Granted Senator Obama "quit" smoking about a year ago (he admits falling off the wagon now and again), but this is still a very current health issue for him since he did smoke cigarettes for the majority of his life.
I mean, the amount of fatty deposits in a carotid artery doesn't just go away when you quit smoking. It's there and poses a health risk for the rest of your life.
And the risk of a stroke remains way higher than normal for up to 20 years after you quit smoking. (On top of this, African-Americans have a higher risk of stroke than Caucasians.)
So do you choose a presidential candidate even though he's at a very high risk of disease/death? Does it matter that for decades he has been addicted to a drug?
How would you feel seeing the US President attached to an oxygen tank?
Great question!
Even though I have certain conservative leanings, I would like to see Hillary (and Bill) in the White House, because I 'know' her better, have studied her more - and better the devil you know than the devil you don't!
But all Presidents have faults and failings. Taft was morbidly obese, FDR was in a wheelchair and smoked cigarettes, as did Eisenhower. Wilson was almost incapable of anything due to his strokes and his wife practically ran the white house by the end of his term, as some may say Nancy Reagan did after it was obvious that signs of Alzheimer's were being seen in Ronald. Betty Ford was an alcholic. JFK, Clinton and heaven knows how many others had illicit affairs.
Many, many presidents smoked cigars. Clinton had more than one use for them :)
And doesn't Laura Bush smoke cigarettes? I believe she does!
The fact that Obama has quit, or is trying to, makes him ok by me! As a former pack a day smoker for 16 years, I know what he is going through. And in his position, he's probably a stress smoker and anyone can understand that. He is human. And I'm sure the Surgeon General would hate me for saying this but smoking an occasional stress cigarette is not going to put anyone on an oxygen machine, it's just not.
Besides, smoking isn't illegal - just stupid.
Wow -politician doing something stupid! What a concept!
So I hope he quits but it doesn't bother me. Granted, Presidents should know better, act better, all that stuff. But we all know that never happens. Obama could do a lot worse than sneak the occasional puff.
and Obama is no different. Bush was a former alcoholic who many would argue still has addictive tendencies. Cheney could drop dead at any moment. McCain would be 72 when he took the oath of office if he wins, and we know that age and sex alone dramatically increase the risk for heart disease and stroke. He also had a previous encounter with skin cancer and has the scars to prove it. Both of those things would trouble me more than Obama's past as a smoker.
Everyone has health issues, and presidential candidates are no exception. This surely doesn't top the list of my concerns, as the risk of anyone dying at 46 is quite low, smoker or not. This country has much more pressing concerns...
For "Echo" .I believe that you are partially missing the point. Its Obama lack of willpower, judgment and resolve that is at issue here. Think of a smoker as someone who is an addict. Pretend that he was addicted to food instead and, due a lack of restraint, weighed 350lbs. A weight problem like that would speak to a lack of discipline, among other things. And it would definitely affect Obamas electibility. So why should his inability to quit smoking be any different? McCain didnt choose to get skin cancer and Cheny didnt do anything to develop a heart problem. In fact, both of them have been forced to take extra good care of themselves because of their respective health issues. I cant imagine either of them having a problem quitting smoking. I think that being able to quit takes real character and character counts when considering who to vote for, IMHO, at least.
I'm with you on this one. To your point:
• Addiction is addiction, regardless if it's food, booze, sex, drugs, ciggies...whatever.
• Addicts are conflicted by their personal pride and standards.
• Addicts are challenged by their inability to handle routine daily pressures.
For generations, Americans have mimicked the behavior of their beloved public figures, regardless of it's merit. Some random historical examples:
• JLo's lipgloss and Greek Goddess dresses. Harmless.
• Jennifer Aniston's 90's "Rachel" haircut--the long awaited sequel to Farrah Fawcett's '70's 'feathers' and Dorothy Hammil's wedge cut in the 80's. Again, harmless.
• Ronald Reagan singlehandedly 'brought back' the brown suit in the 80's. Everybody had one. Harmless, right?
• New parents name their babies after their favorite celebrity. Harmless? Ask the kids in 10 years.
On the flip side, would-be athletes and body builders use steroids because successful professional icons they admire and emulate are "users". Not so harmless. And women pump themselves up with injectables and implants, thinking they have to (literally) measure up to an unrealistic body standard to be perceived as and feel "beautiful".
Let's face it, many people in this country are followers. There's nothing wrong with it--it is what it is. That said, it is crucial to have strong role models. Many parents take their cues from high visibility people. Kids don't come with manuals, and frazzled parents will often take advice where they can get it---even from TV shows--- Oprah, Dr. Phil, Kelly Ripa and Rosie.
