There is little to gain and much to lose from forcing her to play a prominent role in her husband's campaign
Perhaps the most refreshing thing about Herman Cain's presidential candidacy, besides his revival of the dadaist aesthetic aside, was the fact that he wasn't dragging his wife around on the campaign trail. For the most part, the press respected her remove. But the allegation that Cain sexually harassed subordinates at the National Restaurant Association, and treatment of those allegations as if they're more relevant than his ignorance about China's nuclear weapons, has changed everything. Editors and reporters now perceive news value in stories like "Gloria Cain Stands By Her Man," "Team Cain: A Portrait of the Candidate's Marriage," and "Rarely Seen, Gloria Cain to Speak Publicly."
Say for the sake of argument that there is some benefit to publishing these stories (though I have my doubts). Even if that is the case, can they possibly outweigh the costs? There's the unpleasantness and loss of privacy that Mrs. Cain is suffering, the distraction from weightier issues, and most important of all, the fact that insisting on making the nature and quality of candidate marriages as an inevitable subject of inquiry -- even when spouses stay off the campaign trail -- makes normal people far less likely to run for office, or to permit their spouses to run.