|
Magazine Coverge of First Ladies from Hoover to Clinton
From Election Through the First 100 Days of Office
By
Liz Watts, Ph.D.
School of Mass Communications
Journalism Division
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas
79409-3082
A content analysis of all magazine articles of first ladies from Hoover
to Clinton in the honeymoon period tested Gutin's categories of
their
communications styles, if their coverage fit predictable categories
and
if coverage was positive, negative or neutral.
Magazines tend to give first ladies more positive coverage if they
adopt communications styles that emphasize being a hostess,
entertainer,
fashion trendsetter or a supporter of the arts or a cause. Personal
information is also important.
Magazine Coverge of First Ladies from Hoover to Clinton
From Election Through the First 100 Days of Office
By
Liz Watts, Ph.D.
School of Mass Communications
Journalism Division
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas
79409-3082
[log in to unmask]
806-742-3160 (Office)
Presented to
The Commission on the Status of Women
AEJMC
Washington, D.C.
Aug. 9-12, 1995 Magazine Coverge of First Ladies from Hoover to Clinton
From Election Through the First 100 Days of Office
The February 1994 Spy magazine cover depicted Hillary Clinton, the first
lady of the United States, as a Dominatrix,[1]clearly a different
role--a
deviant role--from those usually associated with the spouse of the
President .
Spy magazine editors were perhaps signalling a change in the style of
reporting about first ladies. Hillary Clinton did not fit the old
"Washington-wife culture" in which the wives of politicians concerned
themselves with party favors for fundraisers, ladies' luncheons, teas and
bridge parties; and magazine reports about her did not fit the
"Washington-wife culture" brand of reporting which Newsweek's Meg
Greenfield described as "layers of pink whipped-cream prose."[2]
Clinton assumed a highly visible position in her husband's campaign for
President and as an advisor once he was in office. In doing so she
opened
herself to attacks from President George Bush's re-election staff and
from
Republicans who portrayed her as a leftist and a radical feminist,
opposed
to the traditional family.[3]
In spite of the criticism, Clinton decided that she was a wife who would
be "noted," as opposed to the wives of other dignitaries and officials
whose names are not even listed among the "notables" in attendance at
political and government events. She would not be invisible.[4] Instead
she
would serve as her husband's trusted partner, a key advisor and a
crafter
of policy.
In doing so she was not unlike a number of her predecessors--Nellie Taft,
Florence Harding, Ellen Wilson, Rosalynn Carter and Eleanor Roosevelt.
Clinton was just more open about it.[5]
The collective American memory forgets that many Presidents' wives have
chosen political roles for themselves, and this collective
forgetfulness
forces citizens and media alike to view the current first lady, Carl
Sferrazza Anthony said, as "being deviant from women's proper role."[6]
The media play a critical role in transmitting both the image and the
substance of a first lady. As Richard Cohen notes, the modern day first
lady and U.S. Vice President are creations of of the national news
media
who have made them constitutional monarches, people with limited
powers who
receive unlimited coverage.[7]
MaryLouise Oates, writing in the Los Angeles Times, defined the political
wife this way:
Look good, but not too good, or people will wonder how you can
afford all those great clothes, Be thin, but not too
thin--maybe
you've got an eating disorder. Be warm with your husband in
public,
but not too clingy, or there will be rumors of marital
troubles. Be
independent, but not a free thinker, or there will be
expectations
of marital troubles.
Keep the kids nearby, but not in the way, or you'll look
exploitative. Bring in an outside income, but not too much, or
you'll look greedy. Be up on the issues, but not too outspoken,
since you're only the wife anyway, and what are you supposed to
know.
Campaigning is tough. Have smiles for supporters and snacks for
reporters and don't dare get caught with a bourbon and soda in
your
hand. Spend weeks being told where to go and what to say and
who to
talk to, all by staff hired by someone else, all praying that
you
won't slip up and cost them the election.[8]
The role of the President's spouse is not constitutional. Her power does
not derive from any document. She is, as Carl Sferrazza Anthony
observes,
the wild card of American politics. Her power simply is.[9]
In spite of formal definition and recognition, the role of President's
spouse has been defined as manager of the White House, hostess of
dinners,
receptions and parties, and participant in social causes and politics.
From
the days of George Washington, the social calendar has been viewed as a
political tool,[10] and the task of selecting menus, dishes,
decorations and
even chairs for White House socializing has been that of the first
lady.
After making the appropriate arrangements, she is then to greet the
guests,
make them feel comfortable and charm the uncommitted or recalcitrant
politicos into sharing the views of her husband. Not all first ladies
have
accepted this role--Letitia Tyler, Margaret Taylor and Abigail
Fillmore did
not make many social appearances--but the majority acted as social
hostesses and homemakers at some level.[11]
The New York Times Magazine featured Lou Hoover in its March 10, 1929,
edition and observed:
The gifted wife of a distinguished husband has a difficult role
if she is to keep her own individuality intact without
overshadowing his. This is an achievement we demand of our
Presidents' wives, even in this day of universal suffrage and of
theoretical equality of the sexes. They must be in the middle
foreground but never in the limelight. They must meekly follow
their illustrious consorts when going in to dinner and even, it is
said, when entering an elevator. They must be faithful
helpmeets
{sic} and constant inspirations, yet it must never so much as be
suspected that they are running the administration. They have to
know the gravest secrets and not whisper one of them to their
dearest friends. They have to be paragons of tact, discretion and
unfailing charm. There is no doubt whatever that Mrs. Hoover,
by
reason of temperament and long experience, comes as near this
superwomanly ideal as any feminine occupant of the White House ever
has.[12]
From the visibility acquired as the leading hostess of the nation's
capitol, the first lady's visibility now extends beyond the home to
include
social causes and politics.
This study will examine the national magazine coverage of first ladies
from Lou Hoover to Hillary Clinton from election through the first 100
days
of their respective husband's first terms of office. The study will
analyze the content of all articles in the defined timeframe to determine
if the coverage falls into predictable categories and to see if the
personality of the respective first lady impacts the amount of coverage she
receives.
The first ladies included in this study were chosen because they are among
the first ladies who have used modern mass communications. Hoover, for
example was the first first lady to speak on the radio. Roosevelt was
the
first to conduct press conferences, and Kennedy was the first to
conduct a
tour of the White House for television.[13] The period of the study,
from
election through the first 100 days of office, is the traditional
honeymoon
period of favorable news media reports that the President usually enjoys.