Our most prolific leaders are followers of something (religion, exercise, juicing, meditation, etc). It could be said that the behavior of our public figures has an impact on the well being of all people, whether they care to admit it or not. People look to others for insight, fashion trends, news stories, etc. It's the nature of our culture.
Question: With health care being a huge public concern, is it in our best interest to elect a leader who devalues their own health for any reason?
To smokers, I ask how is their smoking habit impacting the health of those around them? Smokers don't generally care that much about others. They really don't care much about themselves. Addicts, and think in narrow, selfish terms.
Is it fair to saddle the responsibility of being the leader of the free world on an addict's already compromised ability to handle pressure?
Sidebar: The first Surgeon General's report on smoking was issued in 1964. Did you get that? 1964---nearly 50 years ago!
Many people shrug these seemingly small, personal issues aside, as they did with the Clinton escapade, in an attempt to convince themselves and each other that 'we have bigger issues at stake.' If someone has low standards for themselves and compromises their own family, what standard will they set for the country? If small issues aren't handled well, what makes you think the really big issues will be well managed?
The answers have already played out in history.
My hope is that we become more conscious of the way we live and how our seemingly mundane and casual lifestyle choices impact the lives of those around us. It's not all about any one of us, rather it's all about the collective. We need to stand up a little straighter and take cues from those who do well with and for others---our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers and strangers who do ordinary things in extraordinary ways.
And what is this endless blather about how our candidates are human? We all have shortcomings. So what? Our performance is not judged by our challenges, but rather our ability to cope with and handle them. This has nothing to do with platforms, issues and acceptable standards and practices. It's about character and integrity.
Any slice of our behavior is a microcosm of how we conduct our lives. It's in the best interest of any organization to 'hire' whomever is best suited for the job, personally and professionally.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
by Kristin Mills CNHP Posted: Mon., July 7, 2008, 12:04 am
Do you really think the American voter seriously considers whether or not Obama's smoking past makes him more or less Presidential than McCain?
There is a long history of Presidential candidates hiding their health problems. Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to appear weak to the public, in spite of his polio. We elected Jack Kennedy, in spite of his chronic back problems, not knowing he actually had Addison's disease. Eisenhower had a heart attack, a stroke and an abdominal operation all within two years. Grover Cleveland secretly underwent surgery removing the roof of his mouth due to carcinoma. Ronald Reagan lost a lot of lucidity during the later part of his term - we were sympathetic because of the assassination attempt, but didn't know he was suffering the early affects of Alzheimer's.
Were you to check the health histories of our Founding Fathers and first Presidents, you'd be alarmed at the depression and heart disease, among some other pretty scary health issues, that ravaged them. George Washington suffered from: "Malaria, smallpox, tuberculosis, dysentery, boils (carbuncles), tooth loss, hearing loss, presbyopia, infertility, quinsy, pneumonia, epiglottitis or strep infection of the larynx."
We would balk at the risk of electing a President who could not fulfill the requirements of his office, communicate on our behalf, represent us to our global society or defend us against our many adversaries. We would hardly balk at a guy who recently quit smoking.
While health may be an issue that some of our candidates, like McCain, want to make a "non-issue," we're more concerned about qualities like leadership and morality, even by association. Frankly, I'd rather elect someone who admits to a health issue than one who claims to not have inhaled. I think it's great that McCain is leading the way to breaking tradition with hiding a troublesome health past.
Whom I choose to vote for, however, will depend entirely upon my preference over candidates based on what I believe their qualifications are for the office, not the waiting room.
Because he appears healthy and vibrant, his smoking past is not the issue. His candidacy is based upon whether or not he possesses the right stuff for the Oval Office.
Because McCain has, in both his Presidential bids, been open and candid about his health issues - remember that he was a POW from the Viet Nam era - his candidacy is based upon whether or not he possesses the right stuff AND the physical stamina. McCain has the added mark of age going against him.
All I really care about is who has the right stuff.
Obama's lack of experience and continual skirting of issues is more of a concern than McCain being 70-whatever. Who cares? McCain has more experience than any of them and he's a straight shooter. I like that.
That said, I don't know if I care for anybody's politics. Someone has 4 months to step up.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
by Kristin Mills CNHP Posted: Mon., July 7, 2008, 12:09 am
It actually makes me like him more....
