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.
I would not disagree with your assessment that a Hillary presidency would be a disaster for the country. However you set up a scenario based on only two choices, a man fighting Cancer and a woman none of us are comfortable with. I would respond to that by saying we have other choices. Fred is not the nominee at this time and there are others running for the Rep. nomination who are highly qualified to do the job who, to the best of knowledge, do not have the health issues surrounding Fred. If Fred was to become the choice of the party I would support him and hope he had a long and successful administration. I would also hope he would pick an outstanding person to run with him for VP. Personally though I do worry about his health and the stress of the job he is seeking, as I would anyone else who was running while battling a known illness like Cancer (for the record I have the same doubts about Rudy and John).
As for your treatise on the emotional instabilty of women, I wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole and Lech Stanzynski a ten foot Pole says he wouldn’t touch it either (a little non-PC humor there).
From what I've observed, that woman has had lots of practice suppressing her emotional reaction to data. She "compartmentalizes" as well as her husband.
(I really would like a reference for your supposition that men do not need the same practice to suppress emotion, however.)