Question of the Day | 05/22/2008 12:00 am

Would you feel safe with a woman as commander in chief? Why or why not?

Read more about: Ann Richards, Election, Military, U.S.

364 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Why is this still a question? We should have had women in that seat decades ago. I hate to think that Hillary is going to have to wait another 8 years for the next run.

By Jeannot Kensinger on 05/22/2008 8:27 am

e-mail alert

Yes, I would feel more safe with a women anytime. Well, Hillary I would feel safe with. Hillary is smart and she knows what needs to be done and she is on it. Hillary is the only woman that stepped up to the plate. Hillary worked from the bottom to the top. She is a great woman!

By Tonja McCarver on 05/22/2008 8:33 am

e-mail alert

I would definitely feel safer with a woman as president. Women bear, carry, birth and develop children while taking care of the rest of the family and community every day. Woman are the caretakers of the earth and make serious major decisions every day. She can be president as easily if not as a stronger candidate for president of the US. Hilliary is being thrown out of the race because she is a woman and Obama is a male who has a fresh new face. Eventhough he is an excellent speaker, Hilliary has him beat on all the rest: foreign issues, oil, gas, health care, education, expeirence, intelligence, I could go on and on.

By marilyn schindler` on 05/22/2008 8:33 am

e-mail alert

The days of the effective Machiavellian Commander in Chief have passed. We now see the result of justifying any action, no matter how cruel, to protect the country in a misguided attempt to be safe at any cost. It is time, in my opinion, to acknowledge the potential of diplomacy as an integral aspect of the Commander in Chief’s responsibilities, and it is my further opinion that that strategy would be best effected by a woman.

By K O on 05/22/2008 8:35 am

e-mail alert

No doubt…

By T S on 05/22/2008 4:14 pm

e-mail alert

Kitty, Hi! the dialogue coming out of the campaign trail has HRC NUKING the Iranians, and the guy, what’s his name? Obama establishing a dialogue.. He’s been chastised as ” appeaser appeaser he’ an appeaser!” articualte, seemingly hauling the ssame principles as HRC on the domestic categories, but i think he’s actually got a broader interest.. Meaning that He will promote rights of women ( except this presidency) but I cannot help but believe that human rights are of paramount interest to Barack. ” if you desire PEACE WORK for JUSTICE! That is the president I’m voting for . man or woman Currently I’ll take either one but I’m still in the Obama camp.

By immoddesta godessa on 05/23/2008 2:59 am

e-mail alert

of course…the world would be a different place if women controlled it anyway…i say put MEN in cages and bring them out only when NEEDED (and that ‘when’ is totally debatable)…boy, the older i get the sicker i get of living in/on a ‘man’s’ world…yecch…hillary will make a GREAT president/commander in chief!!!

By theCHEROKEErose on 05/22/2008 8:43 am

e-mail alert

I would very much welcome a competent, intelligent , honest person as commander-in-chief! Woman or man. I am just sorry that Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan never had a chance to steer this country. What a waste of talent and brains. I just hope and pray that the US citizens who vote and care come to their senses before it’s too late. Belle

By Belle Frazer on 05/22/2008 8:57 am

e-mail alert

What ARE you talking about, Belle? Ann Richardson, Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisolm, even Carrie Nation (bless her heart). Their legacy instructs us still. We must all keep the lessons they taught alive within us and our daily comings and goings. I’m sure, if the founding electorate had placed one of their mothers in the presidency instead of George Washington, we’d still be looking at two centuries worth of good and bad Presidents. At this point in time, we certainly have many women and men to thank for loosening the stranglehold sexism held on women in 1776. But it’s still here.

By Ms. Dee on 05/22/2008 12:13 pm

e-mail alert

I would feel safer with a female than a male. I feel women tend to look at the big picture and are not so quick to jump to conclusions. There would be more negotiation, less ego, less fighting. My mother was a very strong willed women who knew how to get things done without loosing her temper or resorting to physical means. I think a women is much more qualified to keep our country safe than men are.

By elizabeth blancher on 05/22/2008 9:11 am

e-mail alert

Why not? Men either were in the military as a pretty normal sequence of life for men, or think they should have been, or think it’s kind of a necessary “evil.” Our military is a necessary part of our skiil set in this world. Women are more practical—and it doesn’t hurt that some in the military might be kind of afraid of one woman out there. She would get some respect.

By Star Lawrence on 05/22/2008 9:48 am