to Linda K. Kerber [?Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, 
Woman?s Place: The Rhetoric of Women?s History,? The Journal of American History
75 (1988): 17]. References to the idea of men?s and women?s separate spheres of 
influence are prominent in nineteenth-century literature, although Kerber and others 
contend that ?the distinction between the private and the public was deeply embedded in 
classical Greek thought? (?Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman?s Place,? 18), a 
point which shows the connections between the work of female historians and scholars 
who have examined Habermas? conception of the public, political, and private spheres.       
5. Kathleen Prindiville, First Ladies, 2nd ed. (New York: MacMillan, 1964), ix. 
275
6. Gould, American First Ladies, xv.
7. Betty Houchin Winfield, ?The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media: Who 
Elected Her Anyway?,? in Women, Media, and Politics, ed. Pippa Norris (New York: 
Oxford University Press, 1997), 166-80. 
8.  Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person Career,? 
in Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst (College Station: Texas 
A&M University Press, 1996), 181-2. While there are many definitions of gender, I agree 
with feminist media scholar Liesbet van Zoonen?s description, ?Gender can thus be 
thought of as a particular discourse, that is, a set of overlapping and often contradictory 
cultural descriptions and prescriptions referring to sexual difference, which arises from 
and regulates particular economic, social, political, technological and other non-
discursive contexts? [in Liesbet van Zoonen, Feminist Media Studies (London: Sage, 
1994), 33]. As a social construction, gender has both prescriptive and performative 
aspects. Feminist media scholar Lana Rakow, in ?Rethinking Gender Research in 
Communication,? Journal of Communication 36 (1986), 21, defines gender as ?both 
something we do and something we think with, both a set of social practices and a system 
of cultural meanings. The social ?doing? of gender?and the cultural meanings?
?thinking the world? using the categories and experiences of gender?constitute us as 
women or men, organized into a particular configuration of social relations.? Because 
gender is a social construct, it is not static, despite the tendency of people to define it as 
such. Joan W. Scott argues that gender roles must be historically contextualized in any 
study that presumes to examine historical constructions of gender. Scott asserts that the 
social construction of gender ?can only be determined specifically, in the context of time 
276
and place. We can trace the history of that process only if we recognize that ?man? and 
?woman? are at once empty and over-flowing categories. Empty because they have no 
ultimate, transcendent meaning. Over-flowing because even when they appear to be 
fixed, they still contain within them alternative, denied, or suppressed definitions? [in 
Joan W. Scott, ?Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,? American Historical 
Association 5 (December 1986), 1053-4]. This study examines journalists? constructions 
of gender ideals in coverage of the first lady institution within a historical context that 
considers the prevailing gender ideology at a particular historical moment.        
9. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, ?The Discursive Performance of Femininity: Hating 
Hillary,? Rhetoric & Public Affairs 1 (1998): 2-4. Rooted in the work of Judith Butler, 
Campbell argues that gender is a social construction that must be performed.   
10. There are multiple models, or gender ideologies, that have influenced the 
gender norms and ideals over the years. These ideologies, which are often contradictory, 
overlap during particular historical moments. The subsequent chapters will discuss such 
gender ideologies. 
11. Carl Sferrazza Anthony, First Ladies: The Saga of Presidents? Wives and 
Their Power, 1789-1961 (New York: Quill, 1990), 7-8. 
12. Lewis L. Gould, ?First Ladies,? American Scholar 55 (1986): 529. 
13. Kay Mills, From Pocahontas to Power Suits: Everything You Need to Know 
About Women?s History in America (New York: Plume, 1995), 294; Gould, American 
First Ladies, 224; Gil Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000), 1-2; Myra G. Gutin, The President?s 
Partner: The First Lady in the Twentieth Century (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 
277
2. There is some dispute over the origin of the title of ?first lady.?  Mills claims that the 
?the term First Lady was not used until 1877, when Lucy Hayes was so described by a 
magazine writer.? Gould, in American First Ladies, also states that the press popularized 
the term in their coverage of Hayes, ?Newspaper correspondents noted that Lucy?the 
first president?s wife to have graduated from college?was striking and self-confident, 
and, for the first time, they used the term First Lady regularly in their reporting.? 
However, other scholars argue that a play popularized the term. Troy states that the title 
First Lady ?seems to have been used as early as 1863 and became popular after Charles 
Nirdlinger?s 1911 play about Dolley Madison, The First Lady in the Land.? Gutin offers 
a story that combines parts of both accounts, ?The Dictionary of American History notes 
that it was first applied to Lucy Webb Hayes upon her husband?s inauguration in 1877, 
but it did not come into general use until 1911. At that time, Charles F. Nirdlinger?s play 
about Dolley Madison, The First Lady of the Land, was produced, and the new 
designation for the president?s wife was popularized.? Either way, the press played a 
significant role in determining how to publicly refer to the wife of the president.       
14. Kathleen J. Turner claims that ?rhetorical criticism seeks to understand the 
message in context,? a concise definition that reflects a general understanding of my role 
as a rhetorical critic. Likewise, I agree with Bonnie J. Dow?s statement that one of the 
key ?biases of a rhetorical perspective? is ?a belief in the importance of context.? See 
Kathleen J. Turner, ?Rhetorical History as Social Construction: The Challenge and the 
Promise,? in Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases, ed. Kathleen J. Turner 
(Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 2; and Bonnie J. Dow, Prime-Time 
278
Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women?s Movement Since 1970
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), xiv. 
15. Gould, American First Ladies; Caroli, First Ladies; Anthony, First Ladies; 
Gutin, The President?s Partner; Robert P. Watson, The Presidents? Wives: Reassessing 
the Office of First Lady (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000). These books are the 
most comprehensive historical works on first ladies. Scholarly interest in first ladies 
developed in the early 1980s, when the presidential libraries began to make available the 
papers and files of first ladies. Gould, in his article ?Modern First Ladies and the 
Presidency,? explains that ?these White House social files were a storehouse of fresh and 
important information. . . . For the first time, it became possible to examine the historical 
record for presidential wives in as much detail as had always been true for the chief 
executives themselves? (677-8). Since that time, the scholarship on first ladies has grown 
exponentially, although, as researchers point out, it still lacks the status given to 
presidential studies. Space does not permit a discussion of every book, chapter, or article 
written about first ladies, even if the survey were limited to scholarship since the 1980s. 
This review will examine works that deal primarily with first ladies and the media. 
However, there are a number of books and articles about individual first ladies that 
inform my analyses of press coverage. These works will be cited in the relevant 
forthcoming chapters.   
16. Gould, ?First Ladies,? 529. 
17. The most comprehensive treatment of the press coverage of nineteenth-
century first ladies is offered by Anthony (First Ladies). The relationship between first 
ladies and the press prior to 1900 will be detailed in the following chapter (Chapter One). 
279
18. Gould, ?First Ladies,? 529; Winfield, ?The First Lady, Political Power, and 
the Media,? 171.   
19. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 110-1. See also Gould, ?First Ladies,? 529-
30; Lewis L. Gould, ?Modern First Ladies: An Institutional Perspective,? Prologue: 
Journal of the National Archives 19 (1987): 72-4. 
20. Quoted in Maurine H. Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media: A Public 
Quest for Self-Fulfillment (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 38. For more of 
Roosevelt?s press conferences, see Maurine H. Beasley, ed. The White House Press 
Conferences of Eleanor Roosevelt (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983); Maurine H. 
Beasley, ?Eleanor Roosevelt?s Press Conferences: Case Study in Class, Gender, and 
Race,? The Social Science Journal 37 (2000): 517-28. 
21. Gould, ?First Ladies,? 532. 
22. Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media, 4. 
23. Lewis L. Gould, ?First Ladies and the Press: Bess Truman to Lady Bird 
Johnson,? American Journalism 1 (1986): 48. 
24. Gould, ?First Ladies and the Press,? 49-54. Eisenhower held the first televised 
press conference by a first lady shortly after entering the White House, but it wound up 
being her only press conference (Maurine Beasley and Paul Belgrade, ?Media Coverage 
of a Silent Partner: Mamie Eisenhower as First Lady,? American Journalism 3 (1986): 
43). 
25. Gould, ?First Ladies and the Press,? 55. 
26. Winfield, ?The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media,? 178.  
27. Winfield, ?The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media,? 178.  
280
28. Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media, 4. 
29. Betty Houchin Winfield, ?The Making of an Image: Hillary Rodham Clinton 
and American Journalists,? Political Communication 14 (1997): 241.  
30. Shawn J. Parry-Giles, ?Mediating Hillary Rodham Clinton: Television News 
Practices and Image-Making in the Postmodern Age,? Critical Studies in Media 
Communication 17 (2000): 206-7.    
31. Erica Scharrer and Kim Bissell, ?Overcoming Traditional Boundaries: The 
Role of Political Activity in Media Coverage of First Ladies,? Women and Politics 21 
(2000): 55-83. 
32. Liz Watts, ?Magazine Coverage of First Ladies From Hoover to Clinton: 
From Election Through the First One Hundred Days of Office,? American Journalism 14 
(1997): 495-519. 
33. Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President, ix.
34. Gould, ?First Ladies,? 535. 
35. Gould, ?First Ladies,? 535.  
36. Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency,? 181. 
37. Watson, The President?s Wives, 20-1. 
38. Caroli, First Ladies, xxi-xxii. 
39. Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President, xi. 
40. Leesa Tobin, ?Betty Ford as First Lady: A Woman for Women,? Presidential 
Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 761. 
41. James G. Benze, Jr. ?Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady,? 
Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 778. 
281
42. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 13, 16, 4. A double bind, according to 
Jamieson, ?is a rhetorical construct that posits two and only two alternatives, one or both 
penalizing the person being offered them.? The historical basis for the double binds 
facing women is the public/private sphere dichotomy. Jamieson notes that, ?Historically, 
the place for women is in the private sphere of the home?centered, metaphorically, not 
in the bedroom or the parlor, but in the nursery and the kitchen.? When women venture 
out of their ?proper? sphere, they often find themselves ?caught in situations in which 
they are damned if they do and damned if they don?t.? 
43. Schudson, The Good Citizen, 32. Schudson positions the press, primarily 
newspapers, at the center of his review of democracy and civic life in the United States.   
44. The phrase ?going public? comes from Samuel Kernell?s book Going Public: 
New Strategies of Political Leadership, 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional 
Quarterly Press, 1997).   
45. Mel Laracey, Presidents and the People: The Partisan Story of Going Public
(College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2002), 8-9. Laracey claims that the rhetorical 
presidency, in which presidents communicate directly with the public to seek support on 
policy matters, is not just a twentieth-century phenomenon by examining the widespread 
use of newspapers by nineteenth-century presidents.   
46. Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman: Woman?s Power and Place in 
the United States, 1630-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 4. 
282
47. James W. Carey, ?American Journalism On, Before, and After September 
11,? in Journalism After September 11, ed. Barbie Zelizer and Stuart Allan (London: 
Routledge, 2002), 78. 
48. The ?first lady institution? is similar, in definition, to the term ?the 
presidency.? I agree with Robert Watson, who sees the first lady institution as part of the 
presidency, noting that ?she has become an institution of the presidency, the U.S. 
political system, and, in a larger sense, U.S. society? (The Presidents? Wives, 24). 
49. The debate regarding objectivity in journalism is still alive and well, as 
evidenced in even the most recent journalism textbooks, despite a growing belief among 
scholars that objectivity is an impossible standard. For a concise overview of the debate 
over journalism objectivity, see Peter Golding and Phillip Elliot, ?News Departments and 
Broadcasting Organizations?the Institutionalization of Objectivity,? in Approaches to 
Media: A Reader, eds. Oliver Boyd-Barrett and Chris Newbold (London: Arnold, 1995), 
300-05.    
50. Stephen D. Reese, Oscar H. Gandy, Jr. and August E. Grant, eds., Framing 
Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World
(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001), 11. 
51. Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman, The Press Effect: Politicians, 
Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World (New York: Oxford 
University Press, 2003), xiii. 
52. Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, News That Matters: Television and 
American Opinion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 64. 
283
53. Todd Gitlin, The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media In the Making and 
the Unmaking of the New Left (Berkley: University of California Press, 1980), 2.  
54. Gaye Tuchman, Making News (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 183-4. 
Tuchman argues that journalists are active participants in the social construction of 
reality. However, because social construction is a complex, social process, there are many 
factors that influence media framing, including societal norms, journalistic practice, and 
the overall historical context.  
55. Robert M. Entman, ?Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured 
Paradigm,? Journal of Communication 43 (1993): 52.  
56. Entman, ?Framing,? 51. 
57. Paul D?Angelo, ?News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A 
Response to Entman,? Journal of Communication 52 (2002): 875-8. 
58. D?Angelo, ?News Framing as Multiparadigmatic Research Program,? 881.  
59. See Tuchman, Making News, 216; and Gaye Tuchman, ?Introduction: The 
Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media,? in Hearth and Home: Images of 
Women in the Mass Media, eds. Gaye Tuchman, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, and James 
Benet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 8. According to Tuchman, while 
some social constructions of news are a conscious effort of a journalist, others can be 
classified as unconscious reflections of socialization, journalistic practice, or ideological 
standpoint. Tuchman notes, ?Dominant American ideas and ideals serve as resources for 
program development, even when the planners are unaware of them, much as we all take 
for granted the air we breathe? (in ?Introduction,? 8). This can be seen in the case of 
gendered framing. She also states, ?The production of meaning is intricately embedded in 
284
the activities of men and women?in the institutions, organizations, and professions 
associated with their activities and that they produce and reproduce, create and recreate? 
(in Making News, 216).  
60. Pamela J. Creedon, ?The Challenge of Re-Visioning Gender Values,? in 
Women in Mass Communication ed. Pamela J. Creedon (Newbury Park: Sage, 1989), 21. 
61. Cynthia Carter, Gill Branston, and Stuart Allan, eds., News, Gender, and 
Power (London: Routledge, 1998), 6. 
62. Pippa Norris, ed., Women, Media, and Politics (New York: Oxford University 
Press, 1997), 6. 
63. Norris, Women, Media, and Politics, 7.
64. Linda Witt, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews, Running as a Woman: 
Gender and Power in American Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1995), 194. 
65. I agree with Michael Calvin McGee?s conception of ideology: ?Since the 
clearest access to persuasion (and hence to ideology) is through the discourse used to 
produce it, I will suggest that ideology in practice is a political language, preserved in 
rhetorical documents, with the capacity to dictate decision and control public belief and 
behavior? [in Michael Calvin McGee, ?The ?Ideograph?: A Link Between Rhetoric and 
Ideology,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (1980): 5]. This understanding of ideology 
helps to explain how various gender ideologies can exist, and compete, during a historical 
moment to ?dictate? gender performance and ?control public belief and behavior? in 
regard to gender roles. I also concur with McGee?s assertion that ideology ?is dynamic 
and a force, always resilient, always keeping itself in some consonance and unity, but not 
always the same consonance and unity? (McGee, ?The ?Ideograph,?? 9). This statement 
285
helps to explain how gender ideologies, like true womanhood or republican motherhood, 
can shift over time in response to social, political, and historical factors. The various 
gender ideologies that have helped shape news narratives will be detailed in the following 
chapters.  
66. Tuchman, ?Introduction: The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass 
Media,? 18. Emphasis in original.
67. James W. Carey, ?A Cultural Approach to Communication,? Communication
2 (1975): 8.   
68. The gender ideologies that have shaped media coverage will be detailed in the 
subsequent chapters.  
69. Several scholars note that the ?ideal American woman,? as historically 
presented in the media, is both white and middle/upper middle class. The following 
works are suggested: Nancy A. Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? World: American 
Women?s Magazines (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2000), xi; Janet M. 
Cramer, ?Woman as Citizen: Race, Class, and the Discourse of Women?s Citizenship, 
1894-1909,? Journalism and Communication Monographs 165 (March 1998): 31; Helen 
Damon-Moore, Magazines for the Millions: Gender and Commerce in the Ladies? Home 
Journal and the Saturday Evening Post, 1880-1910 (Albany: State University of New 
York, 1994), 7.   
70. Denise Riley, ?Am I That Name??: Feminism and the Category of ?Women? 
in History (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), 2.  
71. Ava Baron, Work Engendered: Toward a New History of American Labor
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 21.      
286
72. van Zoonen, Feminist Media Studies, 41. Similarly, Bonnie J. Dow argues that 
media texts are polyvalent. She defines polyvalence as ?the process through which 
audiences receive essentially similar meanings from television texts but may evaluate
those meanings differently depending upon their value systems,? thus allowing for an 
active audience (in Prime Time Feminism, 12).
73. Mitchell Stephens, A History of News (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 
1997), 1-4.   
74. S. Elizabeth Bird and Robert W. Dardenne, ?Myth, Chronicle, and Story: 
Exploring the Narrative Qualities of News,? in Media, Myths, and Narratives: Television 
and the Press, ed. James W. Carey (Newbury Park: Sage, 1988), 73. For example, Bird 
and Dardenne argue that ?news values,? which journalists often imply are intrinsic in 
events, ?are culturally specific story-telling codes.?   
75. Barbie Zelizer, ?Journalists as Interpretive Communities,? Critical Studies in 
Mass Communication 10 (1993): 221. 
76. Michael Schudson, ?The Sociology of News Production Revisited,? Mass 
Media and Society, eds. James Curran and Michael Gurevitch (New York: Arnold, 1996), 
154-5.  
77. This reflects what Walter Fisher calls narrative fidelity and probability. For 
more, see Walter R. Fisher, Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy 
of Reason, Value, and Action (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984).   
78. Zelizer, ?Journalists as Interpretive Communities,? 224. 
79. John Bodnar, ?Public Memory in an American City: Commemoration in 
Cleveland,? Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity, ed. John R. Gillis 
287
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 76. Much of the work on collective 
memory is indebted to the insights of Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, trans. 
and ed. Lewis A. Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).  
80. Bruce E. Gronbeck, ?The Rhetorics of the Past: History, Argument, and 
Collective Memory,? Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases, ed. Kathleen J. 
Turner (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998), 57.
81. Barbie Zelizer, ?Reading the Past Against the Grain: The Shape of Memory 
Studies,? Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12 (1995): 215. 
82. Barbie Zelizer, Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, The Media, 
and the Shaping of Collective Memory (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 
8-9; Zelizer, ?Journalists as Interpretive Communities,? 223-5.
83. John Nerone and Ellen Wartella, ?Social Memory,? Communication 11 
(1989): 87. 
84. Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair, The Image-Is-
Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership (Boulder, CO: Westview 
Press, 1999), 128.  
85. Gutin, The President?s Partner, 176. 
86. Betty Houchin Winfield, ?The First Lady?s Relations with the Mass Media,? 
Laura Bush: The Report to the First Lady, ed. Robert P. Watson (Huntington, NY: Nova 
History Publications, 2001), 45-51. 
87. Karrin Vasby Anderson, ?The First Lady: A Site of ?American 
Womanhood,?? in Inventing a Voice: The Rhetoric of American First Ladies of the 
288
Twentieth Century, ed. Molly Meijer Wertheimer (Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 
2003), 18. 
88. See Kathleen E. Kendall, Communication in the Presidential Primaries: 
Candidates and the Media, 1912-2000 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000), 6-7; Schudson, 
The Good Citizen, 166-7; and Watts, ?Magazine Coverage of First Ladies From Hoover 
to Clinton,? 495-519. The exact period of analysis will run from June of an election year, 
which follows the primary elections and marks the beginning of the national campaign, 
through the June of the following year. Kendall notes that presidential primaries are a 
?twentieth century phenomenon.? She points to the election of 1912 as the first year of 
?multiple primaries.? Schudson notes that between 1900-1920, states started requiring 
primary elections. By 1916, presidential primaries were adopted by twenty-six states. 
This study will concentrate on coverage of the national election, beginning with the party 
conventions; articles about primaries will be excluded. The decision to look at coverage 
extending through June of the following year allows for the inclusion of articles that 
assess how the new first lady is adjusting to her position. Watts notes that the first one 
hundred days is the traditional ?honeymoon period? in which presidents and first ladies 
enjoy a heightened level of news coverage.    
89. Schudson, The Good Citizen, 287. 
90. Schudson, The Good Citizen, 178-80.   
91. Schudson, The Good Citizen, 180.  
92. Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle: The Woman?s Rights Movement in the 
United States (New York: Atheneum, 1972), 179-80.   
289
93. Several political communication scholars point to the importance of 
campaigns as times of national reflection, conversation, and reengagement with the 
political process. The following authors reflect the views presented in this rationale: 
Roderick P. Hart, Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good For Us (Princeton, NJ: 
Princeton University Press, 2000); Thomas M. Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter?
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996); and Schudson, The Good Citizen.  
94. See note 88 for more information.
95. As explained earlier, the ?first lady institution? refers to all aspects of the first 
lady position. Articles that make reference to the first lady institution or the performance 
of the position will be included in this study. Those articles that do not discuss the 
institution in any way will be excluded from this study (i.e., biographies of candidates? 
wives that do not discuss the first lady position).       
96. Lauren Danner and Susan Walsh, ??Radical? Feminists and ?Bickering? 
Women: Backlash in U.S. Media Coverage of the United Nations Fourth World 
Conference on Women,? Critical Studies in Mass Communication 16 (1999): 70. Danner 
and Walsh offer a similar rationale for their use of the New York Times and Washington 
Post in their qualitative study of news articles. 
97. Scharrer and Bissell, ?Overcoming Traditional Boundaries,? 67. This study 
also uses both the New York Times and Washington Post, offering a similar rationale.   
98. Cynthia M. Lont, Women and Media: Content, Careers, and Criticism
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995), 70-1. 
99. Richard Schickel, Intimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity (New York: 
Fromm International Publishing, 1986), 28. 
290
100. Personification framing is similar, in some respects, to other concepts that 
seek to explain how individuals are constructed as embodiments of ideologies. Among 
them are Kenneth Burke?s notion of characterizations [in A Grammar of Motives
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969); see also John Lucaites and Celeste 
Michelle Condit, ?Reconstructing <Equality>: Culturetypal and Counter-Cultural 
Rhetorics in the Martyred Black Vision,? Communication Monographs 57 (1990): 5-24], 
Robert N. Bella et al?s ?representative character? [in Habits of the Heart: Individualism 
and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985)], 
Alasdair MacIntyre?s concept of social characters and civic identity [in After Virtue: A 
Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981); extended 
by Robert Hariman?s discussion of Cicero?s civic identity in Political Style: The Artistry 
of Power (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995), 95-140], and Trevor Parry-
Giles? ?ideological embodiment? [in ?Character, the Constitution, and the Ideological 
Embodiment of ?Civil Rights? in the 1967 Nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the 
Supreme Court,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 364-382]. While all of these 
ideas inform my conception of personification framing, I believe that personification 
framing differs in that it both names and critiques a particular institutional practice of 
American journalism, combining the notion of ideological embodiment with an 
understanding and critique of press practices.  
101. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism 
of Presidential Campaign Advertising (New York: Oxford, 1996), 17; Schudson, The 
Good Citizen, 166-7. Jamieson notes that William Jennings Bryan ?pioneered the modern 
campaign? in the 1896 against William McKinley. The two men faced each other again 
291
in the race of 1900. Schudson argues that the ?reform[s] of campaign practice? beginning 
in 1900, particularly the institution of the primary system, ?altered political culture 
profoundly? and ushered in a new era of political campaigning.       
Chapter One Notes
1. Martha Washington to Fanny Bassett Washington, 8 June 1789, in ?Worthy 
Partner?: The Papers of Martha Washington, ed. Joseph E. Fields (Westport, CT: 
Greenwood Press, 1994), 215.
2. Quoted in Carl Sferrazza Anthony, First Ladies: The Saga of Presidents? Wives 
and Their Power 1789-1961 (New York: Quill, 1990), 48. 
3. Quoted in Catherine Allgor, Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of 
Washington Helped Build a City and a Government (Charlottesville: University Press of 
Virginia, 2000), 20.
4. Anthony, First Ladies, 7. 
5. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 23, 73-4. An example of this is hostessing, a role 
primarily associated with wives that takes on political connotations when it involves the 
presidency, thus garnering attention from journalists. According to Allgor, ?society? in 
the new Republic was the sphere in which the political and the private overlapped. Allgor 
argues that, in Washington, social events served as both private gatherings and political 
arenas, often at the same time. 
6. For my understanding of public, private, and political spheres, see the 
Introduction, note 4, page 26.
7. Gaye Tuchman, ?Introduction: The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the 
Mass Media,? in Hearth and Home: Images of Women in the Mass Media, eds. Gaye 
292
Tuchman, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, and James Benet (New York: Oxford University Press, 
1978), 3.   
8. Tuchman, ?Introduction,? 5. For a further discussion of gender stereotyping in 
the media, see Liesbet van Zoonen, Feminist Media Studies (London: Sage, 1994), 30-1.  
9. Joanne Meyerowitz, Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar 
America, 1945-1960 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), 231. 
10. Karrin Vasby Anderson, ?The First Lady: A Site of ?American 
Womanhood,?? in Inventing a Voice: The Rhetoric of American First Ladies of the 
Twentieth Century, ed. Molly Meijer Wertheimer (Lanham, MD: Rowman and 
Littlefield, 2004), 18. See also Edith P. Mayo and Denise D. Meringolo, First Ladies: 
Political Role and Public Image (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1994).   
11. Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman: Woman?s Power and Woman?s 
Place in the United States, 1630-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
12. Nan Johnson, Gender and Rhetorical Space in American Life, 1866-1910
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002), 2-18. Like Matthews, Johnson 
looks at how gender roles constrained women?s access to the public and political spheres.     
13. Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in 
Revolutionary America (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 7. See also Mary Beth Norton, 
Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society
(New York: Knopf, 1996); and Mary Beth Norton, Liberty?s Daughters: The 
Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell 
University Press, 1980).   
293
14. Linda K. Kerber, ?Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman?s Place: The 
Rhetoric of Women?s History,? Journal of American History 75 (1988): 17-19.  
15. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 82. 
16. Kerber, ?Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman?s Place,? 20. 
17. Kerber, ?Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman?s Place,? 20. Kerber 
notes that the feminist perspective which argued for full political participation for women 
was articulated during this era by Mary Wollstonecraft in England and Etta Palm in 
France.        
18. Gail Collins, America?s Women: Four Hundred Years of Dolls, Drudges, 
Helpmates, and Heroines (New York: Harper Collins, 2003), 86. See also Linda K. 
Kerber, ?Daughters of Columbia: Educating Women for the Republic, 1787-1805,? The 
Hofstadter Aegis: A Memorial, eds. Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick (New York: 
Knopf, 1974), 35-59. 
19. Catherine Allgor, ?Political Parties: First Ladies and Social Events in the 
Formation of the Federal Government,? The Presidential Companion: Readings on the 
First Ladies, eds. Robert P. Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz (Columbia: University 
of South Carolina Press, 2003), 49. 
20. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 23.     
21. Allgor, ?Political Parties: First Ladies and Social Events,? 41. 
22. Allgor, ?Political Parties: First Ladies and Social Events,? 36. 
23. Robert P. Watson, The Presidents? Wives: Reassessing the Office of First 
Lady (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), 49. Washington?s letters indicate that 
she was concerned about the role she would play once she arrived in New York and her 
294
uncertainty about her new position. Her letters have been published in a volume titled 
?Worthy Partner?: The Papers of Martha Washington, ed. James E. Fields (Westport, 
CT: Greenwood Press, 1994).     
24. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 49. 
25. Although Rachel Jackson died on December 24, 1828, thus never serving as 
first lady, the campaign coverage of her warrants mention in this chapter. For more on 
Jackson, see Anthony, First Ladies, 111-4; and Allgor, Parlor Politics, 195-7. 
26. Robert P. Watson, ?Introduction,? in The Presidential Companion: Readings 
on the First Ladies, eds. Robert P. Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz (Columbia: 
University of South Carolina Press, 2003), 6. 
27. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 1.      
28. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 241.       
29. Allgor, ?Political Parties: First Ladies and Social Events,? 42. 
30. Patricia Brady, ?Martha Washington and the Creation of the Role of the First 
Lady,? in The Presidential Companion: Readings on the First Ladies, eds. Robert P. 
Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 
2003), 26.   
31. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 50.  
32. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person Career,? 
in Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst (College Station: Texas 
A&M University Press, 1996), 179-95. Other scholars, including Watson (cited earlier) 
and Gil Troy [Mr. and Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons (Lawrence: 
295
University Press of Kansas, 2000)], also promote the concept of the presidency as a co-
career.   
33. Betty Boyd Caroli, First Ladies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 
xviii. 
34. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 50. 
35. Watson, ?Introduction,? 5. Brady makes a similar observation in her essay, 
?Martha Washington and the Creation of the Role of the First Lady,? 21-34.  
36. Martha Washington to Fanny Bassett Washington, 8 June 1789, in ?Worthy 
Partner,? 220. 
37. Quoted in Molly Meijer Wertheimer, ?First Ladies Fundamental Rhetorical 
Choices: When to Speak? What to Say? When to Remain Silent?? in Inventing a Voice: 
The Rhetoric of American First Ladies of the Twentieth Century, ed. Molly Meijer 
Wertheimer (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 1.  
38. See Jeffrey L. Pasley, ?The Tyranny of Printers?: Newspaper Politics in the 
Early American Republic (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 1-12; and 
William David Sloan, ??Purse and Pen?: Party-Press Relationships, 1789-1816,? 
American Journalism 6 (1989): 103-27. While a majority of printers aligned themselves 
with a particular political viewpoint during this era, some newspapers continued to be a 
collection of shipping reports, local announcements, and foreign news clippings. These 
types of papers have traditionally been classified as mercantile papers.   
39. David Sloan, ?The Early Party Press.? Journalism History 9 (1982): 19; Carol 
Sue Humphrey, The Press of the Young Republic, 1783-1833 (Westport, CT: Greenwood 
Press, 1994), xiii-xiv. For more information on newspapers and editors of this era, the 
296
following works are suggested: William E. Ames, A History of the National Intelligencer
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972); Michael Emery and Edwin 
Emery, The Press and America: An Interpretive History of the Mass Media (Boston: 
Allyn and Bacon, 1996); Richard N. Rosenfeld, American Aurora: A Democratic-
Republican Returns (New York: St. Martin?s Press, 1997); William David Sloan and 
James D. Startt, The Media in America: A History, 4th ed. (Northport, AL: Vision Press, 
1999); and James Tag, Benjamin Franklin Bache and the Philadelphia Aurora
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991).         
40. Karen List, ?The Media and the Depiction of Women,? in The Significance of 
the Media in American History, eds. James D. Startt and William David Sloan 
(Northport, AL: Vision Press, 1994), 116. List states, ?The types of news appeared in 
different proportions, with newspapers devoting more than ninety percent of their 
editorial space to political information. Because of women?s absence from politics, the 
newspapers devoted far less space to them than did the magazines.? Meanwhile, some 
early female journalists, like Margaret Bayard Smith and Anne Royall, provided a female 
perspective on life in Washington City during the partisan era. For more information on 
Smith, see Allgor, Parlor Politics, 243, 132-3. The most notable of Smith?s books, 
related to this project, is The First Forty Years of Washington Society (New York: F. 
Ungar, 1965). For information on Royall, the following works are suggested: Maurine 
Beasley, ?The Curious Career of Anne Royall,? Journalism History 3 (1976-77): 98-102; 
Maurine H. Beasley and Sheila J. Gibbons, Taking Their Place: A Documentary History 
of Women and Journalism, 2nd ed. (State College: Strata Publishing, 2003), 57-8; Bessie 
Rowland James, Ann Royall?s U.S.A. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 
297
1972); Alice S. Maxwell and Marion B. Dunlevy, Virago! The Story of Ann Newport 
Royall (1769-1854) (Jefferson: McFarland, 1985); and Ishbel Ross, Ladies of the Press: 
The Story of Women in Journalism by an Insider (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1936). 
41. Karen K. List, ?Realities and Possibilities: The Lives of Women in Periodicals 
of the New Republic,? American Journalism 11 (1994): 34. List looks at three partisan 
newspapers, Fenno?s Gazette of the United States, Bache?s Aurora, Cobbett?s 
Porcupine?s Gazette, and fifteen magazines published in Philadelphia between 1790 and 
1800. She argues that the few stories printed about women in public life focused on 
royals like Queen Elizabeth or the empress of Russia, whose lives were ?not anything 
like the women who lived in the new Republic.?   
42. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 4. A popular synonym for a public 
woman was a ?Jezebel,? named for the biblical wife of Ahab, which referred to a 
?wicked and/or unclean woman whose sexuality constituted a threat to the well-being of 
the community.?   
43. List, ?The Lives of Women in Periodicals of the New Republic,? 36.  
44. List, ?The Lives of Women in Periodicals of the New Republic,? 37.   
45. List, ?The Lives of Women in Periodicals of the New Republic,? 35.    
46. Watson?s The President?s Wives offers a synopsis of negative press coverage 
of first ladies on pages 36-8. 
47. Anthony, First Ladies, 48. 
48. Margaret Truman, First Ladies (New York: Random House, 1995), 18. 
49. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 10. 
50. Anthony, First Ladies, 84, 98. 
298
51. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 148-52; Anthony, First Ladies, 104-5; Lewis L. 
Gould, American First Ladies: Their Lives and Legacies (New York: Garland Publishing, 
1996), 76-77. 
52. Anthony, First Ladies, 110. 
53. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 23, 73-4. As noted earlier, Allgor claims that ?society? 
was the sphere in which the political and the private overlapped during this era. She says 
that both Washington and Adams knowingly mimicked the courts of Europe, in an effort 
to follow the etiquette of the age, while at the same time trying to make their events more 
egalitarian, and hence republican, affairs.
54. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 76.  
55. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 75-6. 
56. Anthony, First Ladies, 83. 
57. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 54. 
58. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 75.   
59. See Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 75. See also Ethel Stephens Arnett, Mrs. 
James Madison: The Incomparable Dolley (Greenville, SC: Piedmont Press, 1972); and 
Margaret Brown Klapthor, The First Ladies (Washington, D.C.: White House Historical 
Association, 1994). Madison also granted the first press interview of a presidential wife 
to none other than Anne Royall. When Royall arrived unannounced at the White House, a 
relative attempted to turn her away. Madison, however, overheard the commotion and 
invited Royall to spend the day interviewing her.  
299
60. See Allgor, Parlor Politics, 98; and Anthony, First Ladies, 83, 94-5. The 
editors of Port Folio magazine had a woodcut engraving copied from a portrait of 
Madison and used it to illustrate the cover of their April 1818 issue.  
61. Anthony, First Ladies, 103.
62. Anthony, First Ladies, 37-8.  
63. Volunteerism in the United States was based on both religion and 
republicanism. Quaker doctrine encouraged women to become involved in volunteer 
activities, eventually leading some to participate in the abolition and woman?s rights 
movements. Meanwhile, the American Revolution spurred many women, like 
Washington, to become involved in volunteer activities. For more on volunteerism, the 
following works are suggested: Carol Ruth Berkin and Mary Beth Norton, Women of 
America: A History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979), 131; Karen List, ?The Media and 
the Depiction of Women,? 111; Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 45; Shawn 
J. Parry-Giles and Diane M. Blair, ?The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady: Politics, 
Gender Ideology, and Women?s Voice, 1789-2002,? Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5 (2002): 
565-99.              
64. Anthony, First Ladies, 54-5. There is also an interesting article, ?Martha, 
Wife of Washington,? that appeared in the September 1890 (p. 277-85) issue of The 
Home-Maker that details Washington?s volunteer work both during and after the war, 
noting how she frequently gave her own money to veterans in need. The article also 
claims that Washington often petitioned her husband informally to have the government 
provide pensions for ailing veterans.
300
65. See Allgor, Parlor Politics, 98; and Anthony, First Ladies, 83, 94-5. While 
serving as the ?First Directress? of the Washington Female Orphan Asylum, Madison 
donated a cow and twenty dollars to the cause as well as making clothes for the orphans. 
66. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 98. 
67. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 4.
68. Anthony, First Ladies, 80. Other stories claimed that Madison and her sister 
Anna were ?pimped? by Jefferson and Madison to curry support from foreign diplomats.  
69. Sloan and Startt, The Media in America, 87. 
70. See Allgor, Parlor Politics, 195; and Mary French Caldwell, General 
Jackson?s Lady (Nashville: Kingsport Press, 1936): 339-43. Jackson?s supporters charged 
the opposition press with making ?unchivalrous? accusations rather than addressing the 
bigamy charges directly, but then countered with the charges that the Adamses had sexual 
relations before they were married.     
71. Anthony, First Ladies, 111; Truman, First Ladies, 262-3. 
72. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 196-7. 
73. List, ?The Media and the Depiction of Women,? 110. 
74. See George H. Douglas, The Golden Age of the Newspaper (Westport, CT: 
Greenwood Press, 1999) 1; and Henry F. Graff, ed.  The Presidents: A Reference History, 
2nd ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1997), 105-6. 
75. Gerda Lerner, The Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women in History (New 
York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 18. Lerner argues that in the 1830s and 1840s, 
women?s public activities were becoming more restricted, mainly by social conventions 
like true womanhood. She gives the example that women were no longer permitted to 
301
enter most of the business and professional occupations, like printing, that had previously 
been open to them.    
76. Barbara Welter, ?The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,? in The 
American Family in Social-Historical Perspective, ed. Michael Gordon (New York: St. 
Martin?s, 1973), 225. 
77. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of 
Early Feminist Rhetoric, vol. 1 (New York: Praeger, 1989), 10. 
78. Carl M. Degler, At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the 
Revolution to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 26. 
79. Collins, America?s Women, 88. 
80. Degler, At Odds, 27. 
81. Mary P. Ryan, ?Gender and Public Access: Women?s Politics in Nineteenth-
Century America,? Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun (Boston: MIT 
Press, 1992), 273.
82. Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her, 9-10. For more on the constraints 
facing female speakers, see Susan Zaeske, ?The ?Promiscuous Audience? Controversy 
and the Emergence of the Early Women?s Rights Movement,? Quarterly Journal of 
Speech 81 (1995): 191-207. 
83. Degler, At Odds, 26. 
84. Alexis de Tocqueville, ?Chapter XII ? How the Americans Understand the 
Equality of the Sexes,? Democracy in America on-line text, 
<http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/home.html>    
302
85. Glenna Matthews, ?Just a Housewife?: The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in 
America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 34.   
86. Deglar, At Odds, 28. See also Nancy F. Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood: 
?Woman?s Sphere? in New England, 1780-1835 (New Haven, CT: Yale University 
Press, 1977). 
87. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 116. 
88. Collins, America?s Women, 97-8. 
89. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 116. 
90. A. Cheree Carlson, ?Creative Casuistry and Feminist Consciousness: The 
Rhetoric of Moral Reform,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 17. 
91. Carol Smith Rosenberg, ?Beauty, the Beast, and Militant Women: A Case 
Study in Sex Roles and Social Stress in Jacksonian America,? American Quarterly 23 
(1971): 565. 
92. Collins, America?s Women, 188-92. 
93. Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle: The Woman?s Rights Movement in the 
United States (New York: Atheneum, 1972), 74-77.   
94. Janet Zollinger Giele, Two Paths to Women?s Equality: Temperance, Suffrage, 
and the Origins of Modern Feminism (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 56-62. 
95. The movement received generally negative coverage in its early years. With 
the exception of Horace Greeley?s New York Tribune, editors paid scant attention to the 
woman?s rights conventions. In order to compensate for a lack of mainstream press 
coverage, the movement created their own journals. Chief among them were Swisshelm?s 
Pittsburgh Visiter, Amelia Bloomer?s The Lily, Paulina Wright Davis? The Una, and the 
303
Woman?s Advocate, published by a group of women led by Anna McDowell. For more, 
see Martha M. Solomon, A Voice of Their Own: The Woman Suffrage Press, 1840-1910
(Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1991).    
96. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 51. 
97. Caroli, First Ladies, 35-45. During the Jackson and Van Buren
administrations, the White House was without a first lady for twelve years. When 
William Henry Harrison was elected in 1841, Anna Harrison cited illness as the reason 
for missing her husband?s inauguration. Harrison had been active in her husband?s front 
porch campaign; in June of 1840, one of her sons died, and she stopped appearing in 
public. Cincinnati newspapers began to describe her as an ??invalid.?? Harrison planned 
to move to Washington, D.C. in the spring, but her husband died before she could make 
the trip.     
98. Elizabeth Lorelei Thacker-Estrada, ?True Women: The Roles and Lives of 
Antebellum Presidential Wives Sarah Polk, Margaret Taylor, Abigail Fillmore, and Jane 
Pierce,? in The Presidential Companion: Readings on the First Ladies, eds. Robert P. 
Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 
2003), 77. 
99. Gould, American First Ladies, 121-23. 
100. Gould, American First Ladies, 140.  
101. Caroli, First Ladies, 73. 
102. Thacker-Estrada, ?True Women,? 80.
103. Gould, American First Ladies, 121. 
104. Caroli, First Ladies, 65. 
304
105. Gould, American First Ladies, 140. 
106. Caroli, First Ladies, 73.
107. Thacker-Estrada, ?True Women,? 81. 
108. Thacker-Estrada, ?True Women,? 96. 
109. Impressed by her book Woman in the Nineteenth Century, Greeley hired 
writer Margaret Fuller in 1844, making her the first woman to work full-time for a 
newspaper. Along with her literary critiques, she wrote expos?s on public institutions and 
spearheaded a campaign to open a home for freed women convicts. See Beasley and 
Gibbons, Taking Their Place, 71; Douglas, The Golden Age of the Newspaper, 42; and 
Nicole Tonkovich, Domesticity With a Difference: The Nonfiction of Catherine Beecher, 
Sarah J. Hale, Fanny Fern, and Margaret Fuller (Jackson: University Press of 
Mississippi, 1997), 14-25. 
110. Sloan and Startt, The Media in America: A History, 133. In 1846, Fuller 
traveled to Europe, becoming the first female foreign correspondent. She reported on 
social conditions in Great Britain, France, and Italy, and covered the Italian revolution of 
1848-1849. One of the first women to cover international news on a regular basis was 
Eliza Blair, who wrote the foreign news columns for the Washington Globe. 
111. Horace Greeley also hired the first female Washington correspondent, Jane 
Grey Swisshelm, paying five dollars a week in 1850 for her columns covering 
Washington, D.C. Swisshelm petitioned Vice-President Millard Fillmore to sit in the 
Senate press gallery with the male reporters. Fillmore tried to dissuade her, saying the 
gallery would be an unpleasant place for a lady, but he finally relented. On April 17, 
1850, she sat in the gallery, but never returned. Swisshelm eventually lost her press pass 
305
and Greeley fired her for a hearsay report that charged prominent Whig Senator Daniel 
Webster with fathering mulatto children. See Emery and Emery, The Press and America, 
112; Kathleen Endres, ?Jane Grey Swisshelm: 19th Century Journalist and Feminist,? 
Journalism History 2 (1975-76): 128-32; Flexner, Century of Struggle, 82; Donald A. 
Ritchie, Press Gallery: Congress and the Washington Correspondents (Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University Press, 1991), 43-44; and Jane Grey Swisshelm, Half a Century
(Chicago: Jensen, McClurg, 1880), 130. 
112. Beasley and Gibbons, Taking Their Place, 87-8; William E. Huntzicker, The 
Popular Press, 1833-1865 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 86-7; Sloan and 
Startt, The Media in America: A History, 215. Among the earliest female columnists were 
Sara Willis Parton, a.k.a. ?Fanny Fern,? who wrote short satirical articles for various 
publications, Jane Cunningham Croly, the first society reporter, and Mary Clemmer 
Ames and Emily Briggs, both of whom wrote columns about Washington, D.C. that 
mixed news of society and politics. A collection of Parton?s work, Fern Leaves From 
Fanny?s Port-Folio, became a best-seller in 1853. That same year, she was hired for one 
hundred dollars a week by the New York Ledger to write a weekly column. She remained 
with the Ledger until her death in 1872. While there she supported a number of woman?s 
issues, including equal pay, greater opportunities, and eventually suffrage. Croly was 
hired by James Gorden Bennett in 1855 for the New York Herald?s new society page.  
Under the pen name ?Jennie June,? Croly became famous for her articles about fashion, 
beauty, and social gatherings, which were aimed at a female audience. She later wrote the 
first syndicated column intended for women.   
306
113. Beasley and Gibbons, Taking Their Place, 34-5; Huntzicker, The Popular 
Press, 1833-1865, 15. The most famous editor of the era was Sarah Josepha Hale, who 
edited Godey?s Lady?s Book from 1837 to 1877.    
114. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 110. 
115. See Anthony, First Ladies, 118; and Truman, First Ladies, 290. Tyler was 
already a celebrity in her hometown of New York. A wealthy New York socialite, she 
shocked her family by modeling in an advertisement for a New York clothing store. In 
the 1839 lithograph handbill, she was fashionably dressed, carrying a handbag that read, 
?I?ll purchase at Bogert and Mecamby?s No. 86 Ninth Avenue. Their goods are beautiful 
and astonishingly cheap.? Her nickname, ?the Rose of Long Island,? appeared below the 
drawing. This early example of celebrity endorsement caused a storm of controversy 
among New York?s elite, and the future Mrs. Tyler was quickly shipped to Europe by her 
embarrassed parents. 
116. Anthony, First Ladies, 171-6. 
117. Leslie?s Weekly, 22 February 1862: 1.  
118. While cultural standards of beauty change over time, physical attractiveness 
has often been used as a standard to judge femininity, particularly by the media. This is 
one of the primary arguments offered by Naomi Wolf in The Beauty Myth (New York: 
Morrow, 1991). Several authors, including editor Pippa Norris, address the media?s focus 
on women?s physical appearance in Women, Media, and Politics (New York: Oxford 
University Press, 1997).       
119. Katherine Fishburn, Women in Popular Culture: A Reference Guide 
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), 9.
307
120. Truman, First Ladies, 101. 
121. See Anthony, First Ladies, 134; and Caroli, First Ladies, 61. She helped 
direct her husband?s 1844 presidential campaign from home, and her letters often 
included the latest newspaper reports regarding his chances. For more information on 
Sarah Polk, see Jimmie Lou Sparkman Claxton, 88 Years With Sarah Polk (New York: 
Vantage Press, 1972); and Charles Sellars, James K. Polk (Princeton: Princeton 
University Press, 1966).  
122. Caroli, First Ladies, 65. 
123. Anthony, First Ladies, 140. 
124. Robert Seager, And Tyler Too (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962), 188. 
Rumors began circulating before the wedding that Tyler would marry Julia only if he was 
elected in 1844, and on good faith that she would campaign for him in the ?fashionable 
Northern watering holes.?
125. Anthony, First Ladies, 129-33. 
126. See Caroli, First Ladies, 48; and Gould, American First Ladies, 162. 
According to Caroli, Fillmore was described by a Washington journalist as ??tall, spare, 
and graceful with auburn hair, light blue eyes, a fair complexion?remarkably well 
informed.?? She chose to spend her time reading, and created the first White House 
library. For more on Abigail Fillmore, see Benson Lee Grayson, The Unknown President: 
The Administration of Millard Fillmore (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 
1981).  
127. Gould, American First Ladies, 187. 
308
128. Linda Kerber argues that the concept of republican motherhood was based, 
in part, on women?s political activities during the American Revolution. She cites 
activities such as sewing clothing for soldiers, making bandages, visiting wounded 
soldiers, boycotting products and shop owners, and frugality at home as political (and 
patriotic) activities of revolution-era women. The journalists? critiques discussed in this 
paragraph mirror these standards for patriotic activities of women. For more information, 
see Kerber, Women of the Republic.        
129. Anthony, First Ladies, 181. 
130. Anthony, First Ladies, 170. Among other things, newspapers accused 
Lincoln of being a spy because she had relatives who were enlisted in the Confederate 
Army. Editors including Thurlow Weed claimed that Lincoln had been banished from 
Washington, D.C. for being a traitor.
131. Anthony, First Ladies, 129. 
132. See Anthony, First Ladies, 212-3, 132; Caroli, First Ladies, 46; and Truman, 
First Ladies, 294. Much like Dolley Madison before her, Julia Tyler eventually returned 
to live in Washington, D.C. and was treated like the ?Queen Mother,? often visiting the 
White House and establishing relationships with most of her successors.   
133. Gould, American First Ladies, 190. 
134. Caroli, First Ladies, 84-5. 
135. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 147, 151. 
136. Anne Firor Scott, Making the Invisible Woman Visible (Urbana: University 
of Illinois Press, 1984), 65-6. Scott views gender ideologies as a continuum, allowing for 
flexibility and modification. She notes that, as society changes, ideologies morph to 
309
mirror the social conditions and remain relevant. This is the case with gender ideologies 
examined in this study.  
137. Jennifer Scanlon, Inarticulate Longings: The Ladies? Home Journal, Gender, 
and the Promises of Consumer Culture (New York: Routledge, 1995), 2. The most 
popular and successful of these magazines became known as the ?Big Six,? and included 
Ladies? Home Journal, McCall?s, and Good Housekeeping.     
138. Fishburn, Women in Popular Culture, 17. Fishburn claims that the need for 
consumption stimulated the rapid growth of the advertising industry, which from the very 
beginning addressed its messages primarily?and often exclusively?to women. 
139. Scanlon, Inarticulate Longings, 4. These publications also employed a 
number of female writers and editors, working women who in turn promoted domesticity 
and the notion of separate spheres for their readers.  
140. Michael Calvin McGee, ?The ?Ideograph?: A Link Between Rhetoric and 
Ideology,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (1980): 9. For more, see Introduction, note 
note 65, page 37.  
141. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 155; Flexner, Century of Struggle, 
156-78. 
142. Giele, Two Paths to Women?s Equality, 117. 
143. Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her, 11. 
144. Despite the fact that newspapers increased coverage of women, the suffrage 
movement continued to be viewed with suspicion in the mainstream press. In response, 
several suffragist newspapers were founded, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth 
Cady Stanton?s The Revolution (1868-1870), Clara Bewick Colby?s Woman?s Tribune
310
(1883-1909), and the Woman?s Journal (1870-1914) published by Lucy Stone, Henry 
Blackwell and later by Alice Stone Blackwell. These papers discussed issues beyond 
suffrage and provided women with a sense of community that extended beyond the 
confines of their individual homes. The more radical Revolution focused on working 
women, prostitution, divorce laws, women?s education and professional opportunities.  
The more conservative Journal included articles about temperance and women?s clubs, as 
well as articles about states? efforts to enfranchise women. For more details, see Beasley 
and Gibbons, Taking Their Place, 81-5; and Flexner, Century of Struggle, 150-3.   
145. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 147-54; Emery and Emery, The Press 
and America, 145. 
146. Caroli, First Ladies, 86. 
147. Flexner, Century of Struggle, 179. 
148. Flexner, Century of Struggle, 182. 
149. Giele, Two Paths to Women?s Equality, 109-11. 
150. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 158-9. 
151. Estelle Freedman, ?Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and 
American Feminism, 1870-1930,? Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 512-18. 
152. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 52.  
153. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 52. 
154. Caroli, First Ladies, 84. 
155. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 53.  
156. Caroli, First Ladies, 116. 
311
157. Anthony, First Ladies, 203. Anthony reports, ??My dears,? Eliza Johnson 
pointedly told reporters at one of her rare public appearances, ?I am an invalid.?? 
158. Anthony, First Ladies, 221, 210.  
159. Caroli, First Ladies, 91, 94. 
160. Collins, America?s Women, 246.  
161. Caroli, First Ladies, 104-5. 
162. Anthony, First Ladies, 233. 
163. Anthony, First Ladies, 241. 
164. Anthony, First Ladies, 235. 
165. Gould, American First Ladies, 287. 
166. Watson, ?Introduction,? 6. 
167. Gould, American First Ladies, 267. 
168. Gould, American First Ladies, 287. 
169. For more on the era of new journalism, the following sources are 
recommended: Douglass, The Golden Age of the Newspaper, 96-7; George Juergens, 
Joseph Pulitzer and the New York World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966); 
Richard L. Kaplan, Politics and the American Press: The Rise of Objectivity, 1865-1920
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Michael Schudson, The Good Citizen: 
A History of American Civic Life (New York: The Free Press, 1998); and W.A. 
Swanberg, Pulitzer (New York: Scribner?s, 1967).  
170. Beasley and Gibbons, Taking Their Place, 64-73; Ross, Ladies of the Press, 
50-1. One of the most famous reporters of this era was Elizabeth Cochrane, better known 
as ?Nellie Bly,? who was hired by Joseph Pulitzer?s New York World in 1888. Using 
312
various ruses to obtain access, Cochrane reported on mental asylums, women?s prisons, 
the plight of workers, prostitution, gambling, and other social issues. She and others, like 
Winifred Black Bonfils (a.k.a. ?Annie Laurie? of the New York Journal), were known as 
?stunt reporters.? Cochrane?s most famous stunt was traveling around the world in less 
than eighty days, breaking the record of fictional character Phileas Fogg.   
171. Beasley and Gibbons, Taking Their Place, 90-1; Ross, Ladies of the Press, 
326. Mary Clemmer Ames, whose column ?Woman?s Letter from Washington? ran from 
1866 to 1884, was widely regarded as the highest paid female journalist of her time. Sara 
Willis Parton and Jane Cunningham Croly (better known as Fanny Fern and Jennie June), 
who set the standards for reporting on high society, continued to dominate the scene 
during this era, successfully expanding their work to include books (Parton) and 
syndication (Croly).       
172. After being denied access to the all-male New York Press Club when 
Charles Dickens visited in 1868, Croly founded Sorosis, the first club for newspaper 
women; in 1889 she helped start the Women?s Press Club. In 1882, Emily Briggs, a 
Washington-based columnist, formed the Women?s National Press Association. See 
Agnes Hooper Gottlieb, ?Women?s Press Club of New York City, 1889-1980,? in 
Women?s Press Organizations, 1881-1999, ed. Elizabeth V. Burt (Westport: Greenwood 
Press, 2000), 251; and Ross, Ladies of the Press, 44-5, 326.
173. Scanlon, Inarticulate Longings, 3. The Ladies? Home Journal passed the 
one-million circulation mark during this period, while other women?s magazines boasted 
healthy circulations in the half-million range.   
313
174. Susan Henry, ?Changing Media History Through Women?s History,? in 
Women in Mass Communication, ed. Pamela J. Creedon (Newbury Park: Sage, 1989), 51.  
175. Sloan and Startt, The Media in America, 239, 244. 
176. See Helen Damon-Moore, Magazines for the Millions: Gender and 
Commerce in the Ladies? Home Journal and the Saturday Evening Post, 1880-1910
(Albany: State University of New York, 1994), 11; and Cynthia M. Lont, Women and 
Media: Content, Careers, and Criticism (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1995), 5. 
177. Anthony, First Ladies, 210.  
178. See Emily Apt Greer, ?Lucy Webb Hayes and Her Influence Upon Her Era,? 
Hayes Historical Journal 1 (1976) 27.  See also Greer?s First Lady: The Life of Lucy 
Webb Hayes (Kent State: Kent State University Press, 1984). 
179. Mary Clemmer Ames, ?Woman?s Letter From Washington,? The 
Independent 15 March 1877: 2. Anthony (page 226) and Caroli (page 86) also mention 
Ames? account. The reference to Protestant leader John Wesley reflects Hayes? devotion 
to the Methodist faith.      