Literature Review
While the media coverage of women and of the U.S. President have been
analyzed by various researchers, the media coverage of first ladies has
not
been extensively examined.
Individual first ladies have been the subject of research such as
Beasley's work on Eleanor Roosevelt's press conferences, use of radio and
work as a magazine journalist and the contrasting media relations
styles of
Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower.[14]
Two studies have been helpful in framing this research. Gutin examined the
backgrounds and communication activities of first ladies since 1920. She
concluded that they assumed one of three communications stances:
social
hostesses and ceremonial presences, emerging spokeswomen, and political
surrogates and independent advocates.[15] Social hostesses and
ceremonial
presences were the first ladies who either chose to be or were cast into
the role of inactive communicators. They were the "White
Housekeepers," as
Gutin labeled them, and they were not encouraged to be public
communicators
.[16] She included Florence Harding, Grace Coolidge, Bess Truman and
Mamie
Eisenhower in this category.They performed the expected first lady role
of
entertaining and little more.[17] The emerging spokeswomen were more
active
privately and publicly. They expanded the ceremonial role, and as Gutin
said, they gave some thought to communicating their ideas to the public
and
made use of the mass media to transmit their ideas.[18] Through this activity
came the realization that the first lady could be a political
asset.[19] Three
first ladies were included in this category: Lou Hoover, Jacqueline
Kennedy
and Pat Nixon. The third group received the hearty support of their
husbands to become actively involved, to participate in presidential
decision making and to communicate publicly.[20] Eleanor Roosevelt, Lady
Bird
Johnson, Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush
were
included in this category.
Streitmatter analyzed the role of personality on coverage of Presidents in
major newspapers and found that Presidents with appealing personalities
received more coverage than the ones who were less outgoing.[21] He
paired a
reserved/introverted President with an outgoing/extroverted one and
examined both general news coverage and personal news coverage of each
pair. He found that overall the extroverted Presidents received 49
percent
more general news coverage and 87 percent more personal news coverage
than
their reserved counterparts.[22]
Although "first lady " is not an official position, responsibilities
assigned to the job have included hostess, homemaker and public
figure.[23]
Only two Presidents have come to the White House as bachelors, James
Buchanan (1856) and Grover Cleveland (1884); and Cleveland married before
his first term ended, in response to criticism he received as a
bachelor
chief executive.[24] Two Presidents --John Tyler and Woodrow
Wilson--whose
wives died in the White House remarried while in office, accentuating
according to Caroli "that Americans expected their chief executive to
come
in pairs."[25]
By being married Presidents have gained in various ways--education, social
standing, wealth and cultural sophistication,[26] qualities that have
contributed to the definition of first lady. Since the Civil War, Sergio
Rizzo noted, the candidate's personal character and domestic life have
contributed to the symbolism of the presidency.[27] Domesticity is an
important
element, and it has chiefly been supplied by the President's wife.
Although there is ample evidence that they held the interest and the
ability to do so, many first ladies decided to forgo their own careers to
focus on their husbands'.[28] Florence Harding in 1922 wrote that one
career
was all that any couple could manage,[29] a theme echoed by Mamie
Eisenhower,
Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush and endorsed by Hillary Clinton in some
respects because she gave up her law practice.[30] This emphasis on
domesticity will not diminish, as Williams noted, until the "new" political
spouse continues to follow a career unrelated to her husband's. [31]
Emphasizing domesticity has been a function of women's magazines since the
late 18th century. List found that the three magazines she studied from
that time did not portray women as politically active, and reinforced
the
idea that women's place was in the home.[32] In a study of a much
later time
period, 1911-1930, Hynes found that Atlantic Monthly, Cosmopolitan,
Ladies' Home Journal, and The Saturday Evening Post did not portray the
"flapper" or the politically, economically, and socially liberated
woman in
the 1920s as either typical or as an ideal of American women. Instead,
many traditional norms and values were reinforced while the real-life
activity and accomplishments in the political and economic sphere were
underrepresented.[33] Women were discouraged from working during the
Depression years, but from 1942 to 1945 advertising in magazines encouraged
women to work. At the end of World War II, magazines told women to go
home.[34] Another study analyzed the heroines in three women's
magazines and
found that the portrayal of heroines was conservative and when a wife
was
depicted, she was shown as a mother and housewife.[35]Spieczny's
examination of
how women's magazines covered the Equal Rights Amendment showed that the
top circulation magazines did not pay much attention to the proposed
amendment unlike the smaller and more specialized magazines. The women's
magazines followed the lead of their readership in covering the
ERA.[36]
Johnson and Christ's study of Time magazine covers from 1923-1987
indicated that very few women in powerful roles were portrayed. Artists and
entertainers were depicted most frequently.[37] Results of a survey by
Andreasen and Stevens showed that women who were more assertive spent more
time reading and they chose news magazines and progressive women's
magazines most often.[38]
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed:
R1 Do the women's magazines cover the first ladies more frequently than
other magazines?
R2 Does the coverage of first ladies in magazines from election through
the first 100 days of their respective husband's first terms fall into
predictable categories that reflect a standardized definition of first
lady
that emphasizes personal information, relationship information, social
information or political activity?
R3 Do the personality and the communications style of the first lady
impact the amount of coverage she receives? Is there a difference between
the coverage of a first lady who serves in a ceremonial role to that
of a
first lady who supports a cause or participates actively in politics?
R4 Is the magazine coverage of first ladies from election through the
first 100 days of their respective husband's first terms positive,
negative
or neutral?
Method
All magazine articles about first ladies from Lou Hoover to Hillary
Clinton published between the November election and the first 100 days of
office of the first term served were examined. In the cases of Truman,
Johnson and Ford, whose husbands became President because of deaths or
resignation, articles were coded for the first 100 days of their
respective
husbands' administrations. Articles were identified from the Reader's
Guide to Periodical Literature.
The unit of analysis was the complete story. Each story was coded to
determine if it were primarily about personal, relationship, social or
political information and to determine the tone of the coverage defined
as
positive, negative or neutral. Personal information included family
background, education, life at home, interests, hardships, successes, work
training or career, reputation, religion, holiday plans and
travel/vacations. Relationship information included daughter/sister,
friend, wife, husband's helper, mother/grandmother, romance, birthdays,
anniversaries and family obligations. Social information included
hostess,
entertainer, decorator, fashion trendsetter, ball gown and hair,
supporter
of the arts or causes, fundraiser, first visit to the White House and
homemaker. Political activity included campaigner, organizer, speaker, at
husband's side while making a campaign or political appearance, voter,
policy setter, advising or deciding, naming staff and conducting first
press conference. All stories coded could be marked for one or more of
the
four categories.
