That is an absurd statement. The general health of anyone running for president is an issue. You don’t die from being female you die from NHL. I had two friends that had other cancer that were remission, but who died unexpectedly from NHL. The stresses of being president are immense and can age a healthy person, starting out sick is not a winning recipe for longevity. Some one earlier mentioned that Clinton seemed to be unaffected by the stress. I seem to remember him having some sort of heart trouble not long after leaving the WH and at a very young age.
I feel bad for Fred, I like him. However I think his best role for the party at this point in his life would be as an unencumbered spokesman who can go out and say the things that need be said, but are hard for a candidate to say without possibly alienating some voters.
It’s only an absurd comment on the very surface; underneath it all there’s a deeper, more important truth.
It is true that Thompson’s health might become a grave issue; yeah, it really could get bad suddenly, and he COULD die in Office, were he to be elected President.
BUT — and this is key — President Fred Thompson dying in Office of NHL — leaving the country in the hands of his VP — is LESS a threat to the Constitution, citizens, and future of the United States than a Hillary presidency.
The death of a President in Office is NOT a Constitutional crisis; a Hillary presidency would almost CERTAINLY result in the destruction of foundational elements of the Republic, itself.
“Okay, so how does that tie back to Hillary’s gender?”
The tie is this: we all thought the WJC Presidency was reprehensible, but his gender didn’t physiologically impede his assessment of raw facts by encumbering his decision-making faculties with the accompanying emotional load. Bill made some bad decisions, but if there were any emotional inputs to the process, they weren’t his.
Hillary would not have this benefit.
We know from medical science that the male and female brains are actually physiologically different in a crucial aspect, and the impact is this: men can review the facts of a situation WITHOUT feeling the emotional load implicit in that set of facts; when women review the same set of facts, the emotional load is felt simultaneously, and has to be actively blocked out in order for the woman to exclude that emotional load from the decision-making process.
Women do NOT have equal degrees of difficulty doing this, nor do they feel the emotional load of a given fact set with the same strength, so some women are nearly as unimpeded by emotional loads as men in their decision-making, but fifteen years watching and listening to Hillary leads me to conclude that she is NOT one of these women.
Hillary will not unemotionally review the facts presented to her regarding the boots-on-the-ground realities in Iraq, she will be influenced by her “get out now” emotional load.
Hillary will not unemotionally review the pros and cons of a national healthcare system, she will be influenced by hre “oh, the poor people” emotional load.
Fred Thompson could get elected, die in Office, and his VP could take the helm for his remaining term, and it would STILL not negatively impact this country the way either of those two (likely, IMO) Hillary scenarios would.
Fred’s health truly IS LESS an issue than Hillary’s gender.