180. Caroli, First Ladies, 91. 
181. Anthony, First Ladies, 263. 
182. Caroli, First Ladies, 104. 
183. Caroli, First Ladies, 90. 
184. Mary Clemmer Ames, ?Woman?s Letter From Washington,? The 
Independent 15 March 1877: 2. Anthony (page 226) and Caroli (page 86) also mention 
Ames? account.   
185. Caroli, First Ladies, 111. 
314
186. ?Mrs. McKinley, Mrs. Bryan: A Comparison,? Harper?s Bazaar, 11 August 
1900. 
187. Caroli, First Ladies, 98. 
188. Anthony, First Ladies, 240. 
189. Caroli, First Ladies, 106. 
190. Anthony, First Ladies, 267-71.  
191. Anthony, First Ladies, 253. 
192. Gould, American First Ladies, 259. 
193. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 89. 
194. Although presidents? wives had traditionally been involved in public sphere 
activities like volunteerism, the expectation that first ladies involve themselves in such 
efforts increased as more American women joined clubs and practiced benevolent 
volunteerism. For a discussion of this issue, see Parry-Giles and Blair, ?The Rise of the 
Rhetorical First Lady,? 571-5.   
195. Quoted in Greer, ?Lucy Webb Hayes and Her Influence Upon Her Era,? 27. 
196. Anthony, First Ladies, 233. 
197. Anthony, First Ladies, 237. 
198. Truman, First Ladies, 51. 
199. For more on Frances Cleveland, the following books are recommended: 
Allan Nevins, Grover Cleveland: A Study in Courage (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1933); 
Allan Nevins, Letters of Grover Cleveland, 1850-1908 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 
1933); and Rexford Tugwell, Grover Cleveland (New York: Macmillan, 1968).   
315
200. Anthony, First Ladies, 267-71. Harrison headed the Women?s Medical Fund 
of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, which aimed to raise the half million dollars 
needed to build the school, under the condition that the school admit women. She also 
served as the first president-general of the Daughters of the American Revolution, formed 
after the Sons of the American Revolution refused to include women. The DAR consisted 
mainly of government workers, and Harrison hoped it would become a ?powerful 
political force for women.? She talked about the power of women during her speech to 
the group, which is the first recorded instance of a first lady delivering a speech from a 
prepared text.     
201. Anthony, First Ladies, 213. 
202. Caroli, First Ladies, 89. 
203. Kerber, ?Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman?s Place,? 39. 
204. McGee, ?The Ideograph,? 9. 
205. Scott, Making the Invisible Woman Visible, 65. 
206. Thacker-Estrada, ?True Women,? 80.  
207. Werthheimer, ?First Ladies Fundamental Rhetorical Choices,? 2.
Chapter Two
1. ?Mrs. McKinley, Mrs. Bryan: A Comparison,? Harper?s Bazaar, 11 August 
1900, 955. 
2. ?Mrs. McKinley, Mrs. Bryan,? 955-6. 
3. ?Mrs. McKinley, Mrs. Bryan,? 956.
316
4. Lewis L. Gould, American First Ladies: Their Lives and Legacies (New York: 
Garland Publishing, 1996), xvii. 
5. Robert P. Watson, The Presidents? Wives: Reassessing the Office of First Lady
(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), 54.  
6. Betty Boyd Caroli, First Ladies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 
117-184. Caroli mentions Helen Taft?s involvement in her husband?s campaign on page 
130. In these two chapters, she details the volunteer and social advocacy activities of the 
first ladies of this era.  
7. Carolyn Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover: The Origins of Visual 
Stereotypes in American Mass Media (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina 
Press, 2001), 8. 
8. Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman: Woman?s Power and Place in 
the United States 1630-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 172. 
9. Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle: The Woman?s Rights Movement in the 
United States (New York: Atheneum, 1972), 322-8. See also Matthews, The Rise of 
Public Woman, 172-84. 
10. Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press, 1987), 16; J. Stanley Lemons, The Woman Citizen: Social Feminism in 
the 1920s (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1973), vii-xi; Robyn Muncy, Creating a 
Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890-1935 (New York: Oxford University Press, 
1991), xii-xvii.
11. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 22; Kitch, The Girl on the 
Magazine Cover, 8 
317
12. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 4; Michael Emery, Edwin Emery, and 
Nancy L. Roberts, The Press and America: An Interpretive History of the Mass Media
(Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), 237, 239. By 1905, Kitch notes that the 
Ladies? Home Journal boasted over one-million subscribers, while other women?s 
magazines had healthy readerships closer to the half-million mark. According to Emery, 
Emery and Roberts, the New York Times? daily circulation rose from 100,000 in 1901 to 
330,000 in 1921, while the Sunday edition enjoyed a circulation of a half-million by the 
1920s.  
13. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 22. 
14. Barbara Welter, ?The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,? in The 
American Family in Social-Historical Perspective, ed. Michael Gordon (New York: St. 
Martin?s, 1973), 225. 
15. Theodore Roosevelt, The Strenuous Life (New York: The Outlook Company, 
1900), 5. 
16. Roosevelt, The Strenuous Life, 5. 
17. Carrol Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian 
America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 224, 264. 
18. Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Conduct, 264. 
19. Nancy F. Cott, ?Introduction,? in Root of Bitterness: Documents of the Social 
History of Women, ed. Nancy F. Cott (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1972), 26 
20. Nancy S. Dye, ?Introduction,? in Gender, Class, Race, and Reform in the 
Progressive Era, ed. Noralee Frankel and Nancy S. Dye (Lexington: University Press of 
Kentucky, 1991), 3.  
318
21. Lemons, The Woman Citizen, viii-ix. 
22. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 10. 
23. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 20. 
24. Mona Domosh and Joni Seager, Putting Women in Place: Female 
Geographers Make Sense of the World (New York: Guilford Press, 2001), 15. 
25. Gail Collins, America?s Women: Four Hundred Years of Dolls, Drudges, 
Helpmates, and Heroines (New York: William Morrow, 2003), 296-7.
26. Collins, America?s Women, 297. 
27. Domosh and Seager, Putting Women in Place, 15. 
28. Katherine Fishburn, Women in Popular Culture: A Reference Guide
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), 17; Jennifer Scanlon, ?Old Housekeeping, New 
Housekeeping, or No Housekeeping? The Kitchenless Home Movement and Women?s 
Service Magazines,? Journalism History 30 (2004): 2-10; Jennifer Scanlon, Inarticulate 
Longings: The Ladies? Home Journal, Gender, and the Promises of Consumer Culture
(New York: Routledge, 1995), 2. Fishburn argues that the need for consumption 
stimulated the rapid growth of the advertising industry, which often targeted women 
exclusively, while Scanlon notes that, after the Civil War, women were increasingly 
viewed as consumers, and thus an important demographic for newspaper and magazine 
advertisers.  
29. Domosh and Seager, Putting Women in Place, 14. 
30. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 8. 
31. Mary P. Ryan, Womanhood in America: From Colonial Times to Present
(New York: Viewpoints, 1975), 256-7.  
319
32. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 39. 
33 Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 148. 
34. Domosh and Seager, Putting Women in Place, 20; Muncy, Creating a Female 
Dominion in American Reform, 36 -7. Domosh and Seager note that the settlement house 
movement, in particular, was an effort to ?spread the home ?gospel,? bringing domestic 
doctrine to working-class and immigrant women.? 
35. Janet Zollinger Giele, Two Paths to Women?s Equality: Temperance, Suffrage, 
and the Origins of Modern Feminism (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 159. 
36. Lemons, The Woman Citizen, ix. 
37. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 97-99.   
38. Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen, ?Introduction,? in Decades of Discontent: 
The Women?s Movement, 1920-1940, eds. Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen (Boston: 
Northeastern University Press, 1987), 5. 
39. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 11-13; 184. Kitch is referring to 
Susan Faludi?s Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: 
Crown, 1991). 
40. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 3. Emphasis appears in the 
original. 
41. ?Mrs. Catt on Feminism,? Woman?s Journal, 9 January 1915, 12. A longer 
version of Catt?s definition appears in Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 14.  
Cott notes that Catt?s comments on feminism were also printed as a flyer titled 
?Feminism and Suffrage.?    
42. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 9. 
320
43. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 9.  
44. Giele, Two Paths to Women?s Equality, 173.  
45. Giele, Two Paths to Women?s Equality, 159. 
46. Ida Clyde Clarke, ?Feminism and the New Technique: Strike for High 
Places,? The Century, April 1929, 753. 
47. Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in 
Revolutionary America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1986), 11-12. 
48. Giele, Two Paths to Women?s Equality, 69. 
49. Shawn J. Parry Giles and Diane M. Blair, ?The Rise of the Rhetorical First 
Lady: Politics, Gender Ideology, and Women?s Voice, 1789-2002,? Rhetoric and Public 
Affairs 5 (2002): 567.
50. Vanessa Beasley, ?Engendering Democratic Change: How Three U.S. 
Presidents Discussed Female Suffrage,? Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (2002): 87. 
51. Warren G. Harding, ?Inaugural Address,? in The Presidents Speak, ed. Davis 
Newton Lott (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994), 249. See also Beasley, 
?Engendering Democratic Change,? 92. 
52. Calvin Coolidge, ?Inaugural Address,? in The Presidents Speak, ed. Davis 
Newton Lott (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994), 261. See also Beasley, 
?Engendering Democratic Change,? 93. 
53. Estelle Freedman, ?Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and 
American Feminism, 1870-1930,? Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 512-29. 
54. Lemons, The Woman Citizen, ix.  
321
55. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of 
Early Feminist Rhetoric, vol. 1 (New York: Praeger, 1989), 9-10. Campbell notes that 
?no ?true woman? could be a public persuader.?  
56. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 12. 
57. Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, News That Matters: Television and 
American Opinion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 64.  
58. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 78. 
59. ?Mrs. Hoover Seen as Cosmopolitan, Social Worker, Devoted Mother and 
Real Companion to Husband,? Washington Post, 7 November 1928, 9. 
60. ?The Lady of the White House,? New York Times Magazine, 10 March 1929, 
1. 
61. ?The Wives Behind Presidential Candidates,? New York Times, 23 October 
1904, 6.  
62. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 78. Watson lists ?symbol of the American 
woman? as one of the duties of first ladies. While this notion is evident in the overall 
gendered framing of first lady duties, to be discussed in the following section, the articles 
analyzed in this section directly frame the women as embodiments of a particular gender 
ideology and hold these women up as models of American womanhood.    
63 ?The Wives Behind Presidential Candidates,? 6. 
64. Welter, ?The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,? 225. The ?cult of true 
womanhood? is also referred to as the ?cult of domesticity.?   
65. ?The Wives Behind Presidential Candidates,? 6. 
322
66. Maureen E. Montgomery, Displaying Women: Spectacles of Leisure in Edith 
Wharton?s New York (New York: Routledge, 1998), 6. Montgomery states that, at the 
turn of the century, leisure became the ?key to upper-class identity precisely because it 
was an important marker of class.? In his speech ?The Strenuous Life,? Roosevelt 
admonishes the elite for their avoidance of work in favor of leisure.  
67. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 165-6. According to Cott, birth 
rates, primarily among middle-  and upper-class white women, were down significantly 
by 1900, prompting concern among some, like Roosevelt, who feared that the immigrant 
population was overrunning society.    
68. Roosevelt, ?The Strenuous Life,? 6. 
69. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 10. For a detailed discussion of the 
tensions between true womanhood, the new woman, and feminism, see Glenda Riley, 
Inventing the American Woman: A Perspective on Women?s History, 1865 to the Present, 
vol. 2, (Arlington Heights: Harlan Davidson, 1986). 
70. Mabel Porter Daggett, ?Woodrow Wilson?s Wife,? Good Housekeeping, 
March 1913, 318.  
71. Daggett, ?Woodrow Wilson?s Wife,? 323.  
72. ?Mrs. Hoover Seen as Cosmopolitan,? 9. 
73. ?The Lady of the White House,? 1. 
74. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 12. 
75. Dudley Harmon, ?What is Mrs. Wilson Doing? The Part the President?s Wife 
and His Daughters Have in the War,? Ladies? Home Journal, July 1918: 22. 
76. Harmon, ?What is Mrs. Wilson Doing?? 44. 
323
77. Beasley, ?Engendering Democratic Change,? 88. 
78. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 12. 
79. Harding, ?Inaugural Address,? 249. This portion of Harding?s inaugural 
address was also quoted in the following article: Constance Drexel, ?Mrs. Harding Shares 
Tasks of President,? Washington Post, 5 March 1921, 2. 
80. Anthony, Florence Harding, 315. Anthony notes, ?The First Lady raised 
consciousness about women?s fiscal responsibility by using herself as an example.? He 
also mentions her letter to the Southern Tariff Convention of Woman.   
81. ?Mrs. Harding on Tariff,? New York Times, 19 January 1921, 2. 
82. Dye, ?Introduction,? 1.  Dye discusses how ?municipal housekeeping? was a 
way for women to justify political participation.
83. A promiscuous audience consists of both men and women. During this era, the 
stigma surrounding women speaking to mixed audience was decreasing. For a more 
detailed discussion of female speakers and promiscuous audiences, see Susan Zaeske, 
?The ?Promiscuous Audience? Controversy and the Emergence of the Early Woman?s 
Rights Movement,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995): 191-207. 
84. Carl Sferrazza Anthony, America?s First Families (New York: Simon and 
Schuster, 2000), 89. 
85. Jacob A. Riis, ?Mrs. Roosevelt and Her Children,? Ladies? Home Journal, 
August 1902, 6. 
86. Welter, ?The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,? 225.  
87. ?The Wives Behind Presidential Candidates,? 6.  
324
88. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 156. For more on ?companionate 
marriage,? see John C. Burnham, ?Medical Specialists and Movements Toward Social 
Control in the Progressive Era,? in Building the Organizational Society: Essays on 
Associational Activities in Modern America, ed. Jerry Israel (New York: Free Press, 
1972), 19-30. 
89. Riis, ?Mrs. Roosevelt and Her Children,? 6. 
90. Princess Cantacuzene, ?The First Lady of the Land at Home,? Ladies? Home 
Journal, June 1924, 85.    
91. ?When Mrs. Taft Replaces Mrs. Roosevelt,? New York Times, 15 November 
1908, 7.  
92. Harmon, ?What is Mrs. Wilson Doing?,? 22. 
93. ?A Glimpse of Mrs. Harding,? New York Times, 14 November 1920, 6:8. In a 
similar statement, the Washington Post said of Florence Harding, ?Mrs. Harding?s mind 
and heart are actively engaged in whatever problems he has before him? (in ?Mrs. 
Harding Shares Tasks of President,? 2).   
94. Catherine Allgor, Parlor Politics (Charlottesville: University Press of 
Virginia, 2000), 23. 
95. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 212.  
96. Allgor, Parlor Politics, 75, 231. Allgor notes, ?The new vernacular gentility 
focused on family and valued propriety over public dignity, respectability over eminence, 
and private standards over political expediency. In this formulation women?s influence 
may perform a general public good or public virtue function, but it cannot serve anything 
as crass or specific as a political purpose.?   
325
97. Stephen Birmingham, The Right People: A Portrait of the American Social 
Establishment (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1968), 227. 
98. Caroli, First Ladies, xviii; Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 76. 
99. George Griswold Hill, ?The Wife of the New President,? Ladies? Home 
Journal, March 1909, 6.  
100. Hill, ?The Wife of the New President,? 6. 
101. ?Mrs. Hoover Seen as Cosmopolitan,? 9. 
102. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 76. 
103. Birmingham, The Right People, 233. 
104. Riis, ?Mrs. Roosevelt and Her Children,? 6. 
105. ?The New Regime Within the White House,? New York Times, 14 March 
1909, 5:1.   
106. ?The Lady of the White House,? 1. 
107. One notable example is Myra Gutin, whose focus on first ladies as public 
communicators leads her to criticize the women she calls ?social hostesses and 
ceremonial presences? (Florence Harding, Grace Coolidge, Bess Truman, and Mamie 
Eisenhower) because they had ?extremely limited contact with the public, and devoted 
little if any thought to communicating their ideas to the country? [in The President?s 
Partner: The First Lady in the Twentieth Century (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 
2]. This classification in the case of Harding ignores the active political role she played 
during her husband?s campaign, as discussed earlier. Another is Betty Houchin Winfield, 
who classifies hostessing as a more ?traditional? and less political role [in ??Madam 
President??Understanding a New Kind of First Lady,? Media Studies Journal 8 (1994): 
326
59]. However, Catherine Allgor argues that hostessing has always been a political as well 
as social role, offering Dolley Madison and Louisa Catherine Adams as examples of 
highly political hostesses [see Parlor Politics (Charlottesville: University Press of 
Virginia, 2000)].  
108. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 172. 
109. Mel Laracey, Presidents and the People: The Partisan Story of Going Public
(College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2002), 8-9. Laracey contends that the press is a 
primary way that political figures have ?gone public.? For more on first ladies ?going 
public? through the press, see the discussion on pages 24-5 of the Introduction to this 
work.   
110. I recognize that the ?rhetorical presidency? is not a solely a twentieth-
century phenomenon. I concur with authors like Laracey, who argue that ?going public? 
was central to the presidency well before the twentieth century. However, the ways in 
which modern era presidents (and first ladies) communicated directly with the public has 
been the primary focus of scholars, particularly the political scientists who developed the 
notion of a ?rhetorical presidency.? The modern era has been credited as the period in 
which the rhetorical presidency emerged. This period was also important in the 
development of the rhetorical first lady, according to Parry-Giles and Blair. Martin J. 
Medhurst distinguishes between those who study the ?rhetorical presidency? (mainly 
political scientists) and those who study ?presidential rhetoric? (primarily rhetoricians).  
Political scientists, in general, have viewed the ?rise of the rhetorical presidency,? which 
involves the use of rhetoric aimed at the general public ?as a way of circumventing or 
bypassing congressional deliberation,? as a cause for alarm. In contrast, rhetorical 
327
scholars view the presidency as a ?particular arena within which one can study the 
principles and practices of rhetoric, understood as the human capacity to see what is most 
likely to be persuasive to a given audience on a given occasion? [in Medhurst, 
?Introduction,? Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst (College 
Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996), xiii-xiv]. For a more thorough discussion 
of these issues, the following sources are recommended: Samuel Kernell, Going Public: 
New Strategies of Presidential Leadership (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly 
Press, 1986);  Laracey, Presidents and the People; Medhurst, ed. Beyond the Rhetorical 
Presidency; Parry-Giles and Blair, ?The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady;? Jeffrey K. 
Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987).    
111. The relationship between nineteenth-century first ladies and the press is 
detailed in Chapter One. The section on the Gilded Age first ladies (1865-1900) in 
particular details the increasing publicity surrounding the first lady, which laid the 
foundation for coverage of the modern era (pages 29-38).  
112. Caroli, First Ladies, 117. Caroli says the office of first lady is a ?twentieth-
century development.? She notes, ?Gradually, presidents? wives began to hire separate 
staffs of their own, take more public roles in policy and personnel decisions, and lead 
important reform movements.?
113. Caroli, First Ladies, 120-1. Caroli states, ?[S]he had to cope with being a 
first lady whose activities the public wanted to see in print every day. By supplying posed 
photographs of herself and her children, she solved most of the problem. McClure?s, 
Harper?s Bazaar, Harper?s Weekly, and Review of Reviews all ran pictures of the 
Roosevelt family but gave little information. . . . Anyone who thought the formal, posed 
328
photographs of the White House family represented increased access was wrong because 
Edith Roosevelt instituted changes to increase, not lessen, the distance between her brood 
and the public.? 
114. Caroli, First Ladies, 121. According to Caroli, ?Her stepdaughter Alice 
explained how Edith was not above ?managing? the news. She would wear the same dress 
several times but instruct reporters to describe it as ?green? one evening and ?blue? the 
next.? 
115. Lewis L. Gould, The Modern American Presidency (Lawrence: University 
Press of Kansas, 2003), 41. Gould notes that Taft ?did not act in the mold of the 
presidential activist and instead pursued moderate ends,? remaining silent on the 
controversial subject of woman?s suffrage.    
116. Flexner, Century of Struggle, 296. 
117. ?Glorious, Says Mrs. Taft; Loves Public Life,? 3. 
118. Caroli, First Ladies, 128-30.   
119. Daggett, ?Woodrow Wilson?s Wife,? 323. 
120. Caroli, First Ladies, 140.   
121. For more on the rhetorical activities of Harding and Hoover, see Parry-Giles 
and Blair, ?The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady.? 
122. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 85. For a detailed account of Florence 
Harding?s life, see Carl Sferrazza Anthony, Florence Harding: The First Lady, The Jazz 
Age, and the Death of America?s Most Scandalous President (New York: Quill, 1998). 
123. ?Mrs. Harding Declaras [sic] Kansas; Delegates? Switch Made Her Sure Her 
Husband Would Be Nominee,? Washington Post, 15 June 1920, 5. 
329
124. Constance Drexel, ?Mrs. Harding Shares Tasks of President,? Washington 
Post, 5 March 1921, 2.
125. ?A Glimpse of Mrs. Harding,? New York Times, 14 November 1920, 6:8. 
126. Caroli, First Ladies, 120; Beasley, ?Engendering Democratic Change,? 92-3; 
Ishbel Ross, Grace Coolidge and Her Era: The Story of a President?s Wife (New York: 
Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1962), 107. According to Caroli, Calvin Coolidge did not 
permit his wife to give interviews during her time as first lady. Ross confirms that 
Coolidge?s interactions with the press were controlled by her husband, ?The President 
had no objection to specific news items involving official appearances, but no personality 
stories, quotations, or personal interviews were permitted.? This helps to explain why 
there is so little press coverage of Coolidge, compared with her counterparts in this era. 
Meanwhile, Beasley notes that Coolidge was largely silent on the issue of suffrage, 
referring only briefly in his inaugural address to the ?intuitive counsel of womanhood.?
127. ?Mrs. Coolidge at Rally,? New York Times, 20 September 1924, 8. 
128. ?Mrs. Hoover Seen as Cosmopolitan,? 9. Hoover?s limited campaign role is 
interesting given that she would become the first president?s wife to deliver formal 
speeches and radio addresses on a variety of subjects (see Gutin, The President?s Partner, 
45-6). 
129. Beasley, ?Engendering Democratic Change,? 89; Kristi Anderson, Beyond 
Suffrage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 71-4. Beasley states that women 
helped to elect Harding, making up one-third of the electorate in 1920. Anderson argues 
that, by 1928, candidates Herbert Hoover and Al Smith actively sought women?s votes.   
130. Harmon, ?What is Mrs. Wilson Doing?,? 22.  
330
131. Frances Parkinson Keyes, ?Letters from a Senator?s Wife,? Good 
Housekeeping, May 1922, 49; Dorothy Canfield, ?A Good Girl Scout,? Good 
Housekeeping, April 1930, 24.
132. Canfield, ?A Good Girl Scout,? 24. Hoover stated that the organization made 
girls ??better homemakers, better citizens, better friends.??        
133. Caroli, First Ladies, 183. Caroli, when discussing Hoover?s volunteerism, 
notes, ?She tailored her own suggestions for economic recovery to fit her husband?s 
remedies, and her public pronouncements on how to end the Great Depression reinforced 
her husband?s reputation for relying on volunteerism.?   
134. ?Mrs. Hoover Seen as Cosmopolitan,? 9. 
135. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 16. Cott notes that, while 
volunteerism expanded women?s work into the public sphere, such work was often 
characterized as an extension of their domestic duties, which made such public activity 
acceptable.
136. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 173. 
137. Dye, ?Introduction,? 4. 
138. Dye, ?Introduction,? 2. 
139. ?Mrs. Wilson Slumming,? New York Times, 16 May 1913, 2. 
140. ?Cleansing Capital?s Slums,? New York Times, 23 May 1913, 1. 
141. ?Parks for Capital?s Slums,? New York Times, 24 May 1913, 4. 
142. The legislation never went into effect due to a lack of funding.  For more, see 
Lisa M. Burns, ?A Forgotten First Lady: A Rhetorical Reassessment of Ellen Axson 
331
Wilson,? in Inventing A Voice: The Rhetoric of American First Ladies of the Twentieth 
Century, ed. Molly Meijer Werthheimer (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
143. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 97. Cott contends that ?women?s 
organizations pioneered in, accepted, and polished modern methods of pressure-group 
politics.? 
144. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 178.  
145. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 182. 
146. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 78. 
147. Wandersee, On the Move, 148. 
148. Faludi, Backlash, xii-xiii. 
Chapter Three Notes
1. Alice Rogers Hager, ?Candidates for the Post of First Lady,? New York Times 
Magazine, 2 October 1932: 5. 
2. Hagar, ?Candidates for the Post of First Lady,? 5, 16. 
3. Robert P. Watson, The Presidents? Wives: Reassessing the Office of First Lady
(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), 54. 
4. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 54. Watson says of Roosevelt, ?She did more 
to change the institution of first lady than perhaps any other single person, event, or 
historical period.? Roosevelt received the most press coverage in this era, and not simply 
because she spent twelve years in the White House. In fact, there were more stories 
written about Roosevelt in the nine months before she officially became first lady than 
were written about any of her successors during the time periods being examined in this 
study. Roosevelt expanded many of the existing first lady duties through her extensive 
332
travels and speeches in support of her husband?s New Deal and wartime programs, her 
advocacy of numerous social issues, and her almost daily public appearances, all of 
which received press coverage. There have been a number of books written about Eleanor 
Roosevelt. For more on her life and tenure, the following select works are suggested: 
Allida M. Black, ed., What I Want to Leave Behind: The Essential Essays of Eleanor 
Roosevelt (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Allida M. Black, Casting Her 
Own Shadow: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Shaping of Postwar Liberalism (New York: 
Columbia University Press, 1996); Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, Volume I, 
1884-1933 (New York: Viking, 1992); Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, 
Volume II, 1933-1938 (New York: Viking, 1999); Doris Kearns Goodwin, No Ordinary 
Times: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, The Home Front in World War II (New York: 
Simon and Schuester, 1994); Joseph P. Lash, Eleanor and Franklin (New York: Norton, 
1971); Eleanor Roosevelt, This is My Story (New York: Garden, 1937); Eleanor 
Roosevelt, This I Remember (New York: Harper, 1949); Eleanor Roosevelt, The 
Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt (New York: Harper, 1961).    
5. The majority of first ladies scholars acknowledge Bess Truman?s political 
savvy and activity, and her daughter Margaret discusses her parents? political partnership 
in detail in her biography of her mother, Bess W. Truman (New York: Jove Books, 1987). 
The Trumans? correspondence also evidences their political partnership, and is collected 
in Robert H. Ferrell?s Dear Bess: The Letters From Harry to Bess Truman, 1910-1959
(New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1983).
6. The only first lady of this era to even come close to Roosevelt in sheer volume 
of coverage was Eisenhower, who was the first lady for most of the 1950s. While the 
333
coverage of these two women differed greatly, each woman welcomed the publicity that 
accompanies the first lady position, and often used it to their advantage. Watson claims 
that Eisenhower was successful at ?projecting the ideal of American womanhood and 
motherhood during the 1950s? (The Presidents? Wives, 55). Myra Gutin notes that 
Eisenhower held just one press conference and gave only one brief speech during her 
tenure [The President?s Partner: The First Lady in the Twentieth Century (New York: 
Greenwood Press, 1989), 30]. Eisenhower was frequently photographed, and the brief 
blurbs written about her were often smaller than the photograph they accompanied. Such 
coverage established Eisenhower as a visual icon of the 1950s, from her infamous bangs 
to her charm bracelets [Karal Ann Marling, As Seen on TV: The Visual Culture of 
Everyday Life in the 1950s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 28]. For 
more on Mamie Doud Eisenhower, the following biographic works are suggested: Lester 
David and Irene David, Ike and Mamie: The Story of a General and His Lady (New 
York: World Publishing, 1981); Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Special People (New York: 
Simon, 1977), 187-217; Susan Eisenhower, Mrs. Ike: Memories and Reflections on the 
Life of Mamie Eisenhower (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1996).    
