Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 175 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Meh
[Read the article: Would you vote for a smoker?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not something that would make me less likely to vote for someone. My Dad used to smoke and it IS difficult to quit. He quit for years and then started again for a little while, my Mom found out and he finally quit for good. But, it's just tough to quit.
Besides, did the fact that Bush stopped drinking make him a better President? NO - and I like scotch. I don't like cigarettes. I wouldn't let Obama smoke in my house, but, I wouldn't let Bush in my house, period.
I bet there are people who say they are less likely to vote for someone because of smoking. I wonder if they are some of the same people who say they think it matters if a candidate is divorced, but conveniently forget that McCain in on his second wife? People are almost never consistent about these things.
-
I've asked this before, and not gotten any credible answer
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not saying there has to be a woman President. But, since it does look like Clinton probably won't be the nominee, and, people keep highlighting the reasons they say she isn't the right woman, who would be the right woman. About a month, or more ago, I gave a list of criteria, based on the fact that apparently based on the posts here, the dream candidate has to be something of an Obama clone, although not necessarily black, but certain things have to be there:
Younger (under 50). It's become very obvious that age is an issue with younger voters.
Solid marriage, grown kids (no woman with kids the age of Obama's should try and run). Btw, makes it tough to be under 50 if you are a woman and had a career that's gotten you far enough to run for President unless you've had lots of help at home.
It would be better if you actually didn't have that much of a record at a national level, that way progressives can project their agenda onto you and moderates can project their agenda onto you with very little trouble.
Excellent speaking skills, at least passable debating skills. Warm personality, but, as a woman, it can't be "too" warm, because, if you don't show that you have a spine of steel, people will say you are too soft to be in the Oval Office. Physically attractive, but not too attractive, because, if you are too attractive, you will become a caraciture the other way.
This is the THIRD time I have asked this question. The first two times, the only suggestions anyone gave were Pelosi and Boxer. They flunk the age test, among others. I never got any decent suggestions of any other women who might be out there, even in state politics (I'm not even looking for governors, maybe younger state senators who have national ambitions, because many female governors are too old). Are you all telling me that Pelosi and Boxer are it??? That's it???
-
OK, no suggestions so far
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll help. of the current women in the Senate, the only two on the Democratic side who are currently under the age of 50, Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas (on her 3rd term) and Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota (1st term) are 48 already and would be over 50 in 2012 if it's a McCain victory and obviously pushing 56 if we look at a 2-term Obama Presidency (which, I imagine, many of the posters in this thread are envisioning). So, they are not viable. Please, remember that many of the objections to both Clinton and McCain among under-35s are directly related to age and being out-of-touch.
Please, if you are going to say, "not this woman", then suggest a woman who might actually win, given what seem to be the 'new' electoral demographics. Otherwise, it's simply useless.
Do we have any women running for Senate who might be the right age in 2012 or 2016 for a Presidential run? Or, would all of you just like to continue to say you'd vote for Pelosi and Boxer (who might both be dead then and aren't electable as President anyway) but not Clinton?
-
To the person who brough up Kathleen Sebelius
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's now 59. Exactly how does someone who is now one year younger than Hillary is now, and would be 67 after what many people here would hope to be 2 terms of an Obama presidency , appeal to the under-35 demographic that many on here insist is now key to expanding the electoral demographic?
Please. Someone give me a women who would have a shot in 4-8 years who will be around 50 at that point. Or, the next time they start talking about which voting group is most dangerous to alienate, nobody better say it's the under-35s. Because, if you keep giving me women candidates who will be much older than Hillary is now after possibly 8 years of Obama, you are completely blowing that argument to bits.
This is absolutely the last time I will address this topic in any thread. The lack of any answers that make any sense pretty much gives me my answer. There are no women in the pipeline who can win on the Democratic side any time soon. Clinton was the closest candidate there was. And, as I said, it isn't 'necessary' that there be a woman President anytime soon. But for all of you who said that you would vote for a woman, but just not this woman, who couldn't even be bothered to, or just couldn't, give a legitimate answer to the topic, thanks so much. You will say you will vote for a woman, but won't specify one who even has a chance of winning. Because I think you all know, there isn't one, other than possibly Clinton. So, it isn't real. So, you can say it, but not really mean it.