I read with interest this weekend's Washington Post story that detailed Jeri Thompson's role in her husband's campaign.

One of the premises of this story seems to me to be deeply flawed. This is what the Washington Post had to say about Thompson:

Even before her husband's campaign is official, Jeri Thompson has had her share of publicity. She has had to fend off insinuations about her age and good looks -- including a New York Times reference to her as a "trophy wife." And some advisers inside the Thompson campaign have anonymously criticized the strong hand she has taken in running it.

Campaign sources described Jeri Thompson as firm, straightforward and assured of what she wants to do, but unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of campaigning. Many decisions have been held up awaiting her approval, they say, from routine matters such as travel schedules and car manifests to weightier ones including direct-mail efforts, personnel choices and the timing of the campaign kickoff.

One person directly familiar with the campaign said Thompson was the architect of the strategy to portray her husband as the true conservative in the race. The source said Thompson works mostly from the couple's home in McLean, "running the campaign from the kitchen table." She frequently calls aides and demands answers quickly. "Everything for her is at Defcon," the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak on behalf of the campaign.

We have seen a lot of stories like this - and, generally, presidential spouses tend to receive flack for being too highly involved (unless, of course, the spouse is Bill Clinton - in which case the involvement is celebrated). I think this misunderstands the very important advisory role that spouses can play.

The implication here is that Jeri Thompson is doing a job that is far above her pay grade - and that her misunderstandings are gumming up the works. First off, we should ask, does this not seem likely to be an exaggeration proffered by advisers with their own axes to grind? With all due respect to campaign professionals, what they do is not exactly rocket science. Jeri Thompson has a college degree and more than a few years working for the GOP in Washington. I am sure that she is not creating that many headaches - or, if she is, the headaches are being ameliorated by the genius strokes she has from time to time (like pushing for Thompson as the "true conservative" in the race). This part of the story obviously originated from irked campaign professionals, who therefore are probably...overreacting.

But I'll grant that she is working somewhat above her pay grade. Why is Thompson making such use of her? Why, more generally, do lots of presidential candidates make such use of their spouses? Thompson, really, is not the first. Ronald Reagan made great use of Nancy. John Kerry made great use of Teresa. And of course, Hillary Clinton is claiming to be qualified for the presidency because of the wide and deep use that Bill Clinton made of her counsel. Why has this been common in recent years?

I believe that it is the unique position of the presidency. It is an alienating job. When you are the president of the United States (or a candidate for the office) - nobody but you has your interests at heart. You have scads of advisers - but, when you get right down to it, the advisers and you do not have the same interests. Ultimately, they have an interest in their advice being taken (e.g. they would rather you take their advice and lose rather than fire them for bad advice and win!). When their advice is not in your interests, and eventually it will not be, those advisers are not your allies. And, as you never know whether the advice is ultimately in your interests, you always stand alone in some way.

Ultimately, this is the case in many walks of life. However, with the presidency - the stakes are so much higher. This is what makes the presidency uniquely alienating. We have discussed how the informal powers of the president can be vast, while the formal powers are quite slender. It is only through his own political cunning that a president expands and then retains his informal powers, that he is more than an executive clerk. Taking the wrong advice or making the wrong decisions will result in a diminution of that informal power, which is so hard to reacquire once it has gone away. This is what advisers do not care about - their interests, professional and personal, are not in expanding and retaining the president's power. Their interests, strictly speaking, are in their advice.

The same is essentially true during the candidacy. If a candidate loses an election - that's the end. There's not another run for president for Fred Thompson after 2008. But what about his advisers? Will they find other advisory roles after 2008? Of course they will. In point of fact, "Thompson 2008" will find its way onto their resumes! So, again, we see a subtle but real divergence of interests between the person at the top and his advisers.

This is where a presidential spouse can be of such value. A loyal and loving spouse - unlike an adviser - does have the president's interests at heart. The spouse is interested in precisely the same thing as the president - expanding and retaining the president's power. This, of course, is what a good marriage is all about - the union of interests. Accordingly, a president (or presidential candidate) can trust his spouse's advice. She may not be the most knowledgeable person on a given subject - but she is the only one who is truly on the president's side. If a spouse tells the president that she thinks a move is a bad one, the president knows that she means, "This move is bad for us." No other person has this kind of standing with the president.

Traditionally, spouses have not played this kind of role for the president. But much of this probably has to do with the fact that women have only been integrated into American professional life relatively recently. And so - while a spouse might have had her husband's interests at heart - politics was not a place where she had much of a knowledge base to play an advisory role. All of this has changed. Women go to college now. They follow, participate in, and make a living from politics. Furthermore, the nature of the American marriage has changed such that now it is more appropriate for men to seek the counsel of their wives on professional matters. This makes the presidential spouse an incredible asset for the West Wing.

What is more, the nature of political advising has changed. Advisers are now "hired guns" - campaign professions who go from candidate to candidate like mercenaries. It was not always this way. It used to be that a president did not need so many professionals to counsel him. He could rely on friends and lifelong associates, or party leaders whose interests in victory were as great as his. The changes in advising have created this separation between a president or presidential candidate and his staff. I am not suggesting here that advisers are inherently dishonest or disingenuous or anything like that. All I am saying is that the nature of advising candidates and officeholders has changed. It has become professionalized - which has altered the nature of the interaction. Professionalization makes advisers' input more valuable because it is more informed. But, on the other hand, it makes it less valuable because - at the end of the day - the advisers do not have the stake in the candidate that they used to.

This is why a presidential spouse is so important. In all likelihood, a contemporary presidential spouse is college educated and reasonably familiar with politics. So, she'll never give an ignorant opinion. And, what is more, she - unlike her husband's advisers - has a stake in her husband's candidacy.

Jeri Thompson might not be a professional campaign manager - but she should be involved in the discussions. She has a college degree. She's been around Washington for a while. She might not know as much as the hired guns, but she knows enough. And, more importantly, unlike the hired guns, she has as great a stake in her husband's candidacy as her husband does. This is why Thompson has his wife so involved - he can trust her. It's a smart move.