COLUMN LEFT / JESSE JACKSON : Put Hillary to Work for All America : Both the country and the President-elect are lucky to have her counsel; now, give her a job.

Although President-elect Clinton has yet to be sworn in, his presidency is already taking flak. A favorite target--now, as in the campaign--is his wife, Hillary Clinton. Nothing seems more unnerving than the possibility that this President’s wife might have a few ideas of her own.

“Hillary’s Voice Heard at Meeting” headlined the Washington Times, when she had the temerity to express her views in a dinner meeting with congressional leaders. To the ultra right, she is the “Lady Macbeth of Little Rock” (American Spectator) or the “Evita Peron of American politics” (Human Events). Cartoons depict “his and hers” desks in the Oval Office, or the President-elect as a marionette with Hillary pulling the strings.

This attack would be silly if it were not so widespread. Hillary Clinton is a skilled, articulate attorney who has already made significant contributions in public life, particularly as an advocate for children and for worker training. But somehow, now that her husband is President, her gifts raise tribulations, not tributes.

Conservatives relish the assault, even though it demeans the marriage partnership. They intimate that the influence of a lifetime partner and helpmate is more perfidious and manipulative than that of sometime appointees. It is acceptable for a professional woman to advise a President she doesn’t know personally, but not one who is her husband.

Some of this unease is generational, but much reflects the retarded development of the nation’s capital. The men’s club that is political Washington still finds it hard to deal with professional women. Women are right when they say many men “just don’t get it.”

Most of the country is beyond all this. Among poor people, women have always had to work. Today, most married women work outside the home, helping to bear the financial burdens of raising a family. Only a small minority of families could even envision achieving parts of the American dream without two incomes. As women have become breadwinners, men and women have struggled to find time for children and chores. Too often, women end up doing a double shift, but slowly men are learning more about car pools and microwaves.

These modern partnerships give lie to the sexist presumption that a strong wife means a weak husband. It takes a strong man to provide a good match for a strong woman.

Strong couples are not foreign to the political world, even among conservatives. Liddy Dole has forged a widely praised career in public service while her husband serves as minority leader in the Senate. Lynne Cheney headed the National Endowment for the Humanities while her husband, Richard, served as secretary of defense.

Yet commentators suggest it is “different” when one’s husband is President. Strong-willed wives will have “undue influence”: They not only have ideas, but also unparalleled access to the President’s ear. Even many liberals suggest that presidential wives must be confined and defined, satisfied with one-liners: “Say no to drugs,” “Say yes to literacy.”

This convention is both demeaning and misleading. Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, two very strong women, had a far greater influence on their husbands than their charitable work. Hillary Clinton is well qualified for a high position in government leadership. Why should her policy advice be limited to the private quarters of the White House and her public role be limited to charitable activity?

She wasn’t elected, but he was. He named her long ago to be his adviser, helpmate and partner. That’s what marriage vows are about. She will share his successes and his failures, the smiles and the tears more than any other adviser. She will speak more authoritatively in his name than any other adviser. He will be held directly responsible for her actions more than those of any other aide. She is accountable because he is accountable.

Too often left out of the discussion are the people who need Hillary Clinton to lead. She is one the finest advocates for children in a country where one of five children live in poverty. She can rally the nation to invest in children on the front side of life in prenatal care, the Head Start program and day care rather than pay far more on the back side in welfare and jail care.

The President-elect has already pledged to fully fund programs vital to a healthy start for children. Now the public must be engaged; the Congress brought along. If Hillary Clinton puts her skills to work on that--inside and outside the government--we will all benefit from her “undue influence.”