The coverage was marked positive if the overall tone of the story was
complimentary, flattering and upbeat; negative if it were critical or
found
fault; and neutral if it were neither complimentary nor critical.
Relationships between attributes of the coverage were shown by the Chi
Square statistic. The significance level of .05 was used.
Analysis of Data
One hundred and forty-five articles were found for the 12 first ladies
included in this study. Hillary Clinton received the most coverage and
Bess
Truman received the least.
Table 1
Magazine Articles about First Ladies
From Election through the first 100 Days of first Term
First Lady
Year
Articles
Lou Hoover
1928-29
5
Eleanor Roosevelt
1932-33
4
Bess Truman
1945
1
Mamie Eisenhower
1952-53
9
Jacqueline Kennedy
1962-63
11
Lady Bird Johnson
1963-64
11
Patricia Nixon
1968-69
4
Betty Ford
1972
10
Rosalynn Carter
1976-77
11
Nancy Reagan
1980-81
15
Barbara Bush
1988-89
14
Hillary Clinton
1992-93
50
Total
145
There are three decades included in the timeframe of this study in which
enough articles were included to make comparisons between first
ladies, the
1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, and examination of these decades show that
over time the coverage of first ladies has increased.[39] During the 1960s the
average amount of coverage was 8.66 articles each for Kennedy, Johnson and
Nixon (n= 26). This increased 21 percent in the 1970s to an average of
10.5 articles each for Ford and Carter (n=21), and 38 percent in the
1980s
to an average of 14.5 articles each for Reagan and Bush (n=29). However,
Clinton received more than three and a half times the coverage of
Barbara
Bush.
Thirty-nine different magazines covered first ladies from election through
the first 100 days of their respective husband's first terms of office.
Although it was expected that the women's magazines would cover the
first
lady most extensively, this was not the case.
Table 2
Magazines Providing Coverage of First Ladies 1928-1993
Magazine
Articles
about first ladies
Magazine
Articles
about first ladies
Business Week
2
New Yorker
2
Delinator
1
Newsweek
28
Glamour
1
People
8
Good Housekeeping
4
Pictorial Review
1
Harper's Bazaar
3
Progressive
1
House and Garden
1
Reader's Digest
1
Jet
5
Redbook
1
Ladies' Home Journal
4
Review of Reviews
1
Lear's
1
Sassy
1
Life
3
Saturday Evening Post
2
Literary Digest
3
Scholastic Update
1
Maclean's
4
Spy
1
Mademoiselle
2
Time
23
McCall's
5
TV Guide
2
Mother Jones
1
U.S. News
16
Ms.
2
Vogue
4
National Review
3
Washingtonian
1
New Leader
1
Working Woman
1
New Outlook
1
World's Work
1
New Republic
1
Total
145
The traditional women's magazines, Good Housekeeping, Ladies' Home Journal
and McCall's, contributed about 9 percent (n=13/145) of the total
coverage. All the magazines which are aimed at women or teenaged girls
contributed 21 percent (n=31/145) of the coverage. Clinton received 22
percent (n=7/31) of the coverage in these magazines, and Carter received
about 19 percent (n=6/31).
Table 3
Articles about First Ladies in Women's and Girls' Magazines
From Election Through First 100 Days of First Term
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Good H.
1
1
1
1
LHJ
2
1
1
MLLE
1
1
McCalls
1
1
1
2
Harper's B
1
1
1
Ms.
1
1
Working W.
1
Vogue
2
1
1
House & Gard.
1
Redbook
1
Sassy
1
Lear's
1
Glamour
1
Total
1
3
3
1
3
6
2
4
7
Clinton received the most coverage (n=20) of any of the first ladies
included in the study from the news magazines, Time, U.S. News and
Newsweek
, which together contributed the largest amount of coverage--46
percent
(n=67).
Table 4
News Magazine Coverage of First Ladies
From Election Through First 100 Days of First Term
First Lady
Time
U.S. News
Newsweek
Total
Lou Hoover
0
0
0
0
Eleanor Roosevelt
0
0
0
0
Bess Truman
1
0
2
3
Mamie Eisenhower
2
3
2
7
Jacqueline Kennedy
1
1
2
4
Lady Bird Johnson
2
3
2
7
Patricia Nixon
1
0
0
1
Betty Ford
2
3
2
7
Rosalynn Carter
3
1
1
5
Nancy Reagan
4
1
5
10
Barbara Bush
1
0
2
3
Hillary Clinton
6
4
10
20
Total
23
16
28
67
After the news magazines Clinton received the most coverage in People
,which provided six stories. TV Guide provided two stories about Clinton
but did not cover other first ladies in the timeframe. In addition the
women's magazines covered her to a greater extent than it had other
first
ladies during the timeframe of the study. Good Housekeeping, Ladies'
Home
Journal, Mademoiselle, Sassy, Lear's, Harper's Bazaar and Glamour all
provided coverage, but McCall's, Vogue and Redbook did not offer any
coverage of Clinton during the timeframe.
A variety of other magazines provided coverage of the first ladies during
the timeframe of this study. Life covered Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Business
Week and the New Yorker covered Kennedy and Clinton. The Saturday
Evening
Post covered Johnson and Bush. Maclean's covered Reagan and Clinton.
In
addition to its coverage of Clinton, People covered Reagan and Bush.
Reader's Digest and Scholastic UpDate covered Bush with one story each,
and
Jet presented two stories on Bush and three on Clinton. New Leader, the
Washingtonian, Progressive, National Review, New Republic and Mother
Jones
together provided nine stories about Clinton, but did not cover any
other
first ladies during the timeframe.
All but four first ladies received comprehensive coverage to the extent
that magazine articles about them during the time period mentioned at
least
one item of each of the four categories established for the study. The
four who did not receive complete coverage were Eleanor Roosevelt, Bess
Truman, Patricia Nixon and Rosalynn Carter. For Roosevelt, Truman and
Carter, none of the articles about these women mentioned relationship
information such as being a daughter, sister, friend,wife, husband's
helper
and mother or grandmother. The article about Truman did not mention any
personal or relationship information or political activity. The
articles
about Nixon did not mention any political activity.