7. Many biographies have been written about Jacqueline Kennedy. The following 
are suggested for accounts of her White House years: James Abbott and Elaine Rice, 
Designing Camelot: The Kennedy White House Restoration (New York: Van Nostrand, 
1998); Stephen Birmingham, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis (New York: Grosset, 
1978); Barbara Leaming, Mrs. Kennedy: The Missing History of the Kennedy Years (New 
York: The Free Press, 2001); Mary Van Rensselaer, Jacqueline Kennedy: The White 
House Years (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967).
334
8. Lewis L. Gould, ?First Ladies,? American Scholar 55(1986): 531.  
9. Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era
(New York: Basic Books, 1999), xxiv-xxv. 
10. Glenna Matthews, ?Just a Housewife?: The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in 
America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 196. 
11. Ruth Schwartz Cohen, ?Two Washes in the Morning and a Bridge Party at 
Night: The American Housewife Between the Wars,? in Decades of Discontent: The 
Women?s Movement, 1920-1940, eds. Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen (Boston: 
Northeastern University Press, 1987), 177-8. 
12. I am referring to Betty Friedan?s publication of The Feminine Mystique in 
1963, which has largely been credited with spurring the so-called ?second wave? of 
feminist activity. 
13. Chris Rojek, Celebrity (London: Reaktion Books, 2001), 16. 
14. Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Womanhood: Woman?s Place and 
Power in the United States, 1630-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 189. 
15. Janet M. Martin, The Presidency and Women: Promise, Performance, and 
Illusion (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003), 23; Robyn Muncy, 
Creating a Dominion in American Reform, 1890-1935 (New York: Oxford University 
Press, 1991), 152-4. 
16. Lois Scharf, ??The Forgotten Woman?: Working Women, the New Deal, and 
Women?s Organizations,? in Decades of Discontent: The Women?s Movement, 1920-
1940, eds. Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen (Boston: Northeastern University, 1982), 243-
45.  
335
17. For a general overview of these years, the following books are suggested: 
David E. Kyvig, Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1939 (Westport, CT: Greenwood 
Press, 2002); Eugenia Kalendin, Daily Life in the United States, 1940-1959: Shifting 
Worlds (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000).    
18. Susan M. Hartman, The Home Front and Beyond: American Women in the 
1940s (Boston: Twayne, 1982), 1-5; Gail Collins, America?s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, 
Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 394-5.  
19. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 222; Barbara Ryan, Feminism and the 
Women?s Movement: Dynamics of Change in Social Movement Ideology and Activism
(New York: Routledge, 1992), 36. 
20. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 223-4; Betty Friedan, The Feminine 
Mystique (New York: Dell, 1983), 15-32.
21. J. Stanley Lemons, The Woman Citizen: Social Feminism in the 1920s
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1973), 180. Lemons characterizes this division as 
?feminists against Feminists,? with social feminists, who supported protective legislation, 
representing the small ?f? faction and the big ?F? feminists being the proponents of the 
Equal Rights Amendment. 
22. Nancy A. Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? World: American Women?s 
Magazines (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2000), ix. 
23. William H. Chafe, The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th 
Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 47-9. 
24. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 34. 
25. Matthews, ?Just a Housewife?, 160. 
336
26. Lemons, The Woman Citizen, viii. 
27. Lois Scharf, ?Introduction,? in Decades of Discontent: The Women?s 
Movement, 1920-1940, eds. Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen (Boston: Northeastern 
University Press, 1983), 11. Much of the press coverage of Roosevelt?s social advocacy 
framed her actions as examples of social feminism.        
28. Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in 
Revolutionary America (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1980), 283. 
29. Maurine H. Beasley, ?Eleanor Roosevelt?s Press Conferences,? The Social 
Science Journal 37 (2000): 519. Beasley states that Roosevelt?s advocacy work has been 
characterized as ?projecting values long related to motherhood, such as housing and 
health, on to the nation?s agenda.
30. Collins, America?s Women, xv. 
31. Collins, America?s Women, 371. 
32. Kalendin, Daily Life in the United States, 1940-1959,18. 
33. Collins, America?s Women, 385-88. 
34. Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? World, 80. 
35. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 11.
36. Susan J. Douglas, Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass 
Media (New York: Times Books, 1994), 47. 
37. Collins, America?s Women, 394-5. 
38. Marling, As Seen on TV, 5, 202-40; Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 
222; Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? Lives, 150. Marling has an entire chapter on Betty 
Crocker and the impact of her image on homemaking in the 1950s. Matthews notes that 
337
television celebrated ?traditional? family values through women like June Cleaver, who 
?invariably yielded to her husband Ward?s superior intelligence.? 
39. Collins, America?s Women, 398. 
40. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 36. 
41. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 18. 
42. Lary May, Recasting America: Culture and Politics in the Age of the Cold 
War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 5. 
43. Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? Worlds, 10. 
44. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 188-9. 
45. Cohen, ?The American Housewife Between the Wars,? 177-8.
46. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 49. 
47. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 41-2.   
48. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 32. 
49. Martin, The Presidency and Women, 59-86.
50. Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? World, xi. 
51. May, Homeward Bound, 63-4; Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? World, 24. 
52. May, Homeward Bound, 149-50. 
53 Walker, Shaping Our Mothers? World, xiii. 
54. The recognition of individual agency and political efficacy is considered a 
necessary precursor to collective action. For more, see Ethel Klein, Gender Politics
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 97-101.        
55. May, Homeward Bound, 1-4. 
338
56. My definition of celebrity comes from Daniel Boorstin, who said in 1961, 
?The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knowness? [The Image: A Guide to 
Pseudo-Events in America, 25th anniversary ed. (New York: Antheum, 1987), 57]. The 
connection between celebrity, publicity, and the press is discussed by Joshua Gamson in 
Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America (Berkeley: University of California 
Press, 1994).  
57. Roosevelt was the most active in terms of image-making. Her close ties to 
journalists, from her weekly press conferences to her own work as a columnist and radio 
broadcaster, greatly increased the number of newspaper and magazine articles about her, 
and allowed her to play a role in the construction of her public image. Her successors 
chose to deal with the press less directly. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy granted 
interviews during campaigns, but as first ladies, they limited their contact with the press, 
relying primarily on social and press secretaries as intermediaries. Truman actively 
avoided the press, refusing to continue the press conferences for female journalists started 
by Roosevelt and responding to journalists? questions only through her secretary. For 
more on the relationship between these women and the press, see: Maurine Beasley and 
Paul Belgrade, ?Media Coverage of a Silent Partner: Mamie Eisenhower as First Lady,? 
American Journalism 1 (1986): 42-45; Lewis L. Gould, ?First Ladies and the Press: Bess 
Truman to Lady Bird Johnson,? American Journalism 3 (1986): 50-8.
58. Maurine H. Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media: A Public Quest for 
Self- Fulfillment (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 42. One of the reasons why 
Roosevelt decided to limit press conferences to women reporters was to help them keep 
339
their jobs during the Depression. She also ?hoped to make her position of use to others 
and so to convince herself that her life had importance.?   
59. For more on Roosevelt?s relationship with the press and her journalistic 
activities, the following works are recommended: Maurine H. Beasley, ed. The White 
House Press Conferences of Eleanor Roosevelt (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983); 
Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media; David Emblidge, ed. My Day: The Best of 
Eleanor Roosevelt?s Acclaimed Newspaper Columns, 1936-1962 (New York: Da Capo 
Press, 2001).
60. ?Housewives Entitled to Fixed Salaries, Like Any Worker, Mrs. Roosevelt 
Holds,? New York Times, 13 May 1937, 1. 
61. Shawn J. Parry-Giles and Diane M. Blair, ?The Rise of the Rhetorical First 
Lady: Politics, Gender Ideology, and Women?s Voice, 1789-2002,? Rhetoric and Public 
Affairs 5 (2002): 576-77.  
62. ?Crowd Mind Read By Mrs. Roosevelt,? Washington Post, 5 March 1933, 7.
63 ?First Lady Decries Home-Front Complaints and Urges Women to do Utmost 
to Aid War,? New York Times, 3 January 1945, 20. 
64. For more on women?s efforts during the revolutionary war, see Kerber, 
Women of the Republic, 35-67. 
65. May, Homeward Bound, 13. 
66. May, Homeward Bound, 149. This vision promoted a suburban, white, middle 
to upper-middle class image, yet May notes that it was an ideal that was embraced by the 
working class, African-Americans, immigrants, and other groups ?who longed for the 
?good life,? just like anyone else? (p. 18). 
340
67. Anne Norton, Republic of Signs: Liberal Theory and American Popular 
Culture (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), 52. 
68. Bess Furman, ?Trumans Give Up 5-Room Residence,? New York Times, 14 
April 1945, 8. 
69. Norton, Republic of Signs, 91. 
70. Martha Weinman, ?First Ladies?In Fashion, Too?? New York Times 
Magazine, 11 September 1960, 130. 
71. Weinman, ?First Ladies?In Fashion, Too?? 130. 
72. Marling, As Seen on TV; Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright, and Gilbert 
St. Clair, The Image-Is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership
(Boulder: Westview Press, 1999). Both Marling, in his work on the visual culture of the
1950s, and Waterman and his colleagues, in their study of the rise of image-making in 
presidential campaigns, argue that images began to dominate all forms of media in the 
1950s, prompted in part by the introduction of television and the success of photographic 
magazines during this era. 
73. Gould, ?First Ladies,? 533. 
74. Weinman, ?First Ladies?In Fashion, Too?,? 32-33.   
75. Weinman, ?First Ladies?In Fashion, Too?,? 132. 
76. Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Kennedy Defends Clothes; Is ?Sure? Mrs. Nixon Pays 
More,? New York Times, 15 September 1960, 1. While I cannot say for certain that this is 
the first time a candidate?s wife openly attacked her opponent during a press interview, it 
is the first example that I have come across in this study, or in any of the works that I 
have used as resources.   
341
77. Norton, Republic of Signs, 91. 
78. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person Career,? 
in Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst (College Station: Texas 
A&M University Press, 1996), 180. All of Watson?s fundamental duties of the first lady 
were used as framing devices in coverage, but the concept of a ?two-person career? was 
the frame most often used throughout this period. Watson identifies the following eleven 
duties of the modern first lady: ?wife and mother,? ?public figure and celebrity,? 
?nation?s social hostess,? ?symbol of the American woman,? ?White House manager and 
preservationist,? ?campaigner,? ?social advocate and champion of social causes,? 
?presidential spokesperson,? ?presidential and political party booster,? ?diplomat,? and 
?political and presidential partner.? Not surprisingly, coverage of Eleanor Roosevelt 
recognized all eleven duties (Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 72).  
79. Gil Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000), viii-ix.   
80. Quoted in Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President, 3. 
81. Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President, 3. 
82. Furman, ?Trumans Give Up 5-Room Residence,? 8. 
83. ?Capital Homemaker: Mamie Doud Eisenhower,? New York Times, 14 
November 1956, 24. 
84. Lucy Freeman, ?The General and His Wife,? New York Times, 5 November 
1952, 20. 
85. ?It Was a Long, But Proud Day For Wife of the New President,? New York 
Times, 21 January 1961, 11. One photographer was so eager to get the first pictures of 
342
Kennedy after she gave birth to son John, Jr. that he hid in a hospital room for several 
hours. While he managed to snap the first pictures, his film was confiscated by the Secret 
Service and he was escorted from the hospital (in W.H. Lawrence, ?Kennedy Alters 
Schedule to Stay Close to New Son,? New York Times, 25 November 1960, 1).       
86.  Rita S. Halle, ?That First Lady of Ours,? Good Housekeeping, December 
1933, 195.  
87. Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person Career,? 181. 
88. Furman, ?Trumans Give Up 5-Room Residence,? 8. 
89.  ?Capital Homemaker: Mamie Doud Eisenhower,? 24.
90. ?Mrs. Eisenhower a Mystery Fan,? New York Times, 9 November 1952, 64. 
91. Laurie Johnston, ??Policeman for Ike? is Wife?s Idea of Her Principal Role in 
Public Life,? New York Times, 3 September 1952, 23. 
92. Nan Robertson, ?Election ?Unreal? to Mrs. Kennedy,? New York Times, 11 
November 1960, 22. 
93. Robertson, ?Election ?Unreal? to Mrs. Kennedy,? 22. 
94. ?Capital Homemaker,? 24.  Much of the coverage of Eisenhower pictured her 
cutting ribbons, accepting gifts, and greeting people.     
95. Kathleen McLaughlin, ?Mrs. Roosevelt Goes Her Own Way,? New York 
Times Magazine, 5 July 1936, 7. 
96. Halle, ?That First Lady of Ours,? 195. 
97. McLaughlin, ?Mrs. Roosevelt Goes Her Own Way,? 7. The article pointed out 
that Roosevelt paid special attention to projects and organizations in which she was 
343
personally invested, such as the Arthurdale Homestead, the National Youth Congress, 
and the Works Progress Administration.  
98. Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President, 2.  
99. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 85.  
100. Anthony Leviero, ?Campaigner Truman Makes Some Headway,? New York 
Times, 13 June 1948, E7. 
101. ?Truman?s Family Going Home,? New York Times, 20 July 1948, 14. 
102. Anthony Leviero, ?Truman in St. Louis Predicts Victory,? New York Times, 
31 October 1948, 1. 
103. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 85. Eisenhower told reporters the nicest part 
of the whistle-stop campaign was ?meeting all the people who come aboard the train? 
(?Mrs. Eisenhower Will ?Miss Our Gang,? Calls People Nicest Park of Train Swing,? 
Washington Post, 25 October 1952, 8).  
104. Beasley and Belgrade, ?Media Coverage of a Silent Partner,? 39. 
105. ?Mrs. Eisenhower a Mystery Fan,? 64. 
106. ?Women Extolled By Mrs. Roosevelt,? New York Times, 1 November 1936, 
1. To offer other examples, in a 1933 article, Roosevelt is quoted as telling reporters: 
??Politics!  Politics! You know I never discuss anything dealing with politics.??  
Roosevelt routinely, even during the latter part of her tenure, told reporters that she would 
not answer political questions nor would she discuss politics, even though the majority of 
her speeches, broadcasts, and writings could be characterized as political in subject and 
tone (?President?s Wife Pays Speedy Visit,? New York Times, 25 May 1933, 7). She was 
quoted in a 1936 article as saying ?I?m not going to make any campaign speeches? (in 
344
?Plans Remodeling of the White House,? Washington Post, 3 July 1936, 5).  She 
frequently told audiences, ??I am not going to make a campaign speech; you know where 
I stand? (in ?First Lady Urges All to Cast Vote,? New York Times, 5 November 1944, 
41).   
107. Johnston, ??Policeman for Ike,?? 23. 
108. Gutin, The President?s Partner, 81-107.
109. Diane M. Blair, ?No Ordinary Time: Eleanor Roosevelt?s Address to the 
1940 Democratic National Convention,? Rhetoric and Public Affairs 4 (2001): 203-22; 
Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 88. 
110. Kathleen McLaughlin, ?No Campaigning, First Lady States,? New York 
Times, 19 July 1940, 1. 
111. McLaughlin, ?No Campaigning, First Lady States,? 1. 
112. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 164. Cott argues that female 
home economists of the 1930s ?avidly built up and explicated the complex significance 
of what went on in the home, in order to both counter the devaluation of the housewife 
(of which they were well aware) and to justify their own field of work.? 
113. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 80-1. 
114. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 165. 
115. ?Mrs. Roosevelt For Home Science,? New York Times, 27 March 1933, 17. 
116. ?Crowd Mind Read By Mrs. Roosevelt,? 7. 
117. Furman, ?Trumans Give Up 5-Room Residence,? 8. 
118. ?New First Lady Puts Housekeeping First,? Washington Post, 14 June 1945, 
16. 
345
119. ?New First Lady Puts Housekeeping First,? 16. 
120. ?Capital Homemaker: Mamie Doud Eisenhower,? 24. 
121. May, Homeward Bound, xxi-xxii. May argues that the ?family-centered 
culture? of the postwar era was due in part to the legacy of the Depression. She 
summarizes the fears of many postwar Americans, who had lived through the 
Depression: ?Prosperity had returned, but would there be a postwar slump that would 
lead to another depression, as there had been after World War I?  Would the GIs be able 
to find secure positions in the postwar economy??   
122. Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President, ix. 
123. Robert S. Cathcart, ?From Hero to Celebrity: The Media Connection,? in 
American Heroes in a Media Age, eds. Susan J. Drucker and Robert S. Cathcart 
(Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1994), 36-46. Several authors equate the development of 
television in the 1950s, and to a lesser extent radio in the 1930s, with a shift in 
approaches to political image-making. Roderick Hart talks about the rise of personality 
politics [in Seducing America: How Television Charms the American Voter (Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), particularly 21-71]. Bruce E. Gronbeck argues that ?the 
electronic presidency is fundamentally different from the presidency as it has operated 
and been experienced during any other epoch.? He also notes that, ?In 1952 television 
became a significant force.? [?The Presidency in the Age of Second Orality,? in Beyond 
the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst (College Station: Texas A&M 
University Press, 1996), 31, 33]. Kathleen Hall Jamieson begins her study of presidential 
campaign advertising with Eisenhower?s 1952 campaign [Packaging the Presidency: A 
History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford 
346
University Press, 1996), 39-89]. Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. 
Clair argue that Nixon was the first ?image-is-everything president.? However, they 
recognize the increasing importance throughout the twentieth century of controlling 
political image-making (The Image-Is-Everything Presidency).          
124. Rojek, Celebrity, 13. According to Rojek, ?mass-media representation is the 
key principle in the formation of celebrity culture.? He also argues that ?celebrity must be 
understood as a modern phenomenon, a phenomenon of mass-circulation newspapers, 
TV, radio, and film? (p. 16).     
125. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, 25th 
anniversary ed. (New York: Antheum, 1987), 61. Boorstin defines a celebrity as ?a 
person who is known for his well-knowness. . . . He is the human pseudo-event? (p. 57). 
According to Joshua Gamson, Boorstin?s definition has influenced much of the 
scholarship on celebrity (in Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America, 8-10).     
126. P. David Marshall, Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), ix -x. 
127. I would agree that all celebrities could be considered ?gendered celebrities.? 
However, I would argue that first ladies in particular are gendered by journalistic framing 
in more overt ways than their husbands. This happens, in part, because hegemonic white 
heterosexual masculinity is normalized to the extent that it often becomes invisible and 
thus does not act as a frame for news narratives [see Thomas K. Nakayama and Robert L. 
Krizek, ?Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995): 291-
309; and Nick Trujillo, ?Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations 
of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture,? Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8 
347
(1991): 290-308], whereas gender performance is frequently the dominant theme of news 
narratives about first ladies, overtly gendering discussions of their activities, their 
interests, and their appearance.    
128. Marshall, Celebrity and Power, 56-7.   
129. Her constant traveling, her numerous public speeches, her advocacy of social 
issues, and the press coverage which such activity attracted, established her as a popular, 
and sometimes controversial, public figure.   
130. May, Homeward Bound, xxv. May contends, ?More than merely a metaphor 
for the cold war on the homefront, containment aptly describes the way in which public 
policy, personal behavior, and even political values were focused on the home.?   
131. Rojek, Celebrity, 198. 
132. Rojek, Celebrity, 18. 
133. Halle, ?That First Lady of Ours,? 20.  
134. Elizabeth Gertrude Stein, ?Exacting Role of the First Lady,? New York Times 
Magazine, 14 March 1937, 144. 
135. McLaughlin, ?Mrs. Roosevelt Goes Her Own Way,? 7. 
136. McLaughlin, ?Mrs. Roosevelt Wants ?Just a Little Job,?? 16. 
137. In a 1936 New York Times article, Roosevelt was quoted as saying, ??I think 
we are seeing political parties and organizations being tremendously influenced by the 
kind of spirit which the women are bringing to the government as a whole. They see their 
work as a civic duty? (?Women Extolled by Mrs. Roosevelt,? 33).   
138. According to the Washington Post, ?Women of America were urged tonight 
by Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt to prepare themselves to hold public office.? Roosevelt 
348
told members of the General Federation of Women?s Clubs, ??More and more women are 
going to hold office, and it this is the case they must be competent to do so without fear
or favor. Therefore, I hope they will work in their respective parties, familiarize 
themselves with the mechanics of government, learn to get on with each other and with 
the men, and when they do take a responsible office, serve conscientiously and 
courageously?? (?Mrs. Roosevelt Says Women Must Fit Selves for Office,? Washington 
Post, 1 February 1933, 14). 
139. Roosevelt wrote a series of three articles on ?Women in Politics? for Good 
Housekeeping in 1940 (appearing in the January, March, and April issues) in which she 
encouraged women to vote and to involve themselves in a variety of civic activities, from 
joining women?s clubs to working for their political party to running for local office.         
140. Addressing a meeting of the League of Women Voters in April of 1933, 
Roosevelt told the audience, ??The consumer must be moved somehow to realize the 
responsibility of buying only such articles as are made under acceptable conditions.  
Surely no rightminded woman would want to wear a dress if she knew it was made under 
conditions ruinous to the health of the worker who sewed it?? (?Debutantes Show ?Fair 
Wage? Gowns at $30, In Women Voters? Drive on the Sweatshop,? New York Times, 21 
April 1933: 19). A 1933 New York Times article stated, ?If the buying public would make 
it its business to find out the wages paid in the production of things it buys, sweatshop 
conditions could be largely reduced, Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said yesterday. . . . 
Women must be shown, she said, that they have an individual responsibility for the 
sufferings of other human beings when they buy goods produced under unfair wage 
conditions? (?Fair Pay Plea Made by Mrs. Roosevelt,? 20 June 1933: 21).     
349
141. ?Women Hear Plea for World Parley,? New York Times, 18 February 1945: 
24.  
142. Such coverage from the press of her era has contributed to Roosevelt?s status 
as the most influential first lady of the twentieth century. These press accounts have 
become part of scholars? assessments of Roosevelt?s contributions to the first lady 
institution.  
143. Rojek, Celebrity, 18. 
144. Beasley and Belgrade, ?Media Coverage of a Silent Partner,? 39, 43. 
145. Nona B. Brown, ?Women?s Vote: The Bigger Half?? New York Times, 21 
October 1956, 28. 
146. Rojek, Celebrity, 14. 
147. ?Capital Homemaker,? 24. 
148. Marling, As Seen on TV, 26. 
149. Marling, As Seen on TV, 39, 38. 
150. ?White House Influence,? New York Times, 8 February 1957, 20. 
151. May, Homeward Bound, 146-7. 
152. ?Capital Homemaker,? 24. 
153. May, Homeward Bound, xiii. 
154. Dean Keith Simonton, ?Presidents? Wives and First Ladies: On Achieving 
Eminence Within a Traditional Gender Role,? Sex Roles 35 (1996): 322. 
155. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 38. 
156. Marshall, Celebrity and Power, 19. 
350
157. Douglas says, ?No Mamie Eisenhower sausage-like bangs or crinolined 
skirts for her. Jackie?s smooth, glamorous bouffant hairdo seemed to symbolize a new, 
relaxed style, an uncoiling of the constraints that had hemmed in other, older first ladies? 
(p. 38).   
158. Marylin Bender, ?The Woman Who Wins High Fashion?s Vote is Jacqueline 
Kennedy,? New York Times, 15 July 1960, 17.    
159. ?Mild Fever Gets to City Via Capital,? Washington Post, 19 January 1961, 
32. 
160. Hamish Bowles, ?Defining Style: Jacqueline Kennedy?s White House 
Years,? Jacqueline Kennedy: The White House Years, ed. Hamish Bowles (Boston: 
Little, Brown and Company, 2001), 17. This book is based on the exhibition of 
Kennedy?s fashion held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, from May 1 
through July 29, 2001. The exhibit also traveled to museums in several American cities.  
The author viewed the exhibit at the Corcoran Museum of Art in Washington, DC.      
161. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 38. 
162. Marshall, Celebrity and Power, 244. 
163. Rojek, Celebrity, 191. 
164. Marshall, Celebrity and Power, xi. 
165. Jennifer Scanlon, Inarticulate Longings: The Ladies Home Journal, Gender, 
and the Promises of Consumer Culture (New York: Routledge, 1995), 229-30. 
166. Marling, As Seen on TV, 279. Marling claims that ?the housewife?s choice of 
a new appliance?pink, square, nonsensical, irrational: whatever?was a choice 
351
nonetheless and the habit of making them was a good working definition of the American 
way of life. The public virtues of democracy were woven into the fabric of private life.?    
167. Scanlon, Inarticulate Longings, 230. 
168. ?Sees Mrs. Roosevelt as Tradition Breaker,? New York Times, 26 June 1936, 
12. 
169. Cowan, ?The American Housewife Between the Wars,? 185. 
170. Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President, xiii. 
Chapter Four Notes 
1. Katie Louchheim, ?The Spotlight Shifts in Washington: A New First Lady 
Takes Center Stage,? Ladies? Home Journal, March 1964, 55. 
2. Louchheim, ?The Spotlight Shifts in Washington,? 55. 
3. Louchheim, ?The Spotlight Shifts in Washington,? 56. 
4. Myra G. Gutin, The President?s Partner: The First Lady in the Twentieth 
Century (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 71. 
5. Johnson?s tenure as first lady is discussed in detail in the following works: Liz 
Carpenter, Ruffles and Flourishes (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Company, 1970); 
Lewis L. Gould, Lady Bird Johnson: Our Environmental First Lady (Lawrence: 
University Press of Kansas, 1999); Lady Bird Johnson, A White House Diary (New York: 
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970); Janet L. Mezzack, ??Without Manners You Are 
Nothing?: Lady Bird Johnson, Eartha Kitt, and the Women?s Doers Luncheon of January 
18, 1968,? Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 745-60; Jan Jarboe Russell, Lady 
Bird: A Biography of Mrs. Johnson (New York: Scribner, 1999); Nancy Keegan Smith, 
352
?Private Reflections on a Public Life: The Papers on Lady Bird Johnson at the LBJ 
Library,? Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 737-44.
6. The following works on Nixon are recommended: Lester David, The Lonely 
Lady of San Clemente: The Story of Pat Nixon (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell,1978); 
Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Pat Nixon: The Untold Story (New York: Simon and Schuster, 
1986). 
7. For more on Betty Ford, the following works are suggested: Betty Ford with 
Chris Chase, The Times of My Life (New York: Ballantine Books, 1979); Myra Gregory 
Knight, ?Issues of Openness and Privacy: Press and Public Response to Betty Ford?s 
Breast Cancer,? American Journalism (2000): 53-71; Leesa E. Tobin, ?Betty Ford as 
First Lady: A Woman for Women,? Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 761-68.   
8. Further details on Rosalynn Carter can be found in the following: Rosalynn 
Carter, First Lady From Plains (New York: Ballantine Books, 1984); Faye Lind Jensen, 
?An Awesome Responsibility: Rosalynn Carter as First Lady,? Presidential Studies 
Quarterly 20 (1990): 769-76. 
9. Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell, 1983), 15-32.     
10. Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American 
Newspapers (New York: Basic Books, 1978), 163. Schudson argues that the ?adversary? 
or ?critical culture? that emerged in the 1960s ?denied to government a level of trust it 
had come to expect and provided an audience for a more aggressive and more skeptical 
journalism.?  
11. Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman: Woman?s Power and Place in 
the United States, 1630-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 223.   
353
12. Barbara Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement: Dynamics of Change 
in Social Movement Ideology and Activism (New York: Routledge, 1992), 38. Despite 
continued activity by women?s organizations throughout this period, Ryan notes that only 
the National Woman?s Party ?was the only organization during the 1920-1960 period that 
explicitly identified itself as feminist.? Thus, feminism came to be identified with the 
NWP?s primary goal, passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.   
13. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 36.  
14. Estelle B. Freedman, No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the 
Future of Women (New York: Ballantine Books, 2002), 5.  
15. Janet M. Martin, The Presidency and Women: Promise, Performance, and 
Illusion (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003), 57-86. The committee 
was headed by labor lobbyist Esther Peterson, director of the Women?s Bureau, and 
chaired by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Both Peterson and Roosevelt opposed the 
Equal Rights Amendment in favor of protective legislation for women workers. So, not 
surprisingly, the Commission?s report did not voice support for the ERA, but did call for 
a number of legislative reforms. 
16. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 43. 
17. Carl M. Degler, At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the 
Revolution to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 441-2.   
18. Martin, The Presidency and Women, 71-3. 
19. Miriam Schneir, Feminism in Our Time: The Essential Writings, World War II 
to the Present (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 71-5.
354
20. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 229; Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s 
Movement, 44. 
21. William H. Chafe, The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th 
Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 195.  
22. Juliet Mitchell, Woman?s Estate (New York: Penguin, 1971), 52. 
23. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 15-32. Friedan labeled this ?the problem that 
has no name.?    
24. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 43. 
25. Chafe, The Paradox of Change, 197. 
26. Freeman, The Politics of Women?s Liberation, 59-61.
27. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 63.  ?Reformist? women 
included liberal feminists, like the members of NOW.   
28. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 55. Space does not allow for a 
thorough discussion of the various strands of radical feminism. For more, see Ryan and 
other sources listed in this section.
29. Books like Kate Millett?s Sexual Politics, Shumamith Firestone?s The 
Dialectic of Sex, and Robin Morgan?s Sisterhood is Powerful, all published in 1970, 
outlined the arguments of radical feminists.   
30. Ethel Klein, Gender Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 
24-6; Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 56-8. 
31. Chafe, The Paradox of Change, 207; Bonnie J. Dow, Prime-Time Feminism: 
Television, Media Culture, and the Women?s Movement Since 1970 (Philadelphia: 
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), 64. For more on consciousness raising, see 
355
Freeman, The Politics of Women?s Liberation, 85-6, 103-46; Klein, Gender Politics, 2; 
and Anita Shreve, Women Together, Women Alone: The Legacy of the Consciousness-
Raising Movement (New York: Viking, 1989).    
32. Freedman, No Turning Back, 327. 
33. Dow, Prime-Time Feminism, 29.   
34. For more on the founding of the National Women?s Political Caucus, see 
Bella Abzug and Mim Kelber, The Gender Gap: Bella Abzug?s Guide to Political Power 
for American Women (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), 21-52. 
35. Dow, Prime-Time Feminism, 29. Both Friedan and Steinem worked as 
journalists, making them well aware of the media?s reliance on official spokespersons, 
while Abzug, through her work on Capitol Hill, dealt with the media on a regular basis. 
36. Chafe, The Paradox of Change, 201.  
37. Chafe, The Paradox of Change, 203.
38. Klein, Gender Politics, 1; Winifred D. Wandersee, On the Move: American 
Women in the 1970s (Boston: Twayne, 1988), 43. 
39 Bonnie J. Dow, ?Fixing Feminism: Women?s Liberation and the Rhetoric of 
Television Documentary,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 55-6. Dow notes that 
?there is consensus among historians and media critics that 1970 was the year of the 
?grand press blitz? of women?s liberation.?
40 Wandersee, On the Move, 182.
41. Susan J. Douglas, Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female With the Mass 
Media (New York: Times Books, 1995), 166; Klein, Gender Politics, 24. 
42. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 236-7. 
356
43. Wandersee, On the Move, 182. 
44. Klein, Gender Politics, 22. 
45. Klein, Gender Politics, 25. 
46. Degler, At Odds, 448. 
47. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 73.
48. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 233. Within a few months, Stop ERA had 
several-thousand members representing 26 states. In 1975, Schlafly established a second 
organization, The Eagle Forum, which also focused most of its energy on defeating the 
ERA. One of the keys to Schlafly?s success was her use of organization newsletters, 
distributed not only to members but to the media as well, that provided a forum where her 
arguments regarding the ERA could appear unchallenged. 
49. Wandersee, On the Move, 180. 
50. Degler, At Odds, 447.  
51. Wandersee, On the Move, 181-2. 
52. Chafe, The Paradox of Change, 203. Liberal feminists argued that sex and 
gender should be discounted in matters such as employment, education, and the law.  
53. Degler, At Odds, 447.  
54. Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women
(New York: Anchor Books, 1991), xviii-xx. For more on Stop-ERA, see Martha 
Soloman, ?The Positive Woman?s Journey: A Mythical Analysis of the Rhetoric of STOP 
ERA,? Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (1979): 345-57. 
55. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 233. 
56. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 223. 
357
57. Freedman, No Turning Back, 327. 
58. Chafe, The Paradox of Change, 211. 
59. ?The Power of a Woman,? Ladies? Home Journal, September 1969, 93. 
60. ?Women of the Year 1976,? Ladies? Home Journal, May 1976, 73. 
61. Chafe, The Paradox of Change , 223.  
62. Margaret Mead, ?Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson: A New Kind of First Lady?? 
Good Housekeeping, July 1965, 12.  
63. Ruth Montgomery, ?What Kind of Woman Is Our New First Lady?,? Good 
Housekeeping, March 1964, 32.  Another profile noted that Johnson ?sees no conflict 
between her public activities and her private role as a devoted wife and mother? (?Our 
First 90 Days in the White House,? Good Housekeeping, May 1964, 152). 
64. Christine Sadler, ?Our Very Busy First Lady,? McCall?s, March 1964, 189.  
65. ?Mrs. Johnson Cites Women?s Challenges,? New York Times, 4 June 1964, 
27.  Similarly, Johnson told graduates at Texas Woman?s University, ??Your horizons are 
not finite. You were born at the right time. It is a good time to be a woman.  It is a good 
time to be alive?? (Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson Gets Doctorate; Tells Students of 
Opportunities,? New York Times, 1 April 1964, 25). 
66. Mead, ?Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson: A New Kind of First Lady?,? 20. 
67. Montgomery, ?What Kind of Woman is Our New First Lady?,? 32. 
68. William V. Shannon, ?The Other Carter in the Running,? New York Times, 15 
September 1976, 45. 
69. Elizabeth Janeway, ?The First Lady: A Professional At Getting Things Done,? 
Ladies? Home Journal, April 1964, 64. 
358
70. Wayne King. ?Rosalynn Carter, a Tough, Tireless Campaigner, Displays 
Same Driving Quality as Her Husband,? New York Times, 18 October 1976, 33; Judy 
Klemesrud, ?For Mrs. Carter, a Rest at Last,? New York Times, 11 June 1976, 1; Myra 
MacPherson, ?First Families,? Washington Post, 20 January 1977, 15.  
71. Kandy Stroud, ?Rosalynn?s Agenda in the White House,? New York Times 
Magazine, 20 March 1977, 20. 
72. Stroud, ?Rosalynn?s Agenda in the White House,? 63.  
73. Myra MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? McCall?s, September 
1975, 120. 
74. MacPherson, ?First Families,? 15.  
75. ?Women of the Year 1976,? 74. 
76. Wandersee, On the Move, 157. 
77. Jean Libman Block, ?The Pat Nixon I Know,? Good Housekeeping, July 
1973, 126. 
78. Susanna McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? McCall?s, 
September 1970, 140.   
79. Elaine Taylor May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War 
Era (New York: Basic Books, 1999), 201. 
80. Lenore Hershey, ?The ?New? Pat Nixon,? Ladies? Home Journal, February 
1972, 125.  
81. Flora Rheta Schreiber, ?Pat Nixon Reveals For the First Time: ?I Didn?t Want 
Dick to Run Again,?? Good Housekeeping, July 1968, 62. 
359
82. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 165. Douglas argues that ?by treating the 
women?s liberation movement as a big story, the news media also brought millions of 
converts to feminism, even if the version many women came to embrace was a shriveled 
compromise of what others had hoped was possible.? The same can be said about stories 
that positioned first ladies as embodiments of feminist ideals.   
83. Robert P. Watson, The President?s Wives: Reassessing the Office of First 
Lady (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), 56. 
84. Gutin, The President?s Partner, 72. According to Gutin, ?political surrogates 
and independent advocates? like Johnson, Ford, and Carter ?had a strong base from 
which to launch their own attempts to educate, to improve, and to influence.? 
85. Louchheim, ?The Spotlight Shifts in Washington,? 56. 
86. Mead, ?A New Kind of First Lady?,? 12. 
87. John Herbers, ?Mrs. Ford Tells News Parley She?s Busy and Happy,? New 
York Times, 5 September 1974, 25. 
88. ?Mrs. Carter Planning Active Role in Capitol,? New York Times, 18 
November 1976, 26. 
89. Barbara Gamarekian, ?A Spokesman Who?s ?a Worrywort,?? New York
Times, 3 February 1977, 50. 
90. McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? 140. 
91. McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? 144. 
92. Robert P. Watson, ?Introduction,? in The Presidential Companion: Readings 
on the First Ladies, eds. Robert P. Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz (Columbia: 
University of South Carolina Press, 2003), 9. 
360
93. ?Our First 90 Days in the White House,? 150, 152.
94. Sadler, ?Our Very Busy First Lady,? 79. 
95. ?Mrs. Johnson Explains Her Role as a Leveler,? Washington Post, 23 August 
1964, 82. 
96. Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson Holds the Bible for the Oath-Taking,? New 
York Times, 21 January 1965, 16. 
97. Nan Robertson, ?Public Writing Many Letters to Mrs. Johnson,? New York 
Times, 1 March 1964, 54. The article noted that Johnson received 1500 to 2000 letters a 
week.
98. Wayne King. ?Rosalynn Carter, a Tough, Tireless Campaigner; Displays 
Same Driving Quality as Her Husband,? New York Times, 18 October 1976, 33. 
99. Klemesrud, ?For Mrs. Carter, a Rest at Last,? 1. 
100. Trude B. Feldman, ?Rosalynn Carter at 50,? McCall?s, August 1977, 126. 
101. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 124.  
102. Trude B. Feldman, ?Our Private Life in the White House,? Ladies? Home 
Journal, October 1976, 84. 
103. Feldman, ?Our Private Life in the White House,? 86. 
104. In August 1964, Johnson made a four-day swing through Montana, Utah, and 
Wyoming, where ?all of the governors are conservative Republicans and the state 
legislatures are solidly G.O.P.? (Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson Sets a Campaign Tone,? 
New York Times, 19 August 1964, 20). In September, she traveled to Ohio, a key state, to 
?nail down votes for the President,? meeting factory workers in Akron (Nan Robertson, 
?Mrs. Johnson?s Akron Visit Opens Campaign Trip,? New York Times, 20) and speaking 
361
to a group of Democratic Women in Columbus, where she ?delivered the most partisan 
speech of her White House career in a Republican City? (Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson, 
in Ohio Bastion of G.O.P., Praises Her Party? New York Times, 19 September 1964, 14).  
Later in the campaign, she stumped in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, 
Indiana, Kentucky, and Virginia (?Four Day Trip Planned by Mrs. Johnson,? Washington 
Post, 23 October 1964, 28.     
105. Nan Robertson, ?First Lady Starts Solo Swing Through the South 
Tomorrow,? New York Times, 5 October 1964, 26. The train carried the Southern first 
lady and 225 members of the press 1,682 miles, much of it ?through enemy territory? 
(Claude Sitton, ?Mrs. Johnson?s Southern Trip Spurs New Support,? New York Times, 11 
October 1964, 72). 
106. Carpenter, Ruffles and Flourishes, 144.
107. Carpenter, Ruffles and Flourishes, 145, 154; Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson 
Ends 8-State Rail Tour of the South,? New York Times, 10 October 1964, 15.
108. Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson Ends 8-State Rail Tour of the South,? 15. 
109. Sitton, ?Mrs. Johnson?s Southern Trip Spurs New Support,? 72. 
110. Robertston, ?Mrs. Johnson Ends 8-State Rail Tour of the South,? 15.
111. King, ?Rosalynn Carter, a Tough, Tireless Campaigner,? 33.
112. Klemesrud, ?For Mrs. Carter, a Rest at Last,? 1. 
113. King, ?Rosalynn Carter, a Tough, Tireless Campaigner,? 33; Klemesrud, 
?For Mrs. Carter, a Rest at Last,? 1.  
114. Feldman, ?Rosalynn Carter at 50,? 198. 
362
115. Megan Rosenfeld, ?Candidates? Wives Carry Share of Load; Not Mere 
Symbols, They Have Their Own Charisma,? Washington Post, 10 June 1977, C1. 
116. ?Mrs. Ford to Seek Votes in Minnesota for Husband,? Washington Post, 22 
June 1976, 26. 
117. ?Transcripts of the Statements of the President and Mrs. Ford and Carter,? 
New York Times, 4 November 1976, 23. 
118. Charlotte Curtis, ?Pat Nixon: Creature Comforts Don?t Matter,? New York 
Times, 3 July 1968, 30.   
119. ?Mrs. Nixon Outlines Her Campaign Plans,? New York Times, 16 August 
1968, 37. 
120. Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Nixon Plans a Tour for the G.O.P.,? New York Times, 
8 October 1968, 32. 
121. Sadler, ?Our Very Busy First Lady,? 188. 
122. Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson Cheered in ?Poverty Pocket? Coal Towns,? 
New York Times, 12 January 1964, 1. 
123. Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson Cheered in ?Poverty Pocket? Coal Towns,? 1. 
124. ?Mrs. Johnson to Give Poverty Project Tea,? Washington Post, 14 February 
1965, 56; ?Mrs. Johnson Urges Help for Children,? New York Times, 20 February 1965, 
11.  She also presented diplomas to the first graduating class of Volunteers in Service to 
American (VISTA) and toured ?sites where they received on-the-job training? (?Mrs. 
Johnson to Address First ?Vista? Graduates,? New York Times, 17 February 1965, 46).  
363
125. She made her first trip as her husband?s representative to the inauguration of 
Mexico?s new president, over a month before officially becoming first lady (?Mrs. Carter 
in Mexico for Inauguration,? New York Times, 1 December 1976, 14). 
126. The New York Times and Washington Post each carried 14 articles about 
Carter?s Latin American trip. 
127. Laura Foreman, ?Mrs. Carter Leaves on Latin Tour Today,? New York 
Times, 30 May 1977, 4. 
128. Linda Charlton, ?Mrs. Carter?s Model is Very Much Her Own: Mrs. F.D.R.,?
New York Times, 5 June 1977, 54.   
129. Susanna McBee, ?Mrs. Carter?s Trip Carefully Crafted to Make Policy 
Points,? Washington Post, 29 May 1977, 6. 
130. David Vidal, ?Ambassador Rosalynn Carter: First Lady Confounds the 
Skeptics and Makes a Striking Success of Her Latin American Tour,? New York Times, 
14 June 1977, 18. 
131. Watson, The Presidents? Wives, 93.  Watson uses the term ?pet project? to 
describe first lady causes, noting: ?These projects provide a national voice for important 
issues and have been used as an instrument of positive media and public relations for 
both the first lady and the president.? 
132. MacPherson, ?First Families,? 15.
133. Carl Sferrazza Anthony, First Ladies: The Saga of the Presidents? Wives and 
Their Power, 1961-1990 (New York: Quill, 1991), 114. 
134. Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Johnson Leads Capital Tour,? New York Times, 10 
March 1965, 26. 
364
135. Anthony, First Ladies, 136. 
136. Lewis L. Gould, Lady Bird Johnson: Our Environmental First Lady
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999).
137. The first stories regarding Ford?s surgery ran on September 28, 1974, and 
received daily coverage for nearly two weeks, with follow-up coverage continuing 
throughout her time in the White House.   
138. ?Mrs. Ford?s Ordeal,? New York Times, 30 September 1974, 34. 
139. Betty Ford, ?I Feel Like I?ve Been Reborn,? McCall?s, February 1975, 142. 
140. ?Mrs. Ford Cheered by Her Mail; Her Rapid Recovery Continues,? New 
York Times, 4 October 1974, 16. See also Lillian Barney, ?Many More Women Seek 
Breast Cancer Exams, but Find Few Places to Go,? New York Times, 20 October 1974, 
118.  
141. Emanuel Perlmutter, ?Mrs. Ford Asks Drive for Cancer Diagnosis,? New 
York Times, 2 December 1976, 52. Ford reflects on her cancer surgery, and her advocacy 
efforts, in her memoir (Ford, The Times of My Life, 199- 207).   
142. James F. Clarity, ?Mrs. Carter, at a Hearing, Opposes Sending Mentally Ill to 
Institutions,? New York Times, 25 May 1977, 16; Marjorie Hunter, ?Mrs. Carter?s Mental 
Health Drive Has Tight Budget,? New York Times, 22 April 1977, 17. 
143. Nancy Hicks, ?Mrs. Carter Plans White House Conference on Aging,? New 
York Times, 16. Carter held a series of round-table discussions on the problems of aging, 
hearing from experts on issues including ?mandatory retirement, health care, housing, 
and nutritional needs? (Donnie Radcliffe, ?Rosalynn Carter Takes Up Cause of Nation?s 
22 Million Elderly,? Washington Post, 11 May 1977, 5). She used the information to 
365
advise her husband on Social Security reform and lobby congress to pass a series of 
legislation aimed at addressing the issues of the elderly (Carter, First Lady From Plains, 
268). 
144. Donnie Radcliffe, ?Mrs. Carter Begins Fulfilling Her Pledge; Launches 
Campaign to Aid Elderly, Mentally Disabled,? Washington Post, 19 April 1977, 10.   
145. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 122. According to Wandersee, 
Ford was ?warmly embraced? by the mainstream women?s liberation movement and 
?supported most of its political goals,? including the ERA and abortion rights 
(Wandersee, On the Move, 158). 
146. ?Women of the Year 1976,? 74.  The article called Ford ?a very special (and 
somewhat controversial) First Lady.?
147. ?Mrs. Ford Scored on Equality Plan: Letters Running 3 to 1 Against Her 
Lobbying Efforts,? New York Times, 21 February 1975, 32.   
148. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 124. 
149. Myra MacPherson, ?Indiana Ratifies ERA?With Rosalynn Carter?s Aid,? 
Washington Post, 19 January 1977, 1. Senator Townsend later denied that Carter 
?swayed? his vote, although he did admit to speaking with her (?Mrs. Carter Intervenes in 
Indiana E.R.A. Vote,? New York Times, 20 January 1977, 19).   
150. Paul G. Edwards, ?Rosalynn Carter Seeks Virginia Votes for ERA,? 
Washington Post, 29 January 1977, B1. 
151. ?Miss Hayes Guest of Mrs. Johnson: First Lady Starts a Series of Informal 
Luncheons,? New York Times, 17 January 1964, 22. The most notable, and newsworthy, 
luncheon was held in January 1968. The topic was crime, and singer Eartha Kitt was 
366
invited because of her participation in inner-city youth programs. At the luncheon, Kitt 
made a statement attacking the Johnsons for the escalating war in Vietnam. Johnson 
responded, recognizing Kitt?s comments but noting that there was still much that could be 
done to curb crime in the United States. The incident made the front pages (?Eartha Kitt 
Denounces War Policy to Mrs. Johnson,? New York Times, 19 January 1968, 1). For 
more, see Janet Mezzack, ??Without Manners You Are Nothing,?: Lady Bird Johnson, 
Eartha Kitt, and the Women Doers? Luncheon of January 18, 1968,? Presidential Studies 
Quarterly 20 (1990): 745-60.         
152. Donnie Radcliffe, ?A Different Kind of Tea,? Washington Post, 5 April 
1977, B2. Carter told reporters this was ??the kind of tea I like ? I feel like I learned 
something and I feel that she (Mrs. Sadat) learned, too.??   
153. Block, ?The Pat Nixon I Know,? 126. 
154. McPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 93. 
155. McPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 122.
156. Donnie Radcliffe, ?A Low-Key Debut Appearance by the First Lady,? 
Washington Post, 6 April 1977, D10. 
157. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 122. 
158. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 5. 
159. McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? 77. 
160. S. Paige Baty, American Monroe: The Making of a Body Politic (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1995), 59-60.
367
161. Similarly, the power of celebrity status ?operates as a way of providing 
distinctions and definitions of success? within a particular domain, like politics. When a 
celebrity?s ?strategies are successful, the achieved celebrity may acquire enduring iconic 
significance? [P. David Marshall, Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), x].   
162. Barbie Zelizer, ?Reading the Past Against the Grain: The Shape of Memory 
Studies,? Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12 (1995): 224. As Zelizer argues, 
?No single memory contains all we know, or could know, about any given event, 
personality, or issue. Rather, memories are often pieced together like a mosaic.?  
163. Mead, ?Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson: A New Kind of First Lady?,? 12.  
164. Jessamyn West, ?The Real Pat Nixon,? Good Housekeeping, February 1971, 
57. 
165. McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? 77. 
166. ?Our First 90 Days in the White House,? 152. 
167. Nan Robertson, ?Public Writing Many Letters to Mrs. Johnson,? New York 
Times, 1 March 1964, 54. 
168. Charlton, ?Mrs. Carter?s Model is Very Much Her Own: Mrs. F.D.R.,? 54. 
169. Charlton, ?Mrs. Carter?s Model is Very Much Her Own: Mrs. F.D.R.,? 54.  
170. Curtis, ?What Kind of First Lady Will She Be?,? 22. 
171. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 93.  
172. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 122. 
173. West, ?The Real Pat Nixon,? 124. 
174. Hershey, ?The ?New? Pat Nixon,? 125. 
368
175. Marshall, Celebrity and Power, ix. 
176. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person 
Career,? in Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst (College Station: 
Texas A&M University Press, 1996), 181. 
177. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 226. 
178. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 124. See also Judy Klemesrud, 
?Mrs. Ford Helps ?Remember the Ladies? of Revolutionary Era,? New York Times, 30 
June 1976, 77.   
179. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 120. 
180. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 124. Emphasis in original.  
181. ?Mrs. Ford Scored on Equality Plan: Letters Running 3 to 1 Against Her 
Lobbying Efforts,? 32. However, a later article noted that ?there was a dramatic 
turnaround? in the White House mail, ?Of some 10,000 letters, the majority favored the 
ERA? (MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 124).  
182. ?Mrs. Ford Scored on Equality Plan,? 32. In contrast, a supportive note 
stated, ??It is so nice to have a First Lady who is concerned about people and not just 
clothing or decorating or trees,?? an indirect attack on both Kennedy and Johnson. 
183. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 124. 
184. Candice Bergen, ?An Intimate Look at the Fords,? Ladies? Home Journal, 
May 1975, 75. 
185. ?Anti-ERA Protests Aimed at First Lady,? Washington Post, 5 February 
1977, B2. 
186. Stroud, ?Rosalynn?s Agenda in the White House,? 20. 
369
187. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 221-44.  Douglas devotes an entire chapter to 
?The ERA as Catfight.?
188. Anthony, First Ladies, 137. Unfortunately, the news coverage of her 
lobbying does not fall within the parameters of this study. However, Anthony reports that 
most of the press criticism took the form of political cartoons. Some stories reported 
criticism from congressmen like Bob Dole, who ?sarcastically suggested that ?Lady Bird? 
be substituted every time ?secretary of comment? appeared in the bill.?  
189. MacPherson, ?First Families,? 15.
190. Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind, 121.   
191. ?How Much Should a First Lady Say?,? McCall?s, February 1976, 49.
192. Feldman, ?Our Private Life in the White House,? 84. Similarly, a 1976 
article in McCall?s noted that ?the wives of presidents have never said much, especially 
on sensitive subjects. Then the warm, voluble and unintimidated Mrs. Gerald Ford let 
candor and plain talk out of the closet,? speaking her mind ?on some of the most 
significant social issues confronting women and their families, from the ERA to abortion, 
marijuana and premarital sex? (?How Much Should a First Lady Say?,? 49). 
193. Her complete response went into further detail regarding her reaction, 
although news reports often focused only on the shortened answer. An article in Ladies? 
Home Journal published her complete answer: ??Well, I wouldn?t be surprised.  I think 
she?s a perfectly normal human being like all young girls. If she wanted to continue, and I 
would certainly try to counsel and advise her on the subject, I?d want to know pretty 
much about the young man that she was planning to have the affair with; whether it was a 
worthwhile encounter or whether it was going to be one of those?she?s pretty young to 
370
start affairs?? (?Mrs. Ford and the Affair of the Daughter,? Ladies? Home Journal, 
November 1975, 118). 
194. MacPherson, ?First Families,? 15. 
195. ?Mrs. Ford and the Affair of the Daughter,? 118, 154. Not surprisingly, 
Friedan praised Ford?s comments, stating, ?[y]our sensitivity and strength are going to be 
a wonderful boost for millions of mothers and daughters and American women 
generally,? while Schlafly attacked Ford, asserting that ?it is no justification for Mrs. 
Ford to say her daughter is a ?big girl? and ?a normal human being.? To approve sin 
because other people are doing it was the moral sickness of Watergate.?? 
196. ?How Much Should a First Lady Say?,? 49. 
197. MacPherson, ?The Blooming of Betty Ford,? 124. She told McPherson: ??I 
feel it is the right of a human being to make her own decision. . . . If one suspects a 
pregnancy, she should go immediately to her doctor. If she doesn?t want to have a child, 
it should be taken care of under supervision, the sooner the better.??  
198. Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind, 80. Jamieson explains, ?Just as public 
speech by a woman invited references about promiscuity, so too her silence testified to 
her modesty.?    
199. Stroud, ?Rosalynn?s Agenda in the White House,? 58. 
200. Greenfield, ?Mrs. President,? 17. 
201. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 4. 
202. ?Rosalynn Carter Elected,? New York Times, 15 June 1977, 20. 
203. Meg Greenfield, ?Mrs. President,? Washington Post, 15 June 1977, 17.  
Reprinted from Newsweek. 
371
204. Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind, 121. Jamieson describes this situation as 
the femininity/competency bind, ?The words commonly associated with the 
femininity/competence bind are ?too? and ?not . . . enough.? The evaluated woman has 
deviated from the female norm of femininity while falling short of the masculine norm of 
competence.? 
205. McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? 140. 
206. Black, ?The Pat Nixon I Know,? 126. Stroud referred to Nixon as ?Plastic 
Pat? in a Women?s Wear Daily article.  
207. McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? 138. 
208. McBee, ?Pat Nixon and the First Lady Watchers,? 77.
209. Nan Robertson, ?Mrs. Nixon, on 7-State Tour, Shuns Politics,? New York 
Times, 23 September 1972, 14. 
210. Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind, 120. 
211. MacPherson, ?First Families,? 15.  
212. MacPherson, ?First Families,? 15. 
213. Wandersee, On the Move, 162. 
214. Bruce E. Gronbeck, ?The Rhetorics of the Past: History, Argument, and 
Collective Memory,? Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases, ed. Kathleen J. 
Turner (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998), 57. Gronbeck argues that 
current interpreters have the power to reshape past events to make sense of the present. 
215. Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, trans. and ed. Lewis A. Coser 
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 172. 
216. Schudson, Discovering the News, 163. 
372
217. David Weaver, ?Women as Journalists,? in Women, Media, and Politics, ed. 
Pippa Norris (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 38-9. 
218. MacPherson, ?First Families,? 15. 
Chapter Five Notes
1. Jan Jarboe Russell, ?Not Queen, Not Prisoner?Just the President?s Wife,? New 
York Times, 30 August 2000, 23. 
2. Gil Troy, Mr. and Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons 
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000), 392. 
3. First lady scholarship blossomed during this era, resulting in numerous books 
and articles about the first lady of this period. Thus, the following lists are not exhaustive, 
but include sources that were of particular interest to this study. For more on Nancy 
Reagan, see: James G. Benze, Jr. ?Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady,? 
Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 777-822; Karen O?Connor, Bernadette Nye, 
and Laura Van Assendelft, ?Wives in the White House: The Political Influence of First 
Ladies,? Presidential Studies Quarterly 26 (1996): 835-51; Erica Scharrer and Kim 
Bissell, ?Overcoming Traditional Boundaries: The Role of Political Activity in Media 
Coverage of First Ladies,? Women and Politics 21 (2000): 55-83; Nancy Reagan with 
William Novak, My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan (New York: Random House, 
1989).  
4. The following sources on Barbara Bush are recommended: Barbara Bush, 
Barbara Bush: A Memoir (New York: St. Martin?s Paperbacks, 1994); O?Connor, Nye, 
and Van Assendelft, ?Wives in the White House: The Political Influence of First Ladies,? 
835-51; Scharrer and Bissell, ?Overcoming Traditional Boundaries: The Role of Political 
373
Activity in Media Coverage of First Ladies,? 55-83; Liz Watts,  ?Magazine Coverage of 
First Ladies from Hoover to Clinton:  From Election Through the First One-Hundred 
Days of Office,? American Journalism 14 (1997): 495-519.
5. Clinton has been one of the most written-about first ladies. The following 
works are suggested: Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, ?The Discursive Performance of 
Femininity: Hating Hillary,? Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 (1998): 1-19; Jeffrey E. 
Cohen, ?The Polls: Public Favorability Toward the First Lady, 1993-1999,? Presidential 
Studies Quarterly 30 (2000): 575-85; Janis L. Edwards and Huey-Rong Chen, ?The First 
Lady/First Wife in Editorial Cartoons: Rhetorical Visions Through Gendered Lenses,? 
Women?s Studies in Communication 23 (2000): 367-91; Sandra Goodall, 
?De/Reconstructing Hillary: From the Retro Ashes of the Donna Reed Fantasy to a ?90s 
View of Women and Politics,? in Bill Clinton on Stump, State, and Stage, ed. Stephen A. 
Smith (Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1994); Janette Kenner Muir and 
Lisa M. Benitez, ?Redefining the Role of the First Lady: The Rhetorical Style of Hillary 
Rodham Clinton,? in The Clinton Presidency: Images, Issues, and Communication 
Strategies, eds. Robert E. Denton Jr. and Rachel L. Holloway (Westport, CT: Praeger, 
1996); O?Connor, Nye, and Van Assendelft, ?Wives in the White House: The Political
Influence of First Ladies,? 835-51; Shawn J. Parry-Giles, ?Mediating Hillary Rodham 
Clinton: Television News Practices and Image-Making in the Postmodern Age,? Critical 
Studies in Media Communication 17 (2000): 205-26; Scharrer and Bissell, ?Overcoming 
Traditional Boundaries: The Role of Political Activity in Media Coverage of First 
Ladies,? 55-83; Dean Keith Simonton, ?Presidents? Wives and First Ladies: On 
Achieving Eminence Within a Traditional Gender Role,? Sex Roles 35 (1996): 309-26; 
374
Charlotte Templin, ?Hillary Clinton as Threat to Gender Norms: Cartoon Images of the 
First Lady,? Journal of Communication Inquiry 23 (1999): 20-36; Betty Houchin 
Winfield, ??Madam President??Understanding a New Kind of First Lady,? Media 
Studies Journal 8 (1994): 59; Betty Houchin Winfield, ?The Making of an Image: Hillary 
Rodham Clinton and American Journalists,? Political Communication 14 (1997): 243; 
Betty Houchin Winfield, ?The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media: Who Elected 
Her Anyway??  Women, Media, and Politics, ed. Pippa Norris (New York: Oxford 
University Press, 1997). 
6. A few books have been written thus far about Laura Bush.  See Christopher 
Anderson, George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage (New York: William 
Morrow, 2002); Antonia Felix, America?s First Lady, First Mother (New York: Adams 
Media Corporation, 2002); Ann Gerhart, The Perfect Wife: The Life and Choices of 
Laura Bush (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004).  
7. Gail Collins, America?s Women: Four Hundred Years of Dolls, Drudges, 
Helpmates, and Heroines (New York: William Morrow, 2003), 448. 
8. Barbara Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement: Dynamics of Change in 
Social Movement Ideology and Activism (New York: Routledge, 1992), 54-5. For more 
on liberal, radical, and socialist feminism, see: Jo Freeman, The Politics of Women?s 
Liberation (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1975); Robin Morgan, ed., 
Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings From the Women?s Liberation 
Movement (New York: Vintage Books, 1970); Miriam Schneir, ed., Feminism in Our 
Time: The Essential Writings, World War II to the Present (New York: Vintage Books, 
375
1994); Winifred D. Wandersee, On the Move: American Women in the 1970s (Boston: 
Twayne Publishers, 1988).         
9. Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New 
York: Doubleday, 1991), xix, 48-55. 
10. Faludi, Backlash, 50; Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American 
Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1990), 201.   
11. May, Homeward Bound, 201.   
12. Ryan, Feminism and the Women?s Movement, 103. 
13. Mary Douglas Vavrus, Postfeminist News: Political Women in Media Culture
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), 16. Vavrus states that the New 
Right also ?reframed issues and even dismantled policies that second-wave feminists had 
fought to create and manage.?   
14. Faludi, Backlash, xviii. 
15. Judith Stacey, ?Sexism by a Subtler Name?  Postindustrial Conditions and 
Postfeminist Consciousness in the Silicon Valley,? Socialist Review 17 (1987): 8. Vavrus 
makes a similar point, noting that for the media, ?feminism has become a scapegoat 
social movement?a straw figure easy to attack because it has been constructed as so 
extreme and counterproductive to women?s lives as to be laughable? [in ?Putting Ally on 
Trial: Contesting Postfeminism in Popular Culture,? Women?s Studies in Communication
23 (2000): 415]. 
16. Bonnie J. Dow, Prime-Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the 
Women?s Movement Since 1970 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), 
87. 
376
17. Postfeminism is sometimes conflated with ?third wave feminism? by 
journalists, particularly when the term is used to discuss young women?s views on the 
ideals of second wave feminism. However, the two words are not synonymous. ?Third 
wave? is often used to refer to ?women who were reared in the wake of the women?s 
liberation movement of the seventies? [Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, 
Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future (New York: Farrar, Straus and 
Giroux, 2000), 13]. Other scholars see third wave feminism as the championing of 
difference as well as the increasing feminist activity around the world [see Robin 
Morgan, ed., Sisterhood is Global: The International Women?s Movement Anthology
(Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1984)]. Because the women being covered fall into the 
baby boomer category, not Generation X, I will use the term postfeminist in reference to 
the media?s characterization of the general social attitude regarding feminism and will not 
conflate it with ?third wave feminism.? 
18. Beth E. Schneider, ?Political Generations and the Contemporary Women?s 
Movement,? Sociological Inquiry 58 (1988): 10. Several scholars discuss the news 
media?s pronouncement of the ?death? of feminism, including: Baumgardner and 
Richards, Manifesta; Dow, Prime-Time Feminism; Susan Faludi, Backlash; and Stacey, 
?Sexism by a Subtler Name.? 
19. Stacey, ?Sexism by a Subtler Name?,? 8. Stacey notes that many feminists 
find the term ?postfeminist? offensive because they believe the media employ the term 
simply ?to give sexism a subtler name,? which was the conclusion offered by Geneva 
Overholser in a New York Times editorial titled, ?What ?Post-Feminism? Really Means? 
(19 September 1986, p. 30).     
377
20. Vavrus, Postfeminist News, 23.
21. Rayna Rapp, ?Is the Legacy of Second-Wave Feminism Postfeminism?,? 
Socialist Review 18 (1987): 32. Emphasis appears in original.  
22. Robert Goldman, Deborah Heath and Sharon L. Smith, ?Commodity 
Feminism,? Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8 (1991): 333-51.   
23. Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale 
University Press, 1987), 172; Carolyn Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover: The 
Origins of Visual Stereotypes in American Mass Media (Chapel Hill: The University of 
North Carolina Press, 2001), 184. Cott states that, in the 1920s, the emerging consumer 
culture translated the rhetoric of feminism into the ?consumerist concept of choice? based 
on packaging the ?modern woman? into commodity form.    
24. Kitch, The Girl on the Magazine Cover, 184. 
25. Susan J. Douglas, Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female With the Mass 
Media (New York: Times Books, 1995), 270.
26. During the modern era, women like first ladies were expected to combine the 
virtues of true womanhood with the public concerns of new women and feminists.   
27. Faludi, Backlash, 77-8. 
28. William H. Chafe, The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th 
Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 223. 
29. Vavrus, Postfeminist News, 22. Similarly, a Time magazine cover story titled 
?Women Face the ?90s? in December 1989 claimed, ?In the ?80s they tried to have it all.  
Now they?ve just plain had it.  Is there a future for feminism?? (in Douglas, Where the 
Girls Are, 275).   
378
30. Dow, Prime-Time Feminism, 88. 
31. Vavrus, Postfeminist News, 17-9. See also Dow, Prime-Time Feminism, 94-5. 
32. Dow, Prime-Time Feminism, 88. Meanwhile, a new surge of ?maternal? or 
?difference? feminism, reminiscent of the expediency arguments of the first wave and the 
social feminists of the progressive era, emerged in the 1980s. Maternal feminism, as 
defined by Dow, is ?the idea that inherent qualities of womanhood (often linked to 
motherhood) should be valued for their positive application in the public sphere? (p. 
165). This ?new school of feminist thought? focused on a separate women?s culture and 
women?s ?special ?difference,?? reflecting true womanhood?s essentialism while 
rearticulating the republican motherhood and social feminist position that women, 
through their roles as wives and mothers and their inherent moral superiority to men, 
could improve public and political life. Just as in the past, arguments that tied women to 
their traditional roles as wives and mothers were used to help alleviate the stigma 
associated with feminism. Faludi claims, ?Under the backlash, proponents of women?s 
?difference? found that they were rewarded with approving critical and media attention? 
(Backlash, 327). However, difference arguments were also co-opted by conservatives as 
an abandonment of feminist ideals and ?proof? that women?s ?proper place? was in the 
domestic sphere (Faludi, Backlash, 331).
33. Faludi, Backlash, 56. 
34. Vavrus, Postfeminist News, 17. 
35. Faludi, Backlash, 93. 
36. Stacey, ?Sexism by a Subtler Name,? 11.  
379
37. Vavrus, ?Putting Ally on Trial: Contesting Postfeminism in Popular Culture,? 
415. 
38. Stacey, ?Sexism by a Subtler Name,? 24.
39. Meanwhile, reporters also recognized feminism?s role in phenomena such as 
the ?gender gap? of the 1980s and 1992?s so-called ?Year of the Woman.? According to 
Abzug, the ?gender gap? emerged in the 1980 elections and by 1982 was considered ?an 
alarming trend? by the Reagan White House in which ?women were voting differently 
than men, and they were voting against the President?s policies and candidates? [Bella 
Abzug with Mim Kelber, Gender Gap: Bella Abzug?s Guide to Political Power for 
American Women (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), 1]. The ?Year of the Woman? was 
widely referred to by the media ?to herald a purportedly pro-woman political climate.? 
According to Vavrus, the ?year? was actually a ?thirteen-month phenomenon from the 
time Anita Hill?s name appeared in public discourse (October 6, 1991) to the presidential 
election of 1993 (November 6), when Barbara Boxer, Carol Mosley-Braun, Dianne 
Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Lynn Yeakel ran for U.S. Senate Seats? (Vavrus, 
Postfeminist News, 5).            
40. May, Homeward Bound, 202. 
41. Lally Weymouth, ?The Biggest Role of Nancy?s Life,? New York Times 
Magazine, 26 October 1980, 45.  
42. Weymouth, ?The Biggest Role of Nancy?s Life,? 45. 
43. Enid Nemy, ?Words From Friends: A New White House Style Is On the 
Way,? New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1980, 80. 
380
44. Bush?s status as a ?grandmother? was mentioned in almost every story written 
about her. The following are just a sample from 1992 that use the phrase ?grandmotherly 
image?: Diana McLellan, ?Barbara Bush,? Ladies? Home Journal, October 1992, 192; 
Donnie Radcliffe, ?Granny Get Your Gun: The Other Mrs. Bush,? Washington Post, 19 
August 1992, B1; Alessandra Stanley, ?Barbara Bush: the un-Secret Weapon,? New York 
Times, 19 August 1992, A15; Charles Strum, ?Barbara Bush: Bush?s ?Secret Weapon? 
Enters New Jersey Battle,? New York Times, 22 October 1992, A21.    
45. Alessandra Stanley, ?Republicans Present Marilyn as a Self-Sacrificing 90s 
Supermom,? New York Times, 18 August 1992, A7.  
46. Alessandra Stanley, ?First Lady on Abortion: Not a Platform Issue,? New 
York Times, 14 August 1992, A1. 
47. Cindy Adams, ?Talking With the Next First Lady,? Ladies? Home Journal, 
October 1988, 154.  
48. Donnie Radcliffe, ?Barbara Bush: Unassuming, Underestimated, Stumping for 
the Veep,? Washington Post, 5 June 1988, F1.
49. Weymouth, ?The Biggest Role of Nancy?s Life,? 45.  
50. ?Nancy Reagan Face-Off,? Ladies? Home Journal, October 1980, 111. 
Reagan?s comments were reminiscent of those made by Pat Nixon made a decade earlier.  
Nixon was quoted as saying, ??I am for women.  I am for equal rights and equal pay for 
equal work.  But I don?t believe in parades and things like that . . . . I don?t think women 
gain anything when they use loud techniques. The smarter thing would be to work 
quietly, to write your Congressman. And above all, to be qualified?? (Lenore Hershey, 
?The ?New? Pat Nixon,? Ladies? Home Journal, February 1972, 125).     
381
51. Sharon Olsen, ?George and Barbara: A Sense of Sharing,? McCall?s, 
September 1988, 84.  
52. Bernard Weinraub, ??Barbara Bush Links Her Weight to Thyroid Condition,? 
New York Times, 30 March 1989, A17. 
53. Frank Rich, ?Whose Hillary?,? New York Times Magazine, 13 June 1993, 70.  
See also: Felicity Barringer, ?From Lawyer to Mother; Now, Both of the Above,? New 
York Times, 30 October 1992, A18.  
54. Felicity Barringer, ?Hillary Clinton?s New Role: The Description is Wide 
Open,? New York Times, 16 November 1992, A1.  
55. Felicity Barringer, ?The White House Office That Isn?t There? New York 
Times, 6 December 1992, 4:1.  
56. Sally Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary Clinton?  The Candidates? Wife is 
the Very Model of the Modern Working Woman,? Washington Post, 9 August 1992, C1. 
57. Catherine Breslin, ?Hillary Clinton,? Ladies? Home Journal, October 1992, 
190. 
58. Robin Toner, ?Hillary Clinton is Back!  Details Inside,? New York Times, 7 
May 1993, A18. 
59. Steven R. Weisman, ?St. Hillary?s Homecoming,? New York Times, 28 
August 1996, A18. 
60. Chafe says that the ?pro-family, anti-ERA coalition powerfully evoked themes 
of religiosity and patriotism. Feminists were associated with secular humanism, an anti-
religious force that placed human beings ahead of God and the selfish individual ahead of 
society? (Chafe, The Paradox of Change, 217). 
382
61. Susan Faludi, ?The Power Laugh,? New York Times, 20 December 1992, 4:13. 
62. Amy E. Schwartz, ??Good Girls, Bad Girls,?; Pitting Women Against Each 
Other in a Family Values Farce,? Washington Post, 5 September 1992, A29. 
63. Stanley, ?Republicans Present Marilyn as a Self-Sacrificing 90s Supermom,? 
A7. 
64. Alessandra Stanley, ??Family Values? and Women: Is G.O.P. a House 
Divided?,? New York Times, 21 August 1992, A1. 
65. Lloyd Grove, ?The Woman With a Ticket to Ride; Hillary Clinton?s New 
Image: Fresh From the Oven,? Washington Post, 16 July 1992, C1; Howard Kurtz, 
?Portraits of a First Lady: Media Strive to Define Hillary Clinton,? Washington Post , 21 
November 1992, A1. 
66. Tamar Lewin, ?Legal Scholars See Distortion in Attacks on Hillary Clinton,? 
New York Times, 24 August 1992, A1. 
67. Stanley, ?Republicans Present Marilyn as a Self-Sacrificing 90s Supermom,? 
A7. 
68. Marjorie Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper 
Gore,? Washington Post Magazine, 1 November 1992, 11.  
69. ?A Word From the Wives,? New York Times, 21 August 1992, A24. 
70. Elizabeth Kolbert, ?On TV, a Victory in Family Numbers,? New York Times, 
21 August 1992, A12. 
71. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 11.   
72. Frank Bruni, ?Quiet Strength: For Laura Bush, a Direction She Never Wished 
to Go In,? New York Times, 31 July 2000, A1.   
383
73. Lois Romano, ?First Lady Puts Privacy First; Reluctant Star Likely to Set Her 
Own Terms,? Washington Post, 20 January 2001, A16. 
74. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 11.    
75. Winfield defines ?traditional roles? as that of escort, hostess, and noblesse 
oblige, and positions of policy maker and political advisor as ?nontraditional roles? 
(Winfield, ?The Making of an Image: Hillary Rodham Clinton and American 
Journalists,? 243). As discussed in the last chapter, Myra Gutin considers ?independent 
advocate? to be a nontraditional role as well [Myra G. Gutin, The President?s Partner: 
The First Lady in the Twentieth Century (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988].   
76. Maureen Dowd, ?First Lady Celebrated on ?a Great Day,?? New York Times, 
23 August 1984, A24. 
77. John Corry, ?Special Looks at Nancy Reagan and Her Power,? New York 
Times, 24 June 1985, C14. 
78. Beth Weinhouse, ?Nancy Reagan: Traditional First Lady,? Ladies? Home 
Journal, May 1985, 138. 
79. Charlotte Curtis, ?A Private Talk With Nancy Reagan,? Ladies? Home 
Journal, June 1981, 132. 
80. Bernard Weinraub, ?A Down-to-Earth Tenant for an Exclusive Address,? New 
York Times, 15 January 1989, 1.   
81. Donnie Radcliffe, ?Vintage Barbara,? Washington Post, 20 January 1989, 34. 
82. Ann Gerhart, ?Learning to Read Laura Bush: The First Lady?s Quietude 
Masks a Passionate Interest in Ideas,? Washington Post, 22 March 2001, C1.    
384
83. Alison Mitchell, ?The Governor?s Wife: A Political Wallflower Has Full 
Dance Card,? New York Times, 21 September 2000, A25.   
84. Bruni, ?Quiet Strength,? A1. Another article noted that Laura Bush was 
recognized for being ?one of the few people able to temper her sometimes brash 
husband? (Romano, ?First Lady Puts Privacy First,? A16).  
85. Lois Romano, ?Bushes Planning to Hit Campaign Trail Together,? 
Washington Post, 4 August 2000, A16. 
86. Steven R. Weisman, ?Nancy Reagan?s Role Grows,? New York Times, 11 
November 1984, 2. See also: Maureen Dowd, ?A More Relaxed Nancy Reagan Tours the 
South,? New York Times, 14 October 1984, 28; Donnie Radcliffe, ??There Aren?t Any 
Secrets Between Us,?? Washington Post, 22 August 1984, B1; Bernard Weinraub, ?The 
Washingtonization of Nancy Reagan,? New York Times, 26 March 1985, A20.  
87. Donnie Radcliffe, ?Nancy Reagan: ?Vicious and Cruel? Carter Tactics Prompt 
Rare Outburst of Anger,? Washington Post, 23 October 1980, D1. 
88. Bernard Weinraub, ?Mrs. Reagan, in Campaign Ad, Assails Statements by 
Carter on Her Husband,? New York Times, 26 October 1980, 41. See also Dudley 
Clendinen, ?What a Woman Endures For Her Candidate,? New York Times, 23 October 
1980, B12.  
89. Weisman, ?Nancy Reagan?s Role Grows,? 2. 
90. Maureen Dowd, ?Washington Talk; Politics,? New York Times, 19 June 1989, 
B8. 
91. Alison Cook, ?At Home With Barbara Bush,? Ladies? Home Journal, March 
1990, 230. 
385
92. For more on Eisenhower as protector, see Chapter Three and the following 
articles: Laurie Johnston, ??Policeman for Ike? is Wife?s Idea of Her Principal Role in 
Public Life,? New York Times, 3 September 1952, 23; ?Mrs. Eisenhower a Mystery Fan,? 
New York Times, 9 November 1952, 64.  
93. Fears regarding the ?hidden power? of first emerged in press criticism of the 
political activists of the prior period, but stories using such framing increased during this 
period. Both Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kati Marton discuss the fears surrounding the 
?hidden power? of first ladies. See Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person 
Career,? in Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. Martin J. Medhurst (College Station: 
Texas A&M University Press, 1996), 181-88; and Marton, Hidden Power: Presidential 
Marriages That Shaped Our Recent History (New York: Pantheon Books, 2001), 3-11.  
94. Radcliffe, ??There Aren?t Any Secrets Between Us,?? B1; Donnie Radcliffe, 
?The Influential Nancy Reagan; Time Looks at Her Impact, Image, and the Great Birth-
Date Issue,? Washington Post, 7 January 1985, D1. 
95. Weymouth, ?The Biggest Role of Nancy?s Life,? 45. See also: Radcliffe, 
??There Aren?t Any Secrets Between Us,?? B1. 
96. Weinraub, ?The Washingtonization of Nancy Reagan,? A20.  
97. While on vacation in August of 1984, Reagan was asked by reporters about 
the collapse of ?Star Wars? talks with the Soviets. According to the New York Times
account, ?At his side, murmuring through the fixed smile that seems required of 
American political spouses, Mrs. Reagan was overheard prompting him: ?We?re doing 
everything we can.? Instantly, he echoed: ?We?re doing everything we can?? (Francis X. 
Clines, ?Avoiding Discouraging Words at the Ranch,? New York Times, 5 August 1984, 
386
E3). Reagan claimed that she ?did not prompt? her husband?s response but was ?simply 
talking to herself.? She told reporters, ??I was so surprised that Ronnie heard me.  I was 
really talking low. I must have been on his good side or he had that gizmo turned up or 
whatever. But I wasn?t prompting him?? (?Nancy Reagan Denies Giving President Cue,? 
New York Times, 19 August 1984, 29). See also Radcliffe, ??There Aren?t Any Secrets 
Between Us,?? B1.     
98. Weymouth, ?The Biggest Role of Nancy?s Life,? 45.  See also ?Nancy 
Reagan Criticizes Aides to President,? New York Times, 13 November 1988, 1; Michael 
Wines, ?First Lady Hopes for Unglamorous Legacy,? New York Times, 15 January 1989, 
20.   
99. Radcliffe, ??There Aren?t Any Secrets Between Us,?? B1. 
100. Radcliffe, ?The Influential Nancy Reagan,? D1. 
101. ?Nancy Reagan Criticizes Aides to President,? 30. 
102. The notion of ?two-for-one? was mentioned in all of these stories: Gwen 
Ifill, ?Clinton Wants Wife at Cabinet Table,? New York Times, 19 December 1992, 8; 
Karen Lehrman, ?Beware the Cookie Monster,? New York Times, 18 July 1992, 23; 
Robert Pear, ?Settling in: First Lady Hillary Clinton Gets Policy Job and New Office,? 
New York Times, 22 January 1993, A1; Alessandra Stanley, ?A Softer Image for Hillary 
Clinton,? New York Times, 13 July 1992, B1; Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary 
Clinton?,? C1.   
103. The following stories bring up the ?co-president? issue: Peter Baker, ?First 
Lady Remains Vital Force in White House; Recognizing the Power of Her Voice and the 
Contours of Her Limitations,? Washington Post, 20 January 1997, A20; Kurtz, ?Portraits 
387
of a First Lady: Media Strive to Define Hillary Clinton,? A1; Judy Mann, ?Hillary 
Horton?,? Washington Post, 21 August 1992, E3; Mary McGrory, ?A Worthy Mission 
for Hillary,? Washington Post, 26 November 1992, A2; Quinn, ?Is America Ready for 
Hillary Clinton?,? C1.
104. Ifill, ?Clinton Wants Wife at Cabinet Table,? 8. Another New York Times
story noted in 1992 that ?neither she nor her husband is hiding her role as policy 
advocate? (Richard L. Berke, ?The Transition: The Other Clinton Helps Shape the 
Administration,? New York Times, 14 December 1992, B6). 
105. Gail Collins, ?The Age of the Smart Woman,? Ladies? Home Journal, April 
1993, 146. 
106. Mary McGrory, ?A Worthy Mission for Hillary,? Washington Post, 26 
November, A2.  
107. Ifill, ?Clinton Wants Wife at Cabinet Table,? 8. 
108. Stanley, ?A Softer Image for Hillary Clinton,? B1. 
109. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 
11. 
110. Barringer, ?Hillary Clinton?s New Role: The Description is Wide Open,? 
A1. 
111. Grove, ?The Woman With a Ticket to Ride; Hillary Clinton?s New Image: 
Fresh From the Oven,? C1.  
112. Thomas L. Friedman, ?Hillary Clinton to Head Panel on Health Care,? New 
York Times, 26 January 1993, A1. 
388
113. Pear, ?Settling in: First Lady Hillary Clinton Gets Policy Job and New 
Office,? A1. 
114. Michael Kelly, ?Hillary Clinton Visits Capitol in Vivid Display of Her 
Clout,? New York Times, 5 February 1993, A1. A later article, also by the Times, called 
another private briefing of Senate Democrats and Republicans ?remarkable? (Robin 
Toner, ?Hillary Clinton?s Bipartisan Pitch for Health Care,? New York Times, 1 May 
1993, A8). 
115. Blaine Harden, ?Finely Tailored Roles; Candidates? Wives Display Distinct 
Campaign Styles,? Washington Post, 1 October 1996, A1; David Maraniss, ?First Lady in 
Prime Time; Target For Criticism Recaptures Spotlight,? Washington Post, 27 August 
1996, A1.   
116. Baker, ?First Lady Remains Vital Force in White House,? A20. 
117. Diana McLellan, ?Barbara Bush,? Ladies? Home Journal, October 1992, 
192. 
118. Radcliffe, ?Barbara Bush: Unassuming, Underestimated, Stumping for the 
Veep,? F1. 
119. Romano, ?First Lady Puts Privacy First,? A16.   
120. Bruni, ?Quiet Strength,? A1.  
121. Marian Burros, ?Making the White House a Home,? New York Times, 23 
February 2001, A11. 
122. McLellan, ?Barbara Bush,? 192. 
123. Radcliffe, ?Granny Get Your Gun,? B1. 
389
124. Donnie Radcliffe, ?Barbara Bush?s Vow of Silence; Decision to Be Mum on 
Controversial Issues Announced in Tokyo,? Washington Post, 24 February 1989, C1. 
125. Stanley, ?First Lady on Abortion: Not a Platform Issue,? A1. 
126. Stanley, ?Barbara Bush, the un-Secret Weapon,? A15. Bush told reporters, 
??I?m through with abortion.  I?m not running for President.  George Bush is.?? 
127. Campbell, ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person Career,? 181.  
Emphasis in original. 
128. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 
11. 
129. Adams, ?Talking With the Next First Lady,? 154; Sarah Booth Conroy, ?The 
Benefit of Borrowing a Name,? Washington Post, 13 December 1992, F1. Winfield notes 
that noblesse oblige ?represents a natural extension of women?s volunteer work in the 
community? (Winfield, ?The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media,? 167).
130. David S. Broder, ?The Special Strengths of Barbara Bush,? Washington 
Post, 22 January 1989, D7.  
