^
The short answer:
No
The real answer:
The Bill/Hillary Clinton situation, I would argue, is different because, well, Bill WAS already President...and he'd already had Hillary stump for him before...
So it could be said to be more of a mutual sort of a thing, and not just Hillary using Bill (insert your own "Clinton Sex Joke" here) to further her own ends.
With Mitt Romney...well...not so much.
After all, what did Ann Romney actually SAY in her speech?
She spoke about how youthful her husband was when they married...
What a wonderful person she thought he was and how he wowed her...
How HE was too modest to mention how amazing he was (so HE had HER do it)...
How he was "that boy I met at a high school dance" (she said that about 10 times)...
It was essentially little more than a husband talking up every last thing superficial thing about her husband that is to be praised about him, from looks to youth to "modesty" (again, it's not modesty when you claim you're too modest to say it and yet have your wife tout your accomplishments and "modesty" on national TV) and so on.
On the flip side--can we say Mitt has or was equally helping Ann?
It seems rather more one-sided than the Clinton Case; there, they tout each other, back and forth, whereas with the Romneys, it's essentially Ann being made to tout her husband without his necessarily reciprocating that.
I'll certainly grant the elephant in the room--that obviously, with Lewinsky-gate, the Clintons haven't had the perfect marriage, and I'm not taking them as such--but that doesn't take away from the cringe-worthy feeling of seeing a woman in 2012 have to give her one and only national speech not only on how wonderful her husband is and empower him when (let's be frank, Left and Right) he's about as empowered and wealthy as they come, but to have to talk up how her husband is so perfect that he'd be far, FAR too modest to mention just how many great things he's done and what a spectacular person he is...and so has his wife do it and refer to him as "that boy I met at a high school dance" repeatedly.
I harp on those points specifically because I think they're the most glaring examples--
I would venture to say NO wife, even the most loving, would honestly or willingly bend over and prostrate themselves to their husband's unparalleled and perfect splendor the way Ann Romney did WILLINGLY.
They might talk up their husband for political reasons, sure--but being forced into a speech and then, on top of that, talking up her husband as if he was perfection incarnate?
That's not the case, everyone knows that's not the case, and that's what makes it cringe-worthy, because SHE had to know this was not the case, and yet was trotted out (with no public speaking experience, I might add, so she's not like Hillary/Bill in that regard, both of whom were active politically, so giving an artificial speech to millions was nothing new or potentially scary to them) to praise her husband to the point where he came across as a figure of perfection?
That's not marriage. Bill cheating on Hillary was terrible, to say the least--but THAT is part of life and part of marriage, ie, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES.
How much more "human"--following all that talk about how this speech was supposed to "humanize" Romney--would it have made Mitt appear if Ann Romney had described some of their problems in marital life, and how they worked through them and grew and how because of THAT, she felt, he was a strong enough and worthy person for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America?
Leaving feminism aside, how much better from a compositional standpoint would that have made her speech given her goal of humanizing him?
WE KNOW Mitt Romney is nowhere near as perfect as she painted him.
We know.
No one is.
No one expects that.
If she'd portrayed him as a man who'd made mistakes in their life together (and he has to have, again, there are mistakes in every life and every relationship, they DO NOT have a Leave It To Beaver marriage) but learned and grown because of them...and grown WITH HER HELP, showing that she was an EQUAL PARTNER in this marriage...
RATHER than worship him like some idolized, saintly, perfect figure who's not only never made such mistakes and is incredibly accomplished BUT is so humble and modest as to not tout these accomplishments, and merely let a team of publicists and now his own wife do it for him...
How much more powerful, effective, AND female-friendly would that message have been?
That sort of statement has been partially responsible for the rehabilitation of Bill Clinton's image and legacy after Watergate--he's looked on so remarkably favorably now, and if you'd told anyone in 2000 that by 2012 he'd be a welcome speaker for Democrats and even have his economic era commended to an extent by Republicans, and quite possibly be seen as the most popular living president out of Carter, the Bushes, himself, and Obama--would you have believed it?
And it's helped Hillary in turn as well, as she now comes across to many as a strong female leader and, in first taking a firm stance with her husband following his egregious misconduct and, after taking that firm stance and forcing him to won up to his wrongdoing, engineering a reconciliation in that marriage...well, she doesn't come across as the "cold" woman she once did, but a fully fleshed-out person, who has had to deal with and overcome issues millions of Americans can relate to while still finding a way to get ahead.
Rather than blanketly praise one another and pretend there were no foibles or faults in their marriage, owning up to the faults and confronting them and showing them as something they've surmounted has helped both of their political images and careers significantly, FAR MORE than one merely pandering shamelessly to the other would have (or could have) ever done.
So that no one gets the wrong idea--I AM NOT saying Mitt Romney is the sole culprit of this sort of spousal exploitation.
Other candidates have done the same...Barack Obama had Michelle and (mostly) blanketly praise him Tuesday.
I WILL say that, as First Lady, I think it's more acceptable that she now be called on to speak; after all, she's gone on Letterman and been no stranger to media attention and has worked towards social programs on her own in that role, so at least she's not new to the political arena and is just being pushed out onstage before millions of searching eyes with no experience or background in this herself, as was the case with Ann Romney.
I'm still not a fan of that, but it's more understandable.
Even so, I'd maintain:
Stumping for a spouse is one thing--it's not something I'm a fan of, but when Michelle or
Bill/Hillary or (to show I'm not partisan here) Rand Paul (who has her own views and has developed and spoken on them) do so, it's one thing. They're all, to varying extents, political figures, and all fair game...and what's more, they treat their spouses favorably, but as human beings.
But being made to stump for your husband with NO experience in politics, NO experience with public speaking, and on top of that, rather than merely present a mostly-favorable-if-flawed picture, to be made to go so far as to tout the youth and wealth and charity and accomplishments and THEN "modesty" of her husband...
To have that campaign spew the line that HE is so modest he'd NEVER tout his "success"...so here she is to do it for him, and paint him as a figure of perfection, possibly at her own expense...
I take issue THERE.
On the one hand, I don't feel it's very empowering for women...
On the other, I don't feel it works structurally towards the goal of humanizing Romney.
Human beings are NOT, as Madison pointed out, perfect or angels--
If we were, we'd have no need for government.
So painting Mitt Romney as a perfect figure doesn't humanize him one bit--but, rather, makes him seem all the more artificial, distant, and unrelatable to we mere mortals, we common voters...after all, WE'RE just human.
People who can't even CDR right
)
)
)
)
)
)