Table 5
First Ladies' Communications Style by Magazine Article Content
Style & Number
of First Ladies
Personal
N %
Relationship
N %
Social
N %
Political
N %
Total
Social Hostess (2)
4 .01
2 .005
9 .02
3 .008
18
Emerging Spokesw.(3)
8 .02
7 .002
14 .04
3 .008
32
Political Surrogate (5)
51 .14
31 .08
65 .18
36 .10
183
HRC Style (1)
38 .10
25 .07
23 .06
47 .13
133
Total (12)
101
65
111
89
366
X2 =26.13
DF=9
p>.001
Table 5 indicates there is a statistical difference in the type of
coverage first ladies received in magazines based on the style adopted. The
first ladies who adopted the social hostess style together garnered a
smaller amount of the total coverage (7 percent, n=10/145) in magazines
between the election and the first 100 days of office, and half
(n=9/18) of
the references in that the coverage concentrated on social aspects such as
playing the role of hostess, entertainer, decorator or fundraiser.
Twenty-two percent of the references (n=4/18) in these articles were about
personal information, 17 percent (n=3/18) was about political activity
and
11 percent (n=2/18) was about relationships. Truman and Eisenhower
were
included in this group.
Emerging Spokeswomen, Hoover, Kennedy and Nixon, got 14 percent (n=20/145)
of the total coverage with Kennedy accounting for 11 of the articles. The
coverage about them again concentrated on the social aspects to a
slightly
lesser degree than the coverage of the Social Hostesses, 44 percent
(n=14/32) to 50 percent (n=9/18). However, they received slightly more
coverage than did the social hostesses about personal information such
as
family background, education, interests and life at home--25 percent
(n=
8/32) to 22 percent (n=4/18).
The political surrogates and independent advocates, Roosevelt, Johnson,
Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush, together got 45 percent (n=65/145) of
the
coverage, and it continued to focus on the social area, however to a
lesser
degree than the Emerging Spokeswoman and Social Hostess. Coverage of these
first ladies included more references to personal information and
political activity, 28 percent (n=51/183) and 20 percent (n=36/183)
respectively.
The coverage of Clinton, who got 34 percent (n=50/145) of the total
coverage, reflects the overt political style she adopted. However, while
the coverage of her did not refer often to social or relationship
information, it did continue to refer to personal information in 29 percent
(n=38/133) of the cases.
This data also indicate that the coverage about the first ladies fits the
first ladies' communications styles. Articles about social hostesses,
who
were encouraged not to be public communicators, concentrated on the
social
aspects 50 percent of the time (n=9/18). Articles about the emerging
spokeswomen, political surrogates and Clinton did not emphasize the
social
as much--44 percent for emerging spokeswomen (n=14/32), 35 percent for
political surrogates (n=65/183), and 17 percent for Clinton (n=23/133).
After the social hostesses, the first ladies were supposed to be more
communicative, and, in the cases of the political surrogates and Clinton,
more political. This is supported by the data that show they got more
coverage as well as more mentions about political activity. Political
activity was mentioned 19 percent (n=36/183) for political surrogates and
in 35 percent (n=47/133) for Clinton.
Table 6
Content of Articles About First Ladies In Magazines
From Election Through First 100 Days of First Term
First Lady
Personal
Relationships
Social
Political
Total
N
%*
N
%*
N
%*
N
%*
Lou Hoover
3
.3
2
.2
4
.4
1
.1
10
Eleanor Roosevelt
2
.22
0
2
.22
5
.55
9
Bess Truman
0
0
1
1.
0
1
Mamie Eisenhower
4
.24
2
.12
8
.47
3
.18
17
Jacqueline Kennedy
4
.24
3
.18
8
.47
2
.12
17
Lady Bird Johnson
9
.3
6
.2
10
.33
5
.17
30
Patricia Nixon
1
.2
2
.4
2
.4
0
5
Betty Ford
11
.37
5
.17
7
.24
6
.21
29
Rosalynn Carter
4
.24
0
6
.35
7
.41
17
Nancy Reagan
10
.34
4
.14
12
.41
3
.10
29
Barbara Bush
15
.22
16
.23
28
.4
10
.14
69
Hillary Clinton
38
.28
25
.19
23
.17
47
.35
133
Total
101
65
111
89
366
*Percentages =row percentage
When the data for individual first ladies are examined, the personal style
of each still seems to be intact. Truman's only article emphasized the
social. Eisenhower and Kennedy's coverage emphasized social aspects
nearly
50 percent of the time. Hoover, Nixon, Reagan and Bush's coverage
emphasized the social aspects at least 40 percent of the time, while
Johnson and Carter's coverage emphasized this aspect at least a third of
the time. Ford's coverage included social references 24 percent of the
time
and Clinton's 17 percent of the time.
Four first ladies' coverage mentioned personal information at least 30
percent of the time--Hoover, Johnson, Reagan and Ford, while the
coverage
of Nixon, Bush, Roosevelt, Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Clinton
mentioned this aspect at least 20 percent of the time. Nixon and Truman's
coverage did not mention this aspect at all.
The references to relationship information ranged from a high of 40
percent for Nixon to a low of 0 for Roosevelt, Truman and Carter.
The Democratic first ladies received more coverage of political activities
than their Republican counterparts. Roosevelt's coverage mentioned this
aspect 55 percent of the time, Carter's 41 percent of the time,
Clinton's
35 percent of the time, Johnson's 17 percent, Kennedy's 12 percent and
Truman's 0. Ford's coverage reported political activity 21 percent of
the
time followed by Eisenhower, 18 percent; Bush, Reagan and Hoover, 10
percent each; and Nixon, 0.
Table 7
Tone of Magazine Coverage by First Lady
From Election Through First 100 Days of First Term
First Lady
Positive
Negative
Neutral
Total
Lou Hoover
4
0
1
5
Eleanor Roosevelt
2
0
2
4
Bess Truman
0
0
1
1
Mamie Eisenhower
6
0
3
9
Jacqueline Kennedy
7
0
4
11
Lady Bird Johnson
11
0
0
11
Patricia Nixon
0
1
3
4
Betty Ford
9
0
1
10
Rosalynn Carter
10
0
1
11
Nancy Reagan
8
3
4
15
Barbara Bush
14
0
0
14
Hillary Clinton
21
6
23
50
Total
92
10
43
145
The majority of the magazine coverage of first ladies from election
through the first 100 days of their respective husband's first term of
office was positive. About 65 percent was positive (n=92/145), 30
percent
was neutral and 7 percent was negative.[40]
While Clinton achieved the most positive coverage, 14 percent of the total
(n=21/145), the coverage of Johnson and Bush, was totally positive. Three
first ladies received coverage negative in tone: Nixon, Reagan and
Clinton.