131. Sarah Booth Conroy, ?For Iona House, Mrs. Bush?s Name Means Magic,? 
Washington Post, 7 May 1989, F1. She regularly visited D.C. soup kitchens, shelters, and 
hospitals, earning her the title of ?First Volunteer? (see Donnie Radcliffe, ?The Volunteer 
First Lady: At Martha?s Table, Barbara Bush Sets an Example,? Washington Post, 1 
February 1989, D1; Donnie Radcliffe, ?Fitting Gifts From Mrs. Bush,? Washington Post, 
4 February 1989, G1; Lois Romano, ?Barbara Bush?s Healing Touch: Mrs. Bush at the 
Ronald McDonald House,? Washington Post, 13 May 1989, C2). 
132. Conroy, ?The Benefit of Borrowing a Name,? F1. 
390
133. Lois Romano, ?The Hug that Says it All; Barbara Bush Visits AIDS Infants,? 
Washington Post, 23 March 1989, D2. 
134. Barbara Gamarekian, ?Barbara Bush Announces Formation of Literacy 
Foundation,? New York Times, 7 March 1989, A16; William Raspberry, ?Barbara Bush?s 
Pet Project,? Washington Post, 11 March 1989, A23. She became involved with literacy 
because of her own experiences with her son, Neil, who was dyslexic. 
135. Ann Gerhart, ?The First Lady?s School Cheer; Mrs. Bush Stresses Need for 
Teachers,? Washington Post, 27 February 2001, C1.  The following articles also deal 
with Bush?s advocacy efforts: Darragh Johnson and Justin Blum, ?Living ?a Librarian?s 
Dream?: Laura Bush Spends Day Extolling Writers, Touting Reading,? Washington Post, 
20 January 2001, B1; Elaine Sciolino, ?Transition in Washington: The New First Lady; 
Laura Bush Honors Writers as the Audience Honors Her,? New York Times, 20 January, 
2001, A15; Linton Weeks, ?Laura Bush to Host National Books Festival,? Washington 
Post, 14 June 2001, C2. 
136. Radcliffe, ?Washington Wire,? C2. 
137. Chuck Conconi, ?Personalities,? Washington Post, 18 March 1985, D3. 
138. Sally Koslow, ?Hillary Rodham Clinton,? McCall?s, November 1996, 199.  
139. Victoria Falls, ?The Woman Behind the Mask; Away From Washington, 
Hillary Clinton Shows a Different Face,? Washington Post, 27 March 1997, B1.  
140. Falls, ?The Woman Behind the Mask; Away From Washington, Hillary 
Clinton Shows a Different Face,? B1.
141. Koslow, ?Hillary Rodham Clinton,? 148. Clinton addressed the United 
Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. She also visited several countries 
391
where she met with female leaders to discuss women?s issues. For examples, see Jane 
Perlez, ?Hillary Clinton Visits Romanian Children,? New York Times, 2 July 1996, A6; 
Jane Perlez, ?Hillary Clinton Encourages Polish Women to Push for Wider Rights,? New 
York Times, 4 July 1996, A3.  
142. James Bennet, ?Abortion-Rights Backers Win High-Level Support,? New 
York Times, 23 January 1997, A14; Peter Baker, ?Addressing a Conflict Raised by 
Families, Women?s Careers; Hillary Clinton Hosts Conference on Early Childhood 
Education,? Washington Post, 17 April 1997, A3; Peter Barker, ?Saying Her Views 
Haven?t Changed, First Lady Takes on ?Micro? Agenda,? Washington Post, 31 January 
1997, A6; James Bennet, ?First Lady Re-Emerges With an Aid Plan for Tiny 
Businesses,? New York Times, 31 January 1997, A19. 
143. James Bennet, ?The First Lady: Hillary Clinton, an Evolutionary Tale,? New 
York Times, 20 January 1997, A14. See also: Bennet, ?First Lady Re-Emerges With an 
Aid Plan for Tiny Businesses,? A19; Thomas W. Lippman, ?Hillary Clinton Urges Public 
to Support Foreign Aid,? Washington Post, 17 June 1997, A13. 
144. Shawn J. Parry-Giles and Diane M. Blair, ?The Rise of the Rhetorical First 
Lady: Politics, Gender Ideology, and Women?s Voice, 1789-2002,? Rhetoric and Public 
Affairs 5 (2002): 582. 
145. Linda Witt, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews, Running as a Woman: 
Gender and Power in American Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1995), 182. 
146. Ifill, ?Clinton Wants Wife at Cabinet Table,? 8. 
147. Weymouth, ?The Biggest Role of Nancy?s Life,? 45.
148. Dowd, ?A More Relaxed Nancy Reagan Tours the South,? 28. 
392
149. Stanley, ?A Softer Image for Hillary,? B1. Similarly, a New York Times
article claimed that Reagan ?lobbied energetically with her passive husband about key 
appointments; her influence ended Donald Regan?s tenure as chief of staff. Far more 
curious was Mrs. Reagan?s reliance on Joan Quigley, an astrologer, whose readings 
appear to have influenced the timing of the Geneva and Reykjavik summit meetings and 
the President?s changing views about the Soviet Union (all to the sometimes baffled
consternation of the President?s other handlers)? (Karl E. Meyer, ?The President?s Other 
Running Mate,? New York Times, 27 January 1993, A22). 
150. Grove, ?Hillary?s New Image: Fresh From the Oven,? C1. Other stories that 
referenced Reagan and Carter together include Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary 
Clinton?,? C1; Stanley, ?A Softer Image for Hillary Clinton,? B1. 
151. Koslow, ?Hillary Rodham Clinton,? 43. 
152. Kurtz, ?Portraits of a First Lady,? A1. 
153. Berke, ?The Transition: The Other Clinton Helps Shape the Administration,? 
B6; Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary Clinton?,? C1; Kevin Sack, ?Mrs. Clinton 
Invokes Memories of Famed and Faulted,? New York Times, 27 August 1996, A11; 
Quindlen, ?Public and Private; The (New) Hillary Problem,? 4:17. 
154. Francis X. Clines, ?Mrs. Clinton Calls Sessions Intellectual, Not Spiritual,? 
New York Times, 25 June 1996, A13; Mary McGrory, ?Not Messianic, Maybe, But 
Messy,? Washington Post, 25 June 1996, A2. However, Clinton denied actually 
?communing? with Roosevelt?s spirit in s?ances, as reported in a series of stories. After 
this story was first reported, Clinton frequently joked about her ?conversations? with 
Roosevelt.   
393
155. Broder, ?The Special Strengths of Barbara Bush,? D7.  
156. Brown, ?The First Lady-Elect: What She Is and Isn?t,? 42. 
157. Elaine Sciolino, ?Laura Bush Sees Everything in Its Place, Including 
Herself,? New York Times, 15 January 2001, A1.  
158. Cook, ?At Home With Barbara Bush,? 159. 
159. Brown, ?The First Lady-Elect: What She Is and Isn?t,? 42. 
160. Stanley, ?Barbara Bush, the un-Secret Weapon,? A15. 
161. Weinraub, ?A Down-to-Earth Tenant For an Exclusive Address,? 1.  
162. Sciolino, ?Laura Bush Sees Everything in Its Place, Including Herself,? A1. 
163. Anne-Marie Schiro, ?It Began With Dolley Madison,? New York Times, 18 
October 1988, A26. 
164. Donnie Radcliffe, ?The First Lady Reshapes Her Royal Image,? Washington 
Post, 21 January 1985, G7. 
165. Curtis, ?A Private Talk With Nancy Reagan,? 134. 
166. Collins, ?The Age of the Smart Woman,? 146.  
167. Radcliffe, ?The First Lady Reshapes Her Royal Image,? G7. 
168. Leslie Bennetts, ?With a New First Lady, a New Style,? New York Times, 21 
January 1981, B6. 
169. Reagan was criticized for her $25,000 inaugural wardrobes, borrowing
millions worth of designer clothing and jewels, raising $800,000 to redecorate the private 
quarters of the White House, and purchasing a $209,000 set of presidential china. See 
Bennetts, ?With a New First Lady, a New Style,? B6; Mary McGrory, ?A Long Way 
394
From Robert Frost,? Washington Post, 17 January 1985, A2; Radcliffe, ?The First Lady 
Reshapes Her Royal Image,? G7.  
170. Bennetts, ?With a New First Lady, a New Style,? B6. See also Radcliffe, 
?The First Lady Reshapes Her Royal Image,? G7.  
171. Schiro, ?It Began With Dolley Madison,? A26.  
172. Winfield, ?The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media,? 166. 
173. Judy Mann, ?Homemakers on Parade,? Washington Post, 12 August 1992, 
E15. See also Manegold, ?Women Get Into Political Football?as the Ball,? 4:1. 
174. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 
11.  An article in the Washington Post said that ?Hillary Clinton, who has been tirelessly 
slammed as too feminist or contrasted with ?good? family women? like Bush and Quayle 
(Schwartz, ??Good Girls, Bad Girls?; Pitting Women Against Each Other in a Family 
Values Farce,? A29). 
175. Lewin, ?Legal Scholars See Distortion in Attacks on Hillary Clinton,? A1.  
Bill Clinton defended his wife. According to a New York Times article, ?Mr. Clinton said 
that by attacking his wife the Republicans were seeking to portray all working women 
negatively. By doing so, he said, the Republicans were trying to turn Mrs. Clinton into a 
caricature of a woman who would choose a career over her family? (Gwen Ifill, ?Clinton 
Assails G.O.P. Attacks Aimed at Wife,? New York Times, 20 August 1992, A22). 
176. Mann, ?Homemakers on Parade,? E15. 
177. ?Barbara Bush?Her Lifestyle,? Ladies? Home Journal, June 1989, 119; 
Strum, ?Barbara Bush; Bush?s ?Secret Weapon? Enters New Jersey Battle,? A21. 
178. Stanley, ?Barbara Bush, the un-Secret Weapon,? A15. 
395
179. Stanley, ?Barbara Bush, the un-Secret Weapon,? A15. 
180. Radcliffe, ?Granny Get Your Gun,? B1.
181. Toner, ?Backlash for Hillary Clinton,? A1. 
182. Anna Quindlen, ?Public and Private: Wives for Wives? Sake,? New York 
Times, 9 August 1992, 4:17. Similarly, Mann opened her article by saying, ?Just think 
what the Republicans would have done if Hillary Clinton had addressed the Democratic 
National Convention? (Mann, ?Homemakers on Parade,? E15).
183. Manegold, ?Women Get Into Political Football?as the Ball,? 4:1.  
184. Mann, ?Homemakers on Parade,? E15.  See also Quindlen, ?Public and 
Private,? 4:17.       
185. Manegold, ?Women Get Into Political Football?as the Ball,? 4:1. 
186. Lehrman, ?Beware the Cookie Monster,? 23. 
187. Manegold, ?Women Get Into Political Football?as the Ball,? 4:1. 
188. Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 243. 
189. Schwartz, ??Good Girls, Bad Girls?; Pitting Women Against Each Other in a 
Family Values Farce,? A29.  
190. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 
11.  
191. Gerhart, ?Learning to Read Laura Bush,? C1. 
192. Gerhart, ?Learning to Read Laura Bush,? C1. 
193. Radcliffe, ?Granny Get Your Gun,? B1.
194. Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary Clinton,? C1. 
195. Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary Clinton?,? C1. 
396
196. Purnick, ?Let Hillary Be Hillary,? A20.    
197. Quindlen, ?Public and Private; The Two Faces of Eve,? A21. Quindlen also 
said the ?job description is a stereotype that no real woman has ever fit except perhaps 
June Cleaver on her good days.?  
198. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 
11.
199. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 
11.   
200. Breslin, ?Hillary Clinton,? 189. Emphasis in original. 
201. Kurtz, ?Portraits of a First Lady: Media Strive to Define Hillary Clinton,? 
A1. 
202. Kurtz, ?Portraits of a First Lady,? A1. 
203. Martha Sherrill, ?The First Lady or the Tiger; Can Hillary Clinton Be 
Everything to Everybody?,? Washington Post, 18 November 1992, C1. 
204. Anna Quindlen, ?Public and Private; The Two Faces of Eve,? New York 
Times, 15 July 1992, A21. See also Toner, ?Backlash for Hillary Clinton,? A1; and Dan 
Balz, ?It Takes a Family; At Convention Hall, It?s Hillary?s Night,? Washington Post, 28 
August 1996, A27.  
205. Rich, ?Whose Hillary?,? 70.
206. Anna Quindlen, ?The (New) Hillary Problem,? New York Times, 8 
November 1992, 4:1. 
207. Meredith Berkman, ?Hillary Now,? Ladies? Home Journal, June 2000, 199, 
146. Similarly, a Washington Post article referred to ?a hard-edged career woman and 
397
lightening rod for Republican criticism? (Carla Hall, ?Hillary the Homemaker? 
Candidate?s Wife Brings Cookies, Advice to Weekday TV Audience,? Washington Post, 
17 September 1992, C1). See also Berke, ?Democrats Lay Claim to Family Values,? A1; 
Stanley, ?A Softer Image for Hillary Clinton,? B1.  
208. Breslin, ?Hillary Clinton,? 190. For other stories critiquing her ambition, see 
Grove, ?Hillary Clinton?s New Image,? C1; Kurtz, ?Portraits of a First Lady,? A1; 
Purnick, ?Let Hillary Be Hillary,? A20; Quindlen, ?Public and Private; The Two Faces of 
Eve,? A21; Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary Clinton?,? C1; Stanley, ?A Softer 
Image for Hillary,? B1; Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, 
Tipper Gore,? 11.
209. Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 
11. 
210. Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary Clinton?,? C1. The sexualized
descriptors continued to follow Clinton throughout her tenure. A 1996 campaign article 
asked, ?Will she be able to convince skeptics that she is not cold, manipulative, dogmatic, 
radical, overly programmatic, domineering, inauthentic, or any of the other 
characterizations or stereotypes that her enemies have drawn of her over the past four 
years?? (Maraniss, ?First Lady in Prime Time,? A1).  
211. Witt, Paget, and Matthews, Running as a Woman, 194. 
212. Kurtz, ?Portraits of a First Lady,? A1. Kurtz noted that an article in the 
conservative magazine American Spectator was the first to use this series of epitaphs 
together. However, they were then repeated in numerous articles.  One of more of these 
descriptions can also be found in the following articles: Hall, ?Hillary the Homemaker?,? 
398
C1; Grove, ?Hillary Clinton?s New Image,? C1; Rich, ?Whose Hillary?,? 70; Stanley, ?A 
Softer Image for Hillary Clinton,? B1; Williams, ?Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Marilyn 
Quayle, Tipper Gore,? 11. 
213. Toner, ?Backlash for Hillary Clinton,? A1. 
214. Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman: Woman?s Power and 
Woman?s Place in the United States, 1630-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 
1992), 4.  
215. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 4. 
216. Faludi, ?The Power Laugh,? 4:13. Emphasis in original. 
217. Bennet, ?The First Lady: Hillary Clinton, an Evolutionary Tale,? A14. 
218. Faludi, ?The Power Laugh,? 4:13. 
219. Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman, 4. 
220. Robin Toner, ?Backlash for Hillary Clinton Puts Negative Image to Rout,? 
New York Times, 24 September 1992, A1.   
221. Pear, ?Settling In: First Lady Gets Policy Job and New Office,? A1. 
222. Lehrman, ?Beware the Cookie Monster,? 23.  See also Stanley, ?A Softer 
Image for Hillary,? B1. 
223. Frank Bruni, ?On the Trail, She?s First Mom and Wife,? New York Times, 13 
October 1996, 20. See also Weisman, ?St. Hillary?s Homecoming,? A18.  
224. Bruni, ?On the Trail, She?s First Mom and Wife,? 20.  However, the article 
also pointed out that some voters were ?saddened by Mrs. Clinton?s relative reticence.? 
225. Edward Walsh, ?Democrats Stress Family Themes; First Lady Receives 
Thunderous Reception, Takes Jab at Dole Criticism,? Washington Post, 28 August 1996, 
399
A1. See also R.W. Apple, Jr., ?Teacher, Not a Celebrity,? New York Times, 28 August 
1996, A1. 
226. Harden, ?Finely Tailored Roles; Candidates? Wives Display Distinct 
Campaign Styles,? A1.  
227. Bennet, ?Hillary Clinton, An Evolutionary Tale,? A14.
228. Peter Baker, ?Saying Her Views Haven?t Changed, First Lady Takes on 
?Micro-Agenda,?? Washington Post, 31 January 1997, A6. Another story noted that 
Clinton?s press conference was her first ?in more than two years? (Bennet, ?Hillary 
Clinton, An Evolutionary Tale,? A14).   
229. Russell, ?Not Queen, Not Prisoner?Just the President?s Wife,? A23.  
230. Russell, ?Not Queen, Not Prisoner?Just the President?s Wife,? A23. 
231. Christine Reinhardt, ?Personal Pleasures,? McCall?s, October 1992, 40. 
232. Quinn, ?Is America Ready for Hillary Clinton?,? C1. 
Afterword Notes
1. Mark Leibovich, ?On the Campaign Trail, Laura Bush is 180 Degrees from 
Teresa Kerry,? Washington Post, 11 August 2004, C1.   
2. I am referring to the article featured at the beginning of Chapter Two (?Mrs. 
McKinley, Mrs. Bryan: A Comparison,? Harper?s Bazaar, 11 August 1900, 955-6).   
3. The articles on Kerry and Bush were drawn from issues of the New York Times
and the Washington Post published between June 1 and September 1, 2004, and were 
selected using the same criteria applied throughout this study. 
4. Ginia Bellafante, ?It Didn?t Start With Jackie: First Lady Style Makes Waves,? 
New York Times, 3 August 2004, B10. 
400
5. Alessandra Stanley, ?The First Lady?s Influence is Starting to Reveal Itself,? 
New York Times, 1 September 2004, P9.  
6. Stanley, ?The First Lady?s Influence is Starting to Reveal Itself,? P9. 
7. ?Political Family Rules,? New York Times, 1 August, 2004, 4:10. 
8. Howard Kurtz, ?Giving ?Em What They Want: In Heinz Kerry?s Speech, 
Commentators Find Plenty to Talk About,? Washington Post, 29 July 2004, A26. Kurtz 
offers a summary of both print and broadcast news coverage of Kerry?s DNC speech, 
highlighting the various descriptions of Kerry offered by journalists.   
9. ?Outspoken? and ?unscripted,? the most frequent descriptors applied to Kerry, 
appear in the following articles: David S. Broder, ?Democrats Focus on Healing 
Divisions; Addressing Convention, Newcomers Set Themes,? Washington Post, 28 July 
2004, A1; Damien Cave, ?Now, She?s ?Organic? (That?s a Plus),? New York Times, 1 
August 2004, 4:5; Maureen Dowd, ?Breck Girl Takes on Dr. No,? New York Times, 8 
July 2004, A21; Maureen Dowd, ?Out of Africa,? New York Times, 18 July 2004, 4:13; 
Kurtz, ?Giving ?Em What They Want: In Heinz Kerry?s Speech, Commentators Find 
Plenty to Talk About,?A26; Leibovich, ?On the Campaign Trail, Laura Bush is 180 
Degrees from Teresa Kerry,? C1; Evelyn Nieves, ?Women Voice Support for Heinz 
Kerry,? Washington Post, 27 July 2004, A15; Evelyn Nieves, ?Would-Be First Lady 
Speaks Out; In Address, She Lauds Husband?s Qualities and Pays Homage to Women,? 
Washington Post, 28 July 2004, A23; Joyce Purnick, ?To Become First Lady, Just Stand 
By,? New York Times, 29 July 2004, B1; Jim Rutenberg, ?Heinz Kerry Comment Gains 
Long-Dreaded Attention,? New York Times, 27 July 2004, P2; Robin Toner and Todd S. 
Purdim, ?On 2nd Night, Unity is Theme for Democrats,? New York Times, 28 July 2004, 
401
A1; Jodi Wilgoren, ?Teresa Heinz Kerry?s Specialty is Straight Talk,? New York Times, 
15 July 2004, A16.  
10. Dowd, ?Breck Girl Takes on Dr. No,? A21. The ?Breck Girl? referred to in 
the headline is not Teresa Heinz Kerry, but John Edwards, who ?has been nicknamed the 
Breck Girl by Bush officials.? 
11. Wilgoren, ?Teresa Heinz Kerry?s Specialty is Straight Talk,? A16. 
12. Nieves, ?Would-Be First Lady Speaks Out,? A23. See also Purnick, ?To 
Become First Lady, Just Stand By,? B1.     
13. Purnick, ?To Become First Lady, Just Stand By,? B1. 
14. Zhongdang Pan and Gerald M. Kosicki, ?Framing as Strategic Action in 
Public Deliberation,? in Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our 
Understanding of the Social World, eds. Stephen D. Reese, Oscar Gandy, Jr., and August 
E. Grant (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001), 41. 
15. Stephen D. Reese, ?Prologue?Framing Public Life: A Bridging Model for 
Media Research,? in Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our 
Understanding of the Social World, eds. Stephen D. Reese, Oscar Gandy, Jr., and August 
E. Grant (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001), 19. 
16. Stanley, ?The First Lady?s Influence is Starting to Reveal Itself,? P9. 
17. Randy Kennedy, ?The Not-So-Reluctant Campaigner,? New York Times, 12 
August 2004, A23.  
18. Leibovich, ?On the Campaign Trail, Laura Bush is 180 Degrees from Teresa 
Kerry,? C1.  
19. Kennedy, ?The Not-So-Reluctant Campaigner,? A23. 
402
20. Leibovich, ?On the Campaign Trail, Laura Bush is 180 Degrees from Teresa 
Kerry,? C1.   
21. Randy Kennedy, ?First Lady Defends Limits on Stem Cell Research,? New 
York Times, 10 August 2004, A16. 
22. Richard Cohen, ?Stem Cell Muddle,? The Washington Post, 12 August 2004, 
A23. Another story viewed Bush?s comments as evidence that she was ?taking a larger 
and more assertive role? in the campaign (Kennedy, ?First Lady Defends Limits on Stem 
Cell Research,? A16). 
23. Rutenberg, ?Heinz Kerry Comment Gains Long Dreaded Attention,? P2.    
24. Leibovich, ?On the Campaign Trail, Laura Bush is 180 Degrees from Teresa 
Kerry,? C1. See also Michael Cooper, ?Swing-State Delegates Confident in Bush and 
Don?t Much Like Kerry,? New York Times, 31 August 2004, P2.   
25. Purnick, ?To Become First Lady, Just Stand By,? B1.  The quote originally 
appeared in Rutenberg, ?Heinz Kerry Comment Gains Long Dreaded Attention,? P2.
26. The following stories mention the ?shove it? incident: ??Shove It,? Heinz 
Kerry Says to Journalist,? Washington Post, 26 July 2004, A12; ?Heinz Kerry Has Retort 
for Bush Fans,? Washington Post, 3 August 2004, A3; Art Buchwald, ?Armchair 
Conventioneers,? Washington Post, 3 August 2004, C3; Kurtz, ?Giving ?Em What They 
Want: In Heinz Kerry?s Speech, Commentators Find Plenty to Talk About,? A26; Rick 
Lyman, ?Two Undecided on Voting for Kerry, or Even Anyone,? New York Times, 30 
July 2004, P7; Nieves, ?Women Voice Support for Heinz Kerry,? A15; Rutenberg, 
?Heinz Kerry Comment Gains Long Dreaded Attention,? P2; Alessandra Stanley, ?As 
Heinz Kerry Speaks Out, Networks Listen Selectively,? New York Times, 28 July 2004, 
403
P8; Sheryl Gay Stolberg and John Tierney, ?Unifying the Party: Political Points,? New 
York Times, 28 July 2004, P2; Toner and Purdim, ?On 2nd Night, Unity is Theme for 
Democrats,? A1.     
27. Rutenberg, ?Heinz Kerry Comment Gains Long Dreaded Attention,? P2.    
28. Kurtz, ?Giving ?Em What They Want: In Heinz Kerry?s Speech, 
Commentators Find Plenty to Talk About,? A26. See also Stanley, ?As Heinz Kerry 
Speaks Out, Networks Listen Selectively,? P8.   
29. ?Heinz Kerry Has Retort for Bush Fans,? A3. 
30. Rutenberg, ?Heinz Kerry Comment Gains Long Dreaded Attention,? P2. 
Similar comments regarding Kerry as a campaign ?liability? appear in the following 
articles: Ann Gerhart, ?A City?s Good Fortune: With Money and Vision, Teresa Heinz 
Kerry Renewed Pittsburgh?and Herself,? Washington Post, 25 July 2004, D1; Wilgoren, 
?Teresa Heinz Kerry?s Specialty is Straight Talk,? A16. 
31. Rutenberg, ?Heinz Kerry Comment Gains Long Dreaded Attention,? P2.    
32. Wilgoren, ?Teresa Heinz Kerry?s Specialty is Straight Talk,? A16. 
33. Cave, ?Now, She?s ?Organic? (That?s a Plus),? 4:5. 
34. Kurtz, ?Giving ?Em What They Want: In Heinz Kerry?s Speech, 
Commentators Find Plenty to Talk About,? A26. 
35. Barbie Zelizer, ?Journalists as Interpretive Communities,? Critical Studies in 
Mass Communication 10 (1993): 224. 
36. Michael Schudson, Watergate in American Memory: How We Remember, 
Forget, and Reconstruct the Past (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 205. 
404
37. Kurtz, ?Giving ?Em What They Want: In Heinz Kerry?s Speech, 
Commentators Find Plenty to Talk About,? A26.  
38. Purnick, ?To Become First Lady, Just Stand By,? B1. Purnick also claimed 
that Clinton ?envisioned a co-presidency,? and mentioned her failed efforts to reform 
health care, both of which were common frames in Clinton?s coverage that were used to 
contain her political influence.      
39. Michael Kinsley, ?Dance of the Stem Cells,? Washington Post , 15 August 
2004, B7. 
40. Bellafante, ?It Didn?t Start With Jackie: First Lady Makes Style Waves,? B10. 
41. Linda Witt, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews, Running as a Woman: 
Gender and Power in American Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1995), 181-208. 
Witt, Paget, and Matthews make this point in their chapter, ?Decoding the Press.? They 
note that ?as late as 1989, according to the editor in chief of the New York Times, the all-
male-is-normal paradigm?except at tea parties of course?was the Times editorial 
philosophy, and the only women who might be news would be those wives who 
inappropriately exercised their husband?s authority (p. 193-4). 
42. Based on the criteria used in the study, forty-four articles about Kerry have 
been published in the New York Times and the Washington Post compared to twenty 
stories about Bush. 
43. Kennedy, ?The Not-So-Reluctant Campaigner,? A23. 
44. Purnick, ?To Become First Lady, Just Stand By,? B1. 
405
References
Abbott, James, and Elaine Rice. Designing Camelot: The Kennedy White House
Restoration. New York: Van Nostrand, 1998.
Abzug, Bella, and Mim Kelber, The Gender Gap: Bella Abzug?s Guide to Political
Power for American Women. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984.
Allgor, Catherine. ?Political Parties: First Ladies and Social Events in the Formation
of the Federal Government.? In The Presidential Companion: Readings on the
First Ladies, edited by Robert P. Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz, 35-53.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.
Allgor, Catherine. Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Helped Build a
City and a Government. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000.
Ames, William E. A History of the National Intelligencer. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1972.
Anderson, Christopher. George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage. New
York: William Morrow, 2002.
Anderson, Kristi. Beyond Suffrage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Anthony, Carl Sferrazza. America?s First Families. New York: Simon and Schuster,
2000.
Anthony, Carl Sferrazza. Florence Harding: The First Lady, The Jazz Age, and the
Death of America?s Most Scandalous President. New York: Quill, 1998.
