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

When the going gets tough and things “shatter,” it is women who pick up the pieces and set the restoration in motion. I would trust a rational woman as Commander-in-Chief without hesitation. And, yes, I support Hillary.

By M.F. Doherty on 05/22/2008 4:33 am

e-mail alert

the way that one runs a campaign is a micro of the way that one would run the country. now, think about it… hillary’s campaign was a logistical and fiscal nightmare… this is who you would choose to run our country and our military? she chose lackluster managers, strategists, tacticians… she lost the ground game because she had no plan b, c, or d, she frittered away her assets, she failed to ‘read’ the mood of the country and when determining her campaign’s ‘theme’ was terribly off mark. she could not control her staff and her staff was at odds with each other. she is not a leader by anyone’s definition, policy wonk yes, leader… no.

By ariadne a on 05/22/2008 5:13 am

e-mail alert

ariadne, I agree with what you’ve posted except the part of Hillary not being a leader. Most agree she was better than her campaign, but once she righted the boat she has sailed the thing right into port. She is very much a leader and that is why Obama hasn’t been able to seal this deal, yet. A leader who despite being outspent 4 to 1, is still able to significantly blow Obama away.

By Marjorie C. on 05/22/2008 6:44 am

e-mail alert

no, marjorie, it was not clinton who righted the boat, it was maggie williams who was brought in at the insistence of others. i disagree that she was ‘better’ than her campaign; in my world view she ‘is’ her campaign. she makes or approves of all decisions and strategies. as truman said, ‘the buck stops here.”

By ariadne a on 05/22/2008 11:20 am

e-mail alert

… safe with a woman as Commander in Chief? YES However… women tend to be appeasers (talk, talk, talk) while men tend to be aggressors (shock and awe), so I’d hope any woman would have the best of men around her as advisers as well as the best of women. All shock and awe as we have now is crazy. There should be more women in the upper levels of government — women making influential decisions, not just tokens who position themselves behind a man.

By Marjorie C. on 05/22/2008 6:22 am

e-mail alert

I believe you misunderstand the meaning of appeasement. It does not mean to talk.

By Deni G on 05/22/2008 10:59 am

e-mail alert

what i find amazing is the feminine approach of obama[engage, communicate, compromise] and the masculine approach of clinton[intimidate, threaten, nuke] the enemies. as written in sun tzu, in the art of war: 1] To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. 2] For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. 3] all men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved. 4] keep your friends close and your enemies closer. 5] There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. these approaches are more of obamas philosophy… clinton and macain are all about obliteration and nihilation.

By ariadne a on 05/22/2008 11:37 am

e-mail alert

There is an interesting book: In Women We Trust: A cultural shift to the softer side of business (Paperback) by Mary Clare Hunt.

By Kay Sara on 05/22/2008 6:42 am

e-mail alert

It is disgraceful that we even have to ask a question like this in 2008.

By linda Rose on 05/22/2008 7:14 am

e-mail alert

I would love to see a woman as President, but the most important thing for any President is are they qualified, their value system, their goals/vision for the country. Perhaps a US version of Margaret Thatcher?

By One Mom on 05/22/2008 7:35 am

e-mail alert

I think our biological imperitive is stronger and therefore I would feel safer.I think women look down the road before dashing out to sum it up with cliches!

By Angela Dean on 05/22/2008 7:38 am

e-mail alert

I really, really want Hillary to win. I’ve campaigned for her everywhere I have any personal influence. My answer is “yes”. I believe a woman would do a fine job and would go a long way toward a more positive direction in this country. Also, I would certainly vote for Oprah or Whoopi. Keep up the good work. Namaste’

By Kathy McClellan on 05/22/2008 7:43 am

e-mail alert

Hillary would be great. So would Sibelius. Why is it then when Hillary talks tough she is “irresponsible” but when men talk tough they are assertive?

By David POWERS on 05/22/2008 7:45 am

e-mail alert

Truthfully, I’m not comfortable with a woman as the next commander in chief. Would I feel safe with Hillary as the next US President? No. I do believe women to be strong and capable as a leader, however, as the leader of the most powerful country in the world, the commander to the world’s best armed forces…I can’t say that “at THIS time” we are ready for Hillary to hold that position. Maybe a different woman and different time. The idea of woman President is great, but is it a realistic one?

By Jacklynn P-G on 05/22/2008 7:45 am

e-mail alert

You are why we will not have a women president anytime soon. Women are harder on women than they are on men holding them to a higher standard. Shameful!

By Vivian Jones on 05/22/2008 8:06 am