Clinton's negative coverage amounted to about 12 percent of her total
(n=6/50). Table 8
Tone of Coverage by Style of First Lady
From Election Through First 100 Days of First Term
Style of First Lady
Number
Included
Positive
Negative
Neutral
Total
Social Hostess
2
6
0
4
10
Emerging Spokesw.
3
11
1
8
20
Political Surrogate
6
54
3
8
65
HRC Style
1
21
6
23
50
Total
12
92
10
43
145
It appears that the communications style adopted by the first lady may
have some impact on the tone of the coverage she receives. The
Political
Surrogate style achieved 83 percent positive coverage (n=54/65) and
only 4
percent negative coverage (n=3/65). Clinton's coverage was less
positive
and more negative than the other first ladies included in this study,
42
percent positive coverage (n=21/50) and 12 percent negative coverage
(n=6/50), while first ladies adopting the Social Hostess and Emerging
Spokeswoman style achieved 60 percent and 55 percent positive coverage
respectively and either no negative coverage or a minimal amount of
negative coverage.
Neutral coverage ranged from a high of 75 percent for Nixon, (n=3/4) 50
percent for Roosevelt (n=2/4),46 percent for Clinton( n=23/50), 36
percent
for Kennedy (n=4/11), and 27 percent for Reagan (n=4/15). The
communications style of the Political Surrogates got the least neutral
coverage--12 percent (n=8/65).
Discussion
Modern first ladies received more coverage than their earlier
counterparts. The latter day first ladies also received more coverage
in
women's magazines and news magazines.
Until Hillary Clinton, first ladies realized modest increases in the
amount of coverage they received in magazines, a 21 percent increase in
the
1970s over the previous decade to a 38 percent increase in the 1980s.
Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush's coverage was similar in amount, 15
articles
and 14 articles respectively. Their coverage reflected modest increases
over the coverage of Carter who got 11 articles and Ford who got 10.
However, Clinton's coverage eclipsed all of the other first ladies
included
in this study. In the timeframe she received 50 articles in a variety of
magazines.
The women's magazines and the news magazines covered Clinton more than any
other magazines in the timeframe. She was the subject of 20 articles out
of a total of 67 in the news magazines and of seven articles out of a
total
of 30 in the women's and girls' magazines. By the same token Nancy Reagan
took second place for number of articles in the news magazines with 10
articles. Rosalynn Carter was second place for the women's magazines
with
six articles. Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman were not covered in women's
magazines during the timeframe.
Together, the women's and girls' magazines contributed about 21 percent of
the coverage while the news magazines provided 46 percent. As weeklies,
the news magazines have a higher rate of consumption for stories, and
this
study seems to indicate the first lady apparently makes good copy
during
the timeframe of election through the first 100 days of office. On the
other hand, many women's magazines are monthlies and have a longer lead
time, and they may have preferred to wait to develop a more detailed
rep
ort.
Because she got the most coverage, Clinton was the subject of articles in
a diverse grouping of magazines. New Leader, the Washingtonian,
Progressive, National Review, New Republic and Mother Jones covered her
when they did not cover previous first ladies, while McCall's, Vogue
and
Redbook did not cover her at all during the timeframe.
After the news magazines, People, also a weekly, provided a total of 8
stories about three first ladies, Reagan, Bush and Clinton.
The coverage of the first ladies included in this study does fall into
predictable categories, but it appears that two categories, social and
personal, attract the most mentions. References to social information
accounted for 30 percent of the total, followed by personal information,
28
percent; political activity, 24 percent, and relationship information, 18
percent. From Hoover to Bush, the coverage focused on the social with
few
exceptions--Roosevelt and Clinton's coverage focused on political
activity
and Ford's focused on personal information. This accent on social
information shows that the magazines have moved toward a standardized
definition of first lady because even when such first ladies as Carter
said
they intended to pursue other activities, they still received coverage
about the social aspects of their roles. Clinton, with her overt
political
style, was the first first lady in 65 years to garner less coverage in
this
category. Prior to her becoming first lady, no other first lady had gotten
less than 22 percent and recent first ladies, Reagan and Bush, got as much
as 40 percent.
The communications style adopted by the first lady did impact the amount
of coverage. Bess Truman, who did not want to be first lady and who
came
to the position because of the death of Franklin Roosevelt, was the
subject
of only one article in Time, which used an unflattering photo of her.[41] On
the other hand, her Democratic descendent, Hillary Clinton, who
eagerly
sought the role of first lady, captured the most coverage. This study
seems
to show that the communications style, the personality and the political
party of the first lady impact the coverage she receives. Social
Hostesses
attracted the least coverage. Political Surrogates who had their
husbands'
approval to be in the public limelight, attracted a good deal more,
and
Clinton who ventured further into the political aspects than any other
first lady had before, attracted the most.
Personality impacted the coverage as well. Nixon was taciturn. The four
articles about her included relationship information as often as it
did
social information. She was the only first lady to be covered in this
way.
Betty Ford, on the other hand, was open and more personal information
was
reported about her than that of the other first ladies.
Eisenhower's coverage highlighted the social role she adopted. News
magazine articles about her in November and December 1952 and January 1953
described her as a homemaker and hostess. U.S. News said the
household
would be her principal assignment and that she would not "assert
herself as
a public figure, a maker of opinion and influence on policy as did Mrs.
Roosevelt, nor would she tend to withdraw to the background as did
Mrs.