Anthony, Carl Sferrazza. First Ladies: The Saga of Presidents? Wives and Their Power,
1961-1990. New York: Quill, 1991.
Anthony, Carl Sferrazza. First Ladies: The Saga of Presidents? Wives and Their Power,
1789-1961. New York: Quill, 1990.
Arnett, Ethel Stephens. Mrs. James Madison: The Incomparable Dolley. Greenville,
SC: Piedmont Press, 1972.
Baron, Ava. Work Engendered: Toward a New History of American Labor. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1991.
Baty, S. Paige. American Monroe: The Making of a Body Politic. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1995.
406
Baumgardner, Jennifer, and Amy Richards. Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and
the Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.
Beasley, Maurine H., and Sheila J. Gibbons. Taking Their Place: A Documentary History
of Women and Journalism, 2nd ed. State College: Strata Publishing, 2003.
Beasley, Maurine H. ?Eleanor Roosevelt?s Press Conferences: Case Study in Class,
Gender, and Race.? The Social Science Journal 37 (2000): 517-28.
Beasley, Maurine H. Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media: A Public Quest for Self
Fulfillment. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987.
Beasley, Maurine, and Paul Belgrade. ?Media Coverage of a Silent Partner: Mamie
Eisenhower as First Lady.? American Journalism 3 (1986): 39-49.
Beasley, Maurine H., ed. The White House Press Conferences of Eleanor Roosevelt.
New York: Garland Publishing, 1983.
Beasley, Maurine. ?The Curious Career of Anne Royall.? Journalism History 3 (1976
77): 98-102.
Beasley, Vanessa. ?Engendering Democratic Change: How Three U.S. Presidents
Discussed Female Suffrage.? Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (2002): 79-103.
Benze, James G. Jr. ?Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady.? Presidential Studies
Quarterly 20 (1990): 777-790. 
Berkin, Carol Ruth, and Mary Beth Norton. Women of America: A History. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Birmingham, Stephen. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. New York: Grosset, 1978.
Birmingham, Stephen. The Right People: A Portrait of the American Social
Establishment. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1968.
Black, Allida M. Casting Her Own Shadow: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Shaping of
Postwar Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
Black, Allida M., ed., What I Want to Leave Behind: The Essential Essays of Eleanor
Roosevelt. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Blair, Diane M. ?No Ordinary Time: Eleanor Roosevelt?s Address to the 1940
Democratic National Convention.? Rhetoric and Public Affairs 4 (2001): 203
22.
407
Bodnar, John. Remembering America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and
Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1992. 
Boorstin, Daniel. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, 25th anniversary
ed. New York: Antheum, 1987.
Bowles, Hamish. Jacqueline Kennedy: The White House Years. Boston: Little, Brown
and Company, 2001.
Brady, Patricia. ?Martha Washington and the Creation of the Role of the First Lady.?
In The Presidential Companion: Readings on the First Ladies, edited by Robert P.
Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz, 21-34. Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 2003.
Burnham, John C.  ?Medical Specialists and Movements Toward Social Control in
the Progressive Era.? In Building the Organizational Society: Essays on
Associational Activities in Modern America, edited by Jerry Israel, 19-30. New
York: Free Press, 1972.
Burns, Lisa M. ?A Forgotten First Lady: A Rhetorical Reassessment of Ellen Axson
Wilson.? In Inventing A Voice: The Rhetoric of American First Ladies of the
Twentieth Century, edited by Molly Meijer Werthheimer, 79-102. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
Bush, Barbara. Barbara Bush: A Memoir. New York: St. Martin?s Paperbacks, 1994.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. ?The Discursive Performance of Femininity: Hating
Hillary.? Rhetoric & Public Affairs 1 (1998): 1-19.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. ?The Rhetorical Presidency: A Two-Person Career.? In Beyond
the Rhetorical Presidency, edited by Martin J. Medhurst, 179-195. College
Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early
Feminist Rhetoric, vol. 1. New York: Praeger, 1989.
Carey, James W. ?American Journalism On, Before, and After September 11.? In
Journalism After September 11, edited by Barbie Zelizer and Stuart Allan, 71
90. London: Routledge, 2002.
Carey, James W., ed. Media, Myths, and Narratives: Television and the Press.
Newbury Park: Sage, 1988.
Carey, James W. ?A Cultural Approach to Communication,? Communication 2 (1975):
1-22.
408
Carlson, A. Cheree ?Creative Casuistry and Feminist Consciousness: The Rhetoric of
Moral Reform.? Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 16-32.
Caroli, Betty Boyd. First Ladies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Carpenter, Liz. Ruffles and Flourishes. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Company, 1970.
Carter, Cynthia, Gill Branston, and Stuart Allan, eds. News, Gender, and Power.
London: Routledge, 1998.
Carter, Rosalynn. First Lady From Plains. New York: Ballantine Books, 1984.
Cathcart, Robert S. ?From Hero to Celebrity: The Media Connection.? In American
Heroes in a Media Age, edited by Susan J. Drucker and Robert S. Cathcart,
36-46. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1994.
Chafe, William H. The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th Century.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Claxton, Jimmie Lou Sparkman. 88 Years With Sarah Polk. New York: Vantage Press,
1972.
Cohen, Jeffrey E. ?The Polls: Public Favorability Toward the First Lady, 1993-1999.?
Presidential Studies Quarterly 30 (2000): 575-85.
Collins, Gail. America?s Women: Four Hundred Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates,
and Heroines. New York: Harper Collins, 2003.
Cook, Blanche Wiesen. Eleanor Roosevelt, Volume II, 1933-1938. New York:
Viking, 1999.
Cook, Blanche Wiesen. Eleanor Roosevelt, Volume I, 1884-1933. New York: Viking,
1992.
Cott, Nancy F. The Bonds of Womanhood: ?Woman?s Sphere? in New England, 1780
1835. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977.
Cott, Nancy F., ed. Root of Bitterness: Documents of the Social History of Women.
New York: E.P. Dutton, 1972.
Creedon, Pamela J. ed. Women in Mass Communication. Newbury Park: Sage, 1989.
Curren, James, and Michael Gurevitch, eds. Mass Media and Society. New York:
Arnold, 1996.
409
D?Angelo, Paul. ?News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A
Response to Entman.? Journal of Communication 52 (2002): 870-888.
Damon-Moore, Helen. Magazines for the Millions: Gender and Commerce in the Ladies?  
Home Journal and the Saturday Evening Post, 1880-1910. Albany:State
University of New York, 1994.
Danner, Laura, and Susan Walsh. ??Radical? Feminists and ?Bickering? Women:
Backlash in U.S. Media Coverage of the United Nations Fourth World
Conference on Women,? Critical Studies in Mass Communication 16 (1999):
63-84.
David, Lester, and Irene David. Ike and Mamie: The Story of a General and His Lady.
New York: World Publishing, 1981.
David, Lester. The Lonely Lady of San Clemente: The Story of Pat Nixon. New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell, 1978.
Degler, Carl M. At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to
the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Domosh, Mona, and Joni Seager. Putting Women in Place: Female Geographers Make
Sense of the World. New York: Guilford Press, 2001.
Douglas, Susan J. Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media.
New York: Times Books, 1994.
Douglass, George H. The Golden Age of the Newspaper. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 1999.
Dow, Bonnie J. ?Fixing Feminism: Women?s Liberation and the Rhetoric of
Television Documentary.? Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 53-81.
Dow, Bonnie J. Prime-Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women?s
Movement Since 1970. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.
Edwards, Janis L., and Huey- Rong Chen. ?The First Lady/First Wife in Editorial
Cartoons: Rhetorical Visions Through Gendered Lenses.? Women?s Studies in
Communication 23 (2000): 367-91.
Eisenhower, Julie Nixon. Pat Nixon: The Untold Story. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1986.
Eisenhower, Julie Nixon. Special People. New York: Simon, 1977.
410
Eisenhower, Susan. Mrs. Ike: Memories and Reflections on the Life of Mamie
Eisenhower. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1996.
Emblidge, David, ed. My Day: The Best of Eleanor Roosevelt?s Acclaimed Newspaper
Columns, 1936-1962. New York: Da Capo Press, 2001.
Emery, Michael, Edwin Emery, and Nancy L. Roberts. The Press and America: An
Interpretive History of the Mass Media. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn andBacon,
2000.
Endres, Kathleen. ?Jane Grey Swisshelm: 19th Century Journalist and Feminist.?
Journalism History 2 (1975-76): 128-32.
Entman, Robert M. ?Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.?
Journal of Communication 43 (1993): 51-58.
Faludi, Susan. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York:
Crown, 1991.
Felix, Antonia. America?s First Lady, First Mother. New York: Adams Media
Corporation, 2002.
Ferrell, Robert H. Dear Bess: The Letters From Harry to Bess Truman, 1910-1959.
New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1983.
Fields, Joseph E. ?Worthy Partner?: The Papers of Martha Washington. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.
Fishburn, Katherine. Women in Popular Culture: A Reference Guide. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1982.
Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of
Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984.
Flexner, Eleanor. Century of Struggle: The Woman?s Rights Movement in the United
States. New York: Atheneum, 1972.
Ford, Betty, with Chris Chase. The Times of My Life. New York: Ballantine Books,
1979.
Frankel , Noralee, and Nancy S. Dye, eds. Gender, Class, Race, and Reform in the
Progressive Era. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1991.
Freedman, Estelle B. No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of
Women. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002.
411
Freedman, Estelle. ?Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and
American Feminism, 1870-1930.? Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 512-529. 
Freeman, Jo. The Politics of Women?s Liberation. New York: David McKay
Company, Inc., 1975.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Dell, 1983.
Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1994.
Gerhart, Ann. The Perfect Wife: The Life and Choices of Laura Bush. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 2004.
Giele, Janet Zollinger. Two Paths to Women?s Equality: Temperance, Suffrage, and
the Origins of Modern Feminism. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995.
Gillis, John R. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1992.
Gitlin, Todd. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media In the Making and the
Unmaking of the New Left. Berkley: University of California Press, 1980.
Goodall, Sandra. ?De/Reconstructing Hillary: From the Retro Ashes of the Donna Reed
Fantasy to a ?90s View of Women and Politics.? In Bill Clinton on Stump, State,
and Stage, edited by Stephen A. Smith, 163-185. Fayetteville: The University  of
Arkansas Press, 1994.
Golding, Peter, and Phillip Elliot. ?News Departments and Broadcasting Organizations
the Institutionalization of Objectivity.? In Approaches to Media: A Reader, edited
by Oliver Boyd-Barrett and Chris Newbold, 300-305. London: Arnold, 1995.
Goldman, Robert, Deborah Heath and Sharon L. Smith. ?Commodity Feminism.?
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8 (1991): 333-51.   
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. No Ordinary Times: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, The
Home Front in World War II. New York: Simon and Schuester, 1994.
Gould, Lewis L. The Modern American Presidency. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas, 2003.
Gould, Lewis L. Lady Bird Johnson: Our Environmental First Lady. Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 1999.
Gould, Lewis L. American First Ladies: Their Lives and Legacies. New York:
Garland Publishing, 1996.
412
Gould, Lewis L. ?Modern First Ladies: An Institutional Perspective.? Prologue:
Journal of the National Archives 19 (1987): 71-83.
Gould, Lewis L. ?First Ladies and the Press: Bess Truman to Lady Bird Johnson.?
American Journalism 1 (1986): 47-62.
Gould, Lewis L. ?First Ladies.? American Scholar 55 (1986): 528-535.
Graff, Henry F., ed.  The Presidents: A Reference History, 2nd ed. New York: Simon
& Schuster Macmillan, 1997.
Grayson, Benson Lee. The Unknown President: The Administration of Millard
Fillmore. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1981.
Greer, Emily Apt. First Lady: The Life of Lucy Webb Hayes. Kent State: Kent State
University Press, 1984.
Gronbeck, Bruce E. ?The Rhetorics of the Past: History, Argument, and Collective
Memory.? In Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases, edited by
Kathleen J. Turner, 47-60. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998.
Gronbeck, Bruce E. ?The Presidency in the Age of Second Orality.?  In Beyond the
Rhetorical Presidency, edited by Martin J. Medhurst, 30-49. College Station:
Texas A&M University Press, 1996. 
Gutin, Myra G. The President?s Partner: The First Lady in the Twentieth Century.
New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.
Habermas, Juergen. ?The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article.? New German
Critique 3 (1974): 49-55. 
Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory. Translated and edited by Lewis A. Coser.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Hart, Roderick P. Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good For Us. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2000.
Hartman, Susan M. The Home Front and Beyond: American Women in the 1940s.
Boston: Twayne, 1982.
Holbrook, Thomas M. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
1996.
Humphrey, Carol Sue. The Press of the Young Republic, 1783-1833. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1994.
413
Huntzicker, William E. The Popular Press, 1833-1865. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 1999.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. News That Matters: Television and American
Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
James, Bessie Rowland. Ann Royall?s U.S.A. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, 1972.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Paul Waldman. The Press Effect: Politicians,
Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of
Presidential Campaign Advertising. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Jensen, Faye Lind. ?An Awesome Responsibility: Rosalynn Carter as First Lady.?
Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 769-76.
Johnson, Lady Bird. A White House Diary. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1970.
Johnson, Nan. Gender and Rhetorical Space in American Life, 1866-1910. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 2002.
Juergens, George. Joseph Pulitzer and the New York World. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1966.
Kalendin, Eugenia. Daily Life in the United States, 1940-1959: Shifting Worlds.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Kaplan, Richard L. Politics and the American Press: The Rise of Objectivity, 1865
1920. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Kendall, Kathleen E. Communication in the Presidential Primaries: Candidates and
the Media, 1912-2000. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.
Kerber, Linda K. ?Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman?s Place: The Rhetoric
of Women?s History.? The Journal of American History 75 (1988): 9-39.
Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary
America. New York: W.W. Norton, 1986.
414
Kerber, Linda K. ?Daughters of Columbia: Educating Women for the Republic, 1787
1805.? In The Hofstadter Aegis: A Memorial, edited by Stanley Elkins and Eric
McKitrick, 35-59. New York: Knopf, 1974.
Kernell, Samuel. Going Public: New Strategies of Political Leadership, 3rd ed.
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1997.
Kitch, Carolyn. The Girl on the Magazine Cover: The Origins of Visual Stereotypes
in American Mass Media. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press,
2001.
Klapthor, Margaret Brown. The First Ladies. Washington, D.C.: White House
Historical Association, 1994.
Klein, Ethel. Gender Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Knight, Myra Gregory. ?Issues of Openness and Privacy: Press and Public Response
to Betty Ford?s Breast Cancer.? American Journalism (2000): 53-71.
Kyvig, David E. Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1939. Westport, CT:Greenwood
Press, 2002.
Lash, Joseph P. Eleanor and Franklin. New York: Norton, 1971.
Laracey, Mel. Presidents and the People: The Partisan Story of Going Public.
College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2002.
Leaming, Barbara. Mrs. Kennedy: The Missing History of the Kennedy Years. New
York: The Free Press, 2001.
Lemons, J. Stanley. The Woman Citizen: Social Feminism in the 1920s. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1973.
Lerner, Gerda. The Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women in History. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1979.
List, Karen. ?The Media and the Depiction of Women.? In The Significance of theMedia
in American History, edited by James D. Startt and William David Sloan, 
106-128. Northport, AL: Vision Press, 1994.
List, Karen K. ?Realities and Possibilities: The Lives of Women in Periodicals of the
New Republic.? American Journalism 11 (1994): 20-39.
Lont, Cynthia M. Women and Media: Content, Careers, and Criticism. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.
415
Lott, Davis Newton, ed. The Presidents Speak. New York: Henry Holt and Company ,
1994.
Marling, Karal Ann. As Seen on TV: The Visual Culture of Everyday Life in the 1950s.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Marshall, P. David. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture.Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
Martin, Janet M. The Presidency and Women: Promise, Performance, and Illusion.
College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003.
Marton, Kati. Hidden Power: Presidential Marriages That Shaped Our Recent
History. New York: Pantheon Books, 2001.
Matthews, Glenna. The Rise of Public Woman: Woman?s Power and Place in the United
States, 1630-1970. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Matthews, Glenna. ?Just a Housewife?: The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Maxwell, Alice S., and Marion B. Dunlevy. Virago! The Story of Ann Newport Royall
(1769-1854). Jefferson: McFarland, 1985.
May, Elaine Tyler. Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era. New
York: Basic Books, 1999.
May, Lary. Recasting America: Culture and Politics in the Age of the Cold War.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Mayo, Edith P., and Denise D. Meringolo. First Ladies: Political Role and Public Image.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1994.
McGee, Michael Calvin. ?The ?Ideograph?: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology.?
Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (1980): 1-16.
Medhurst, Martin J., ed. Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency. College Station: Texas
A&M University Press, 1996.
Meyerowitz, Joanne. Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945
1960. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994.
Mezzack, Janet L. ??Without Manners You Are Nothing?: Lady Bird Johnson, Eartha
Kitt, and the Women?s Doers Luncheon of January 18, 1968.? Presidential
Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 745-60.
416
Mills, Kay. From Pocahontas to Power Suits: Everything You Need to Know About
Women?s History in America. New York: Plume, 1995.
Mitchell, Juliet. Woman?s Estate. New York: Penguin, 1971.
Montgomery, Maureen E. Displaying Women: Spectacles of Leisure in Edith
Wharton?s New York. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Morgan, Robin, ed., Sisterhood is Global: The International Women?s Movement
Anthology. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1984.
Morgan, Robin, ed., Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings From the
Women?s Liberation Movement. New York: Vintage Books, 1970.
Muir, Janette Kenner , and Lisa M. Benitez. ?Redefining the Role of the First Lady:
The Rhetorical Style of Hillary Rodham Clinton.? In The Clinton Presidency:
Images, Issues, and Communication Strategies, edited by Robert E. Denton Jr.
and Rachel L. Holloway, 187-200. Westport: Praeger, 1996.
Muncy, Robyn. Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890-1935. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Nerone, John, and Ellen Wartella. ?Social Memory,? Communication 11 (1989): 85
88. 
Norris, Pippa, ed. Women, Media, and Politics. New York: Oxford University  Press,
1997.
Norton, Anne. Republic of Signs: Liberal Theory and American Popular Culture.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Norton, Mary Beth. Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the
Forming of American Society. New York: Knopf, 1996.
Norton, Mary Beth. Liberty?s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American
Women, 1750-1800. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980.
O?Connor, Karen, Bernadette Nye, and Laura Van Assendelft. ?Wives in the White
House: The Political Influence of First Ladies.? Presidential Studies Quarterly
26 (1996): 835-51.
Parry-Giles, Shawn J. ?Mediating Hillary Rodham Clinton: Television News
Practices and Image-Making in the Postmodern Age.? Critical Studies in Media
Communication 17 (2000): 205-226.
417
Parry-Giles, Shawn J., and Diane M. Blair. ?The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady:
Politics, Gender Ideology, and Women?s Voice, 1789-2002.? Rhetoric & Public
Affairs 5 (2002): 565-99.   
Pasley, Jeffrey L. ?The Tyranny of Printers?: Newspaper Politics in the Early
American Republic. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001.
Prindiville, Kathleen. First Ladies, 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan, 1964.
Rakow, Lana. ?Rethinking Gender Research in Communication.? Journal of
Communication 36 (1986), 11-26.
Reagan, Nancy, with William Novak. My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan. New
York: Random House, 1989.
Reese, Stephen D., Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., and August E. Grant, eds. Framing Public
Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.
Riley, Denise. ?Am I That Name??: Feminism and the Category of ?Women? in
History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.
Riley, Glenda. Inventing the American Woman: A Perspective on Women?s History,
1865 to the Present, vol. 2. Arlington Heights: Harlan Davidson, 1986.
Ritchie, Donald A. Press Gallery: Congress and the Washington Correspondents.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Rojek, Chris. Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books, 2001.
Roosevelt, Eleanor. The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt. New York: Harper, 1961.
Roosevelt, Eleanor. This I Remember. New York: Harper, 1949.
Roosevelt, Eleanor. This is My Story. New York: Garden, 1937.
Roosevelt, Theodore. The Strenuous Life. New York: The Outlook Company, 1900.
Rosenfeld, Richard N. American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns. New
York: St. Martin?s Press, 1997.
Ross, Ishbel. Grace Coolidge and Her Era: The Story of a President?s Wife. New York:
Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1962.
Ross, Ishbel. Ladies of the Press: The Story of Women in Journalism by an Insider.
New York, Harper and Brothers, 1936.
418
Russell, Jan Jarboe. Lady Bird: A Biography of Mrs. Johnson. New York: Scribner,
1999.
Ryan, Barbara. Feminism and the Women?s Movement: Dynamics of Change in Social
Movement Ideology and Activism. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Ryan, Mary P. ?Gender and Public Access: Women?s Politics in Nineteenth-Century
America.? In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 
259-287. Boston: MIT Press, 1992.
Ryan, Mary P. Womanhood in America: From Colonial Times to Present. New York:
Viewpoints, 1975.
Scanlon, Jennifer. ?Old Housekeeping, New Housekeeping, or No Housekeeping?The
Kitchenless Home Movement and Women?s Service Magazines.? Journalism
History 30 (2004): 2-10.
Scanlon, Jennifer. Inarticulate Longings: The Ladies? Home Journal, Gender, and the
Promises of Consumer Culture. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Scharrer, Erica, and Kim Bissell. ?Overcoming Traditional Boundaries: The Role of
Political Activity in Media Coverage of First Ladies.? Women and Politics 21
(2000): 55-83. 
Schickel, Richard. Intimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity. New York: Fromm
International Publishing, 1986.
Scharf, Lois, and Joan M. Jensen, eds. Decades of Discontent: The Women?s
Movement, 1920-1940. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987.
Schneider, Beth E. ?Political Generations and the Contemporary Women?sMovement,?
Sociological Inquiry 58 (1988): 4-21.
Schneir, Miriam. Feminism in Our Time: The Essential Writings, World War II to the
Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.
Schudson, Michael. The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. New York:
The Free Press, 1998.
Schudson, Michael. Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers.
New York: Basic Books, 1978.
Scott, Anne Firor. Making the Invisible Woman Visible. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1984.
419
Scott, Joan W. ?Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis.? American
Historical Association 5 (December 1986), 1053-1075.
Seager, Robert. And Tyler Too. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962.
Sellars, Charles. James K. Polk. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966.
Shreve, Anita. Women Together, Women Alone: The Legacy of the Consciousness
Raising Movement. New York: Viking, 1989.
Simonton, Dean Keith. ?Presidents? Wives and First Ladies: On Achieving Eminence
Within a Traditional Gender Role.? Sex Roles 35 (1996): 309-336.
Sloan, William David, and James D. Startt. The Media in America: A History, 4th ed.
Northport, AL: Vision Press, 1999.
Sloan, William David. ??Purse and Pen?: Party-Press Relationships, 1789-1816.?
American Journalism 6 (1989): 103-27.
Smith, Nancy Keegan. ?Private Reflections on a Public Life: The Papers on Lady Bird
Johnson at the LBJ Library.? Presidential Studies Quarterly 20 (1990): 737-44.
Smith-Rosenberg, Carrol. Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian
America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.
Solomon, Martha M. A Voice of Their Own: The Woman Suffrage Press, 1840-1910.
Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1991.
Soloman, Martha. ?The Positive Woman?s Journey: A Mythical Analysis of the
Rhetoric of STOP ERA.? Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (1979): 345-57.
Stacey, Judith. ?Sexism by a Subtler Name? Postindustrial Conditions and  Postfeminist
Consciousness in the Silicon Valley.? Socialist Review 17 (1987): 7-28.
Stephens, Mitchell. A History of News. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1997.
Swanberg, W.A. Pulitzer. New York: Scribner?s, 1967.
Tag, James. Benjamin Franklin Bache and the Philadelphia Aurora. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991.
Templin, Charlotte. ?Hillary Clinton as Threat to Gender Norms: Cartoon Images of
the First Lady.? Journal of Communication Inquiry 23 (1999): 20-36.
Thacker-Estrada, Elizabeth Lorelei. ?True Women: The Roles and Lives of
Antebellum Presidential Wives Sarah Polk, Margaret Taylor, Abigail
420
Fillmore, and Jane Pierce.? In The Presidential Companion: Readings on the
First Ladies, edited by Robert P. Watson and Anthony J. Eksterowicz, 77-101.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003.
Tobin, Leesa. ?Betty Ford as First Lady: A Woman for Women.? Presidential Studies
Quarterly 20 (1990): 761-768.
Tonkovich, Nicole. Domesticity With a Difference: The Nonfiction of Catherine
Beecher, Sarah J. Hale, Fanny Fern, and Margaret Fuller. Jackson:
 University Press of Mississippi, 1997.
Troy, Gil. Mr. and Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons. Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Truman, Margaret. First Ladies. New York: Random House, 1995.
Truman, Margaret. Bess W. Truman. New York: Jove Books, 1987.
Tuchman, Gaye, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, and James Benet. Hearth and Home: Images
of Women in the Mass Media. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Tuchman, Gaye. Making News. New York: The Free Press, 1978.
Tugwell, Rexford. Grover Cleveland. New York: Macmillan, 1968.
Tulis, Jeffrey K. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1987.
Turner, Kathleen J., ed. Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases. Tuscaloosa:
The University of Alabama Press, 1998.
van Rensselaer, Mary. Jacqueline Kennedy: The White House Years. Boston: Little,
Brown, 1967.
van Zoonen, Liesbet. Feminist Media Studies. London: Sage, 1994.
Vavrus, Mary Douglas. Postfeminist News: Political Women in Media Culture.
Albany: State University of New York  Press, 2002.
Vavrus, Mary Douglas. ?Putting Ally on Trial: Contesting Postfeminism in Popular
Culture.? Women?s Studies in Communication 23 (2000): 413-428.
Walker, Nancy A. Shaping Our Mothers? World: American Women?s Magazines.
Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2000.
421
Wandersee, Winifred D. On the Move: American Women in the 1970s. Boston:
Twayne, 1988.
Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-IsEverything
Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.
Watson, Robert P., and Anthony J. Eksterowicz, eds. The Presidential Companion:
Readings on the First Ladies. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
2003.
Watson, Robert P. The Presidents? Wives: Reassessing the Office of First Lady.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000.
Watts, Liz. ?Magazine Coverage of First Ladies From Hoover to Clinton: From
Election Through the First One Hundred Days of Office.? American
Journalism 14 (1997):495-519.
Weaver, David. ?Women as Journalists.? In Women, Media, and Politics, edited by
Pippa Norris, 21-40. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Welter, Barbara. ?The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860.? In The American Family
in Social-Historical Perspective, edited by Michael Gordon, 224-250. New York:
St. Martin?s, 1973.
Wertheimer, Molly Meijer. Inventing a Voice: The Rhetoric of American First Ladies
of the Twentieth Century. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003.
Winfield, Betty Houchin. ?The First Lady?s Relations with the Mass Media.? In Laura
Bush: The Report to the First Lady, edited by Robert P. Watson, 45-51.
Huntington, NY: Nova History Publications, 2001.
Winfield, Betty Houchin. ?The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media: Who Elected
Her Anyway?? In Women, Media, and Politics, edited by Pippa Norris, 166-180.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Winfield, Betty Houchin. ?The Making of an Image: Hillary Rodham Clinton and
American Journalists.? Political Communication 14 (1997): 241-253.  
Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. Running as a Woman: Gender
and Power in American Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
Zaske, Susan. ?The ?Promiscuous Audience? Controversy and the Emergence of the
Early Women?s Rights Movement.? Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995):
191-207.
422
Zelizer, Barbie. ?Reading the Past Against the Grain: The Shape of Memory Studies.?
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12 (1995): 214-239. 
Zelizer, Barbie. ?Journalists as Interpretive Communities.? Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 10 (1993): 219-237.
Zelizer, Barbie. Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the
Shaping of Collective Memory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.