Truman."[42] Time 's Jan. 19, 1953, cover article revealed a mix of
personal
and social information. It noted that she was not a "grande dame. Her
social attributes are amiability, small talk and an ability to put people
at ease." It described the work of the first lady as dealing with 700
letters a day, giving at least six state dinners and managing 65
servants
in a 54-room house. In addition, the article mentioned her bangs and
her
clothes, allowing that "{d}espite owning a few Paris gowns, {she} is a
great one for ordering little $17.50 dresses and $16.95 hats from
department stores."[43]
More personal information was revealed in the articles about the first
ladies who were the Emerging Spokeswomen, and this was emphasized in
the
coverage of Jacqueline Kennedy who garnered more than half of the
coverage
in this category (n=11/20). These articles described her background of
wealth and high society, her education and her sense of fashion and
elegance. Newsweek noted that fashion designer Oleg Cassini had been
selected to make her inaugural ball gown because of his "synthesis of Mrs.
Kennedy's elegance."[44] Both Life and Ladies' Home Journal provided
photo
displays of her, with Life titling one of its two displays "An
Abundance of
Beauties: Gina and Rita and Ava and Marilyn and Jackie."[45]
Another Life article told about the Jackie look alikes and concluded that
"she wears her clothes with such effortless grace, that despite herself,
she is becoming the nation's No. 1 fashion influence." However, in
another
article in the same week that noted "her political role is mostly
visual,"
she was quoted as saying, "I am determined that my husband's
administration--this is a speech I find myself making in the middle of
the
night--won't be plagued by fashion stories." [46]
Political Surrogates claimed 45 percent of the total coverage. While the
social information reported about them remained as high as 40 percent
in
the cases of Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, collectively the reporting
in
this area declined slightly as the reporting increased in personal
information and political activity. Reagan and Bush's first magazine
articles may have been more in response to the communications styles of
Ford and Carter, who preceded them.
One of the first headlines about Betty Ford signaled a change: "Betty Ford
will set a different style," U. S. News and World Report announced.[47] While
magazines credited Johnson with candor, they concentrated on the personal
information of her business acumen and her family fortune. On the
other
hand, the coverage of Ford, the next political surrogate first lady,
hailed
her personal strength and described her candor as a political asset. She
answered questions other first ladies had avoided for years.[48]
Shortly after her husband took office, Ford was diagnosed with breast
cancer and she underwent surgery in October 1974. Magazine coverage
focused
on the surgery, but it also incorporated her political views. Newsweek 's
cover story, "Betty Ford's Operation," observed that "{s}he promised
to
devote herself to the usual bland pastimes of first ladies--arts and
children--but she also let it be known that she would campaign for the
Equal Rights Amendment, and she favored 'liberalized' abortion and
marijuana laws and even that she thought trial marriage might be a good
thing."[49]
Carter signaled another change from the social hostesses and emerging
spokeswomen first ladies when the articles about her reported that she
planned to bring her own clothes to the White House along with her
sewing
machine and that she cut her own hair. She would not be redecorating
the
White House, but she did plan to sit in on cabinet meetings and to
hold
issue-oriented press conferences of her own.[50]
Nancy Reagan turned the coverage away from the political and back to the
social and personal. While Carter admitted in an interview that it
bothered
her to be asked who made her clothes, the former debutante Reagan's
coverage immediately zeroed in on appearances. Time focused on the "Reagan
Look: Assured, Affluent, and Yes Conservative," while U. S. News and
World
Report hailed the "Nancy Touch" and People touted her as "Elegant,
Opulent {and} Right Minded."[51] Articles that did not focus on her skin,
hair
and inaugural ball gown told of her plans to redecorate the White
House.
Time observed that "{f}ew other First Families have plunged into
redecoration right away."[52] By February 1981, Reagan had already replaced
her
press secretary; and according to Melinda Black of Newsweek, Reagan was
"searching for a role."[53] However, to Gloria Steinem, writing in
Ms., Reagan
still had the role she had chosen for herself when she married--"{t}he
Marzipan Wife. The rare woman who can perform the miracle of having no
interests at all; of transplanting her considerable ego into a male
body."[54]
Barbara Bush's magazine coverage likewise featured her appearance, but in
a different way than Reagan's did. Vogue noted that Bush "had been
stung
repeatedly ... by the media observation that she looks more like
George
Bush's mother than his wife."[55] Reader's Digest pointed out that she
dyed
her hair, and Maclean's said she represented the elegant older look and
on
the cover it called her "Everybody's Grandmother." Yet the same
article
said "her no nonsense style... could liberate American women from the
tyranny of dieting, face lifts and high fashion."[56] Unlike Reagan,
Bush did
not have to find a role. She had already established herself as an
ardent
supporter of literacy programs and 13 of the 14 articles about her in
the
timeframe mentioned her support of such.
Kennedy did not like the title first lady and for a time forbade her staff
from using it.[57] With Hillary Clinton, the magazines did not hesitate to
replace the title with such labels as "Superwoman," "Co-President,"
or
"the First Advocate in Chief," while referring to the presidential
couple
as "First Friends," or the "The Dynamic Duo."[58]
These labels were the magazines' attempts to make sense out of a first
lady who was not going to be content figuring out the seating
arrangements
for state dinners when that apparently was what the public expected of
her.
A U.S. News and World Report poll reported in January 1993 that 59 percent
of the respondents did not want her to be a major adviser to her husband
on politics and personnel and 70 percent preferred that she serve as a
"traditional" first lady.[59]
That was not Clinton's plan, and as her friend, Linda
Bloodworth-Thomasen, explained in a TV Guide article. "Hillary will
never
sit in the back of the bus. Nor should she. The irony of Hillary's
life is
that she's qualified for any post in government, starting with
Attorney
General. and now, because of the election, she's supposed to act like
Mamie
Eisenhower?"[60]
"The idea that I would check my brain at the White House door, just
doesn't make sense to me," Clinton told Maclean's writer Scott Steele, who
noted that her decision to be her husband's politically active
assistant
began the media's "demonization" of her.[61]
It appears that the magazines are willing at least initially to present
reports on the new first lady in a positive light. Overall the tone of
the
coverage was positive. Less than seven percent of the 145 articles
were
negative (n=10/145). The first ladies who adopted the Social Hostess
communications style did not receive any negative coverage, and the
Emerging Spokeswomen category only received one negative report. However,
the first ladies included in these two categories received not more
than 60
percent positive coverage. They did not actively communicate and got fewer
reports than the other categories of first ladies and thus limited the
positive effect their coverage might have had.
The Political Surrogate first ladies, on the other hand, achieved a
greater amount of positive coverage than any of the other categories. The
coverage of the first ladies in this categories focused on the social
aspects and then the personal. Two first ladies in this category received
only positive coverage.
Hillary Clinton who adopted a much more political style than her
predecessors, received a little more negative coverage--six of the 50
articles were negative in tone. It must be noted, however, that nearly
half
of the articles about her were neutral--not complimentary or critical
(n=23/50). Nixon was the only first lady to attract more neutral
coverage
than Clinton, and she got 75 percent (n=3/4). However, she got no
positive
coverage at all.
The magazines, it appears, failed to provide neutral coverage of the
political surrogate style, and only succeeded in providing neutral
coverage
of the other categories about 40 percent of the time.
The positive nature of the coverage the magazines gave the first ladies in
this study may stem from the recognition that Presidents are expected to
come to the White House with wives who are supposed to be socially
active
in supporting causes, entertaining and setting fashion trends and only
somewhat active in political decision making. Magazines recognize that
the
first lady as the nation's most prominent hostess makes good copy, and if
she stays within the proscribed role, the magazines are apparently
willing
to make the coverage positive. If the first lady steers away from the
proscribed role as Hillary Clinton has done, the magazines appear to make
an effort to be neither complimentary nor critical. However, the first
lady
must expect a little more negative coverage if she takes a more political
than social role.
Conclusion
This research shows that the magazine coverage about Hillary Clinton
reflects her decision to be overtly political and to de-emphasize the
social aspects of the first lady role. It also shows that when a first
lady
defines her role differently such as Clinton did, the magazines apparently
are willing to cover her in a more neutral manner. If the first lady
decides to retain the social role and to occasionally highlight political
activity, the coverage may be quite positive as it was in the case of
Johnson and Bush.
This research also shows that the magazine articles about the other first
ladies reflected the communications styles they adopted. The coverage
does
fall into predictable categories with one exception. Relationship
information was not a significant element of the coverage for most of the
first ladies. In the case of Patricia Nixon relationship information
played
a bigger role than personal and social information and political
activity, but this was an exception. The social and personal category were
the important elements of the coverage, and together they accounted
for 58
percent of the total.
The accent on social information shows that the magazines have adopted a
standardized definition of first lady because even when a first lady
said
she intended to pursue other activities, the magazine coverage still
focused on the social aspects. Clinton, with her overt political style,
was
the first first lady in 65 years to garner less coverage in the social
category. Prior to her becoming first lady, no other first lady had
gotten
less than 22 percent and her immediate predecessors got as much as 40
per
cent in the social category.
Finally, a variety of magazines cover first ladies from election through
the first 100 days of their husband's first terms, but the women's
magazines do not seem to cover them extensively during this timeframe. The
weekly news magazines provided the most coverage.
Gutin's categories of the first ladies' communications styles were tested
in this research and it was found that there is a difference in the
magazine coverage of a first lady who adopts the social hostess style as
opposed to one who adopts the political surrogate style or Hillary
Clinton's style.
This research is restricted by the timeframe and the number of first
ladies included. More comprehensive research especially on how the
magazines' coverage of first ladies is impacted by their communications
style should be done.
Notes
[1] See Spy, February, 1993.
[2] Meg Greenfield, "Mrs. President,"
Newsweek, June 20, 1977, 100.
[3] Michael Wines, "First Lady Rises to De
fense of Successor," New York Times, Dec. 2,
1992, B10.
[4
] Robin Abcarian, "Can't We Redefine the Perfect Political Wife?" Los Angel
es Times, June
30, 1993, E1.
[5] Carl Sferrazza Anthony, "
First Ladylike, After All," Washington Post, Jan. 31. 1993, F1.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Cohen, Richard, "All the News That Meets Our Needs," Washington Post,
Washington
Magazine, Dec. 11, 1989, 11.
[8] MaryLouise Oat
es, "The Political Wife--an Enduring Breed," Los Angeles Times, June 24,
1993, B7.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Daniel C. Diller and Stephen L. Ro
bertson, The Presidents, First Ladies, and Vice
Presidents
White House Biographies 1789-1989, (Washington, D. C. Congressional Quarter
ly,
1989), 7.
[11] Ibid., 8.
[12] "The Lady of the White
House," New York Times Magazine, March 10, 1929, V:1.
[13] Gutin, 4,.56,
95.
[14] See Beasley, Maurine, "The Press Conferences of Eleanor Roosevel
t, " Paper delivered at
the 66th annual meeting of the Asso
ciation for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication,
Portland, Oregon, August 6-9, 1983; "Eleanor Roosevelt: First Lady as Radi
o
Pioneer, "Paper delivered at the 68th annual meeting of t
he Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communi
cation, Memphis,Tennessee August 3-6, 1985; "Eleanor Roosevelt,
First Lady as Magazine Journalist," Paper delivered at the 67th annual
meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication, Gainesville, Florida, August
5-8, 1984
; "Bess Truman and the Press: Case Study of a First Lady as Political
Communicator," in William F. Levantrosser, ed., Harry S. Truman: T
he Man from Independence
(New York: Greenwood Press, 1986)
207-216.; and "Mamie Eisenhower as First Lady: Media
Covera
ge of a Silent Partner," Paper delivered at the 67th annual meeting of the
Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communicat
ion, Gainesville, Florida, August 5-8, 1984.
[15] Gutin, Myra G., The Pres
ident's Partner, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 4.
[16] Ibid., 41, 17
5.
[17] Ibid., 7.
[18] Ibid., 41.
[19] Ibid., 72.
[20] Ibid., 175-177.
[21] Streitmatter, Rodger, "The Impact of Presidential Personality on New
s Coverage in Major
Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly, (Spr
ing 1985): 66-73.
[22] Ibid., 68.
[23] Diller and Robertson, 7-8.
[24]
Betty Boyd Caroli, First Ladies, (New York, Oxford University Press), 1987,
307. Caroli
notes that Jefferson and Van Buren were widowe
d before becoming president, Jackson and
Arthur's wives die
d after they won the office, and Tyler, Harrison and Wilson had wives who
died in the White House.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid., 307-330.
[27] Sergio Rizzo, "Presidential Wives: The Unacknowledged Legislators of
the Race," Journal
of American Culture, (Winter 1991): 23.
[28] See Carl Sferrazza Anthony, "First Ladylike, After All," Washington P
ost, Jan. 31,
1993, F6.
[29] Florence Harding as quoted in
Caroli, 164.
[30] Mrs. Eisenhower, for example, said she was a career wom
an--her career was Ike. See
"Dateline: The Last Word on Fir
st Ladies," U.S. News and World Report, March 30, 1992, p.17.
Mrs. Reagan said her greatest ambition was to have a successful, happy m
arriage. See "First
Lady is a Former Debutante," People, No
v. 17, 1980, 46. People also pointed out that Barbara
Bush
was "no stranger to personal sacrifice for her husband's career." See G. Gi
lford Garry,
"At Long Last Rainbow's End," Nov. 21, 1988, 5
6.
[31] Marjorie Williams, "First Ladies, Why Political Wives Make Such Ba
d Role Models,"
Washington Magazine, Washington Post, Nov.
1, 1992, 25.
[32] Karen List, "Magazine Portrayals of Women's Role in the
New Republic," Paper delivered
at the 69th annual meeting o
f the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Comm
unication, Norman, Okla., August 3-6, 1986.
[33] Terry Hynes, "Magazine Po
rtrayal of Women, 1911-1930," Journalism Monographs, No. 72,
May 1981.
[34] Nancy Roberts, "Riveting for Victory: Women in Magazine A
ds in World War II," Paper
delivered at the 62th annual mee
ting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Houston, Texas, August 5-8, 1979.
[35] Beverly Loughlin,
"The Women's Magaines Short-Story Heroine," Journalism Quarterly 60 (Autumn
1983):138-142.
[36] Sandra Spieczny, "Dancing Backward:
Women's Magazines and the Equal Rights Amendment,"
Paper de
livered at the 70th annual meeting of the Association for Education in Jour
nalism
and Mass Communication, San Antonio, Texas, August 1
-4, 1987.
[37] Sammye Johnson, and William G. Christ, "Women Through 'Time
': Who Gets Covered?" Paper
delivered at the 70th annual me
eting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, San Antonio, Texas, August 1-4, 1987.
[38] Margaret And
reasen and H. Leslie Stevens, "Employed Women's Assertiveness and Openness
as Shown
in Magazine Use," Journalism Quarterly 60 (Autumn 1983):449-457.
[39] Prior to the 1960s a total of 19 articles were published about the f
irst ladies
between election and the first 100 days of offi
ce, not enough articles for a comparison.
[40] There was a statistical dif
ference between the positive and neutral coverage of the
De
mocrat first ladies and the Republican first ladies (X2=19.84, DF=3, p>.01)
.
[41] See "Ups and Downs,"Time, May 2, 1945, p.50.
[42] "Ike and Mamie
: What They'll Be Like," U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 14, 1952,
54-55.
[43] "The New First Lady, 'Politics Can Be Fun," Time, J
an. 19, 1953, 17-20.
[44] "Fit for the First Lady," Newsweek, Jan. 30, 1
961, p.60.
[45] "An Abundance of Beauties: Gina and Rita and Ava and Mari
lyn and Jackie." Life, Dec.
26, 1960, 54.
[46] See "You D
on't Have To Look Hard To See Another Jackie," Life, Jan. 20, 1961, 16; an
d
"Jackie: First Lady of the Land," Time, Jan. 20, 1961, 26
.
[47] "Betty Ford Will Set a Different Style," U. S. News and World Repo
rt, Aug. 19, 1974,
20.
[48] See Nan Robertson, "Our New F
irst Lady," Saturday Evening Post, Feb. 8, 1964, 20-25;
"S
tory of the Johnson Family Fortune," U. S. News and World Report, Nov. 16,
1963, 75; and
"Three Other LBJ's," Newsweek, Dec. 9, 1963,
264, which notes that she made a fortune
investing her inhe
ritance. Also see, "Betty Ford, Role on the Election Circuit," U. S. News
and World Report, Oct. 7, 1974, 31.
[49] "Betty Ford's Ope
ration," Newsweek, Oct. 7, 1974, 33.
[50] See Bonnie Angelo, "Rosalynn: S
o Many Goals," Time, Jan. 10, 1977, 12; Charlotte
Curtis, "
What Kind of First Lady Will She Be?" McCall's, Jan. 1977, 24; "Change Come
s to the
White House," U. S. News and World Report, March,
21, 1977, 31-33; and "Rosalynn on the
Road," Time, Dec. 13,
1976, 16.
[51] See, Change Comes to the White House," U. S. News and Wor
ld Report, March, 21, 1977,
31-33; M. Demarest, "American P
ie at Its Best," Time, Jan, 19, 1981, pp 78-79; Patricia
Av
ery, "At White House; Now Its the Nancy Touch," U. S. News and World Report
,, Jan. 26,
1981, 24-25; and "Elegant, Opulent, Right Mind
ed," People, Jan. 19, 1981, 38-40.
[52] Melinda Black, "Nancy: Searching
For a Role," Newsweek, Feb. 2, 1987, 54.
[53] Gloria Steinem, "Finally a
'Total Woman' in the White House," Ms., March 19, 1981, 13.
[54] "Winnin
g Style: Kitty Dukakis and Barbara Bush on First Lae," Ms., March 19, 1981,
13.
[55] "Winning Style: Kitty Dukakis and Barbara Bush on First Lady Dr
essing," Vogue, Nov.
1988, 444.
[56] See Margaret Carlson
, "Barbara Bush: Down to Earth First Lady," Reader's Digest, April
1989, 83-87; and Maree McDonald, "A Favorite Grandmother," Maclean
's, Jan. 23, 1989, 30.
[57] See Caroli, xvi.
[58] See Sally Quinn, "Lo
ok It's SuperWoman," Newsweek, Feb. 15, 1993, 24-25;"First
Friends," People, Nov. 16, 1992, 92-94; Matt Cooper, "Co-President Clinton,
" U.S. News and
World Report, Feb. 8, 1993, 30-32; Kenneth
T. Walsh and Thomas Toch,"Now, The First Chief
Advocate," U
.S. News and World Report, Jan. 25, 1993, 46-47; Margaret Carlson, "The Dyn
amic
Duo," Time, Jan. 4, 1993, 38-41.
[59] Kenneth T. Wal
sh and Thomas Toch,"Now, The First Chief Advocate," U.S. News and World
Report, Jan. 25, 1993, 46-47.
[60] Mary Murphy, "Bill&Hillar
y&Harry&Linda," TV Guide, Jan. 16-22, _See Spy, February,
1
993.
[61] eg Greenfield, "Mrs. President," Newsweek, June 20, 1977, 100.
_ Michael Wines,
|