Posted: Mon., April 21, 2008, 11:21 am
All people have health shortcomings,
Posted: Wed., April 23, 2008, 03:30 pm
I believe that you may be missing the larger point
For "Echo" .I believe that you are partially missing the point. Its Obama lack of willpower, judgment and resolve that is at issue here. Think of a smoker as someone who is an addict. Pretend that he was addicted to food instead and, due a lack of restraint, weighed 350lbs. A weight problem like that would speak to a lack of discipline, among other things. And it would definitely affect Obamas electibility. So why should his inability to quit smoking be any different? McCain didnt choose to get skin cancer and Cheny didnt do anything to develop a heart problem. In fact, both of them have been forced to take extra good care of themselves because of their respective health issues. I cant imagine either of them having a problem quitting smoking. I think that being able to quit takes real character and character counts when considering who to vote for, IMHO, at least.
Posted: Mon., June 2, 2008, 06:18 pm
In response to our anonymous writer....
I'm with you on this one. To your point:
• Addiction is addiction, regardless if it's food, booze, sex, drugs, ciggies...whatever.
• Addicts are conflicted by their personal pride and standards.
• Addicts are challenged by their inability to handle routine daily pressures.
For generations, Americans have mimicked the behavior of their beloved public figures, regardless of it's merit. Some random historical examples:
• JLo's lipgloss and Greek Goddess dresses. Harmless.
• Jennifer Aniston's 90's "Rachel" haircut--the long awaited sequel to Farrah Fawcett's '70's 'feathers' and Dorothy Hammil's wedge cut in the 80's. Again, harmless.
• Ronald Reagan singlehandedly 'brought back' the brown suit in the 80's. Everybody had one. Harmless, right?
• New parents name their babies after their favorite celebrity. Harmless? Ask the kids in 10 years.
On the flip side, would-be athletes and body builders use steroids because successful professional icons they admire and emulate are "users". Not so harmless. And women pump themselves up with injectables and implants, thinking they have to (literally) measure up to an unrealistic body standard to be perceived as and feel "beautiful".
Let's face it, many people in this country are followers. There's nothing wrong with it--it is what it is. That said, it is crucial to have strong role models. Many parents take their cues from high visibility people. Kids don't come with manuals, and frazzled parents will often take advice where they can get it---even from TV shows--- Oprah, Dr. Phil, Kelly Ripa and Rosie.
Our most prolific leaders are followers of something (religion, exercise, juicing, meditation, etc). It could be said that the behavior of our public figures has an impact on the well being of all people, whether they care to admit it or not. People look to others for insight, fashion trends, news stories, etc. It's the nature of our culture.
Question: With health care being a huge public concern, is it in our best interest to elect a leader who devalues their own health for any reason?
To smokers, I ask how is their smoking habit impacting the health of those around them? Smokers don't generally care that much about others. They really don't care much about themselves. Addicts, and think in narrow, selfish terms.
Is it fair to saddle the responsibility of being the leader of the free world on an addict's already compromised ability to handle pressure?
Sidebar: The first Surgeon General's report on smoking was issued in 1964. Did you get that? 1964---nearly 50 years ago!
Many people shrug these seemingly small, personal issues aside, as they did with the Clinton escapade, in an attempt to convince themselves and each other that 'we have bigger issues at stake.' If someone has low standards for themselves and compromises their own family, what standard will they set for the country? If small issues aren't handled well, what makes you think the really big issues will be well managed?
The answers have already played out in history.
My hope is that we become more conscious of the way we live and how our seemingly mundane and casual lifestyle choices impact the lives of those around us. It's not all about any one of us, rather it's all about the collective. We need to stand up a little straighter and take cues from those who do well with and for others---our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers and strangers who do ordinary things in extraordinary ways.
And what is this endless blather about how our candidates are human? We all have shortcomings. So what? Our performance is not judged by our challenges, but rather our ability to cope with and handle them. This has nothing to do with platforms, issues and acceptable standards and practices. It's about character and integrity.
Any slice of our behavior is a microcosm of how we conduct our lives. It's in the best interest of any organization to 'hire' whomever is best suited for the job, personally and professionally.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
Posted: Mon., July 7, 2008, 12:04 am
How do you choose your candidate?
Do you really think the American voter seriously considers whether or not Obama's smoking past makes him more or less Presidential than McCain?
There is a long history of Presidential candidates hiding their health problems. Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to appear weak to the public, in spite of his polio. We elected Jack Kennedy, in spite of his chronic back problems, not knowing he actually had Addison's disease. Eisenhower had a heart attack, a stroke and an abdominal operation all within two years. Grover Cleveland secretly underwent surgery removing the roof of his mouth due to carcinoma. Ronald Reagan lost a lot of lucidity during the later part of his term - we were sympathetic because of the assassination attempt, but didn't know he was suffering the early affects of Alzheimer's.
Were you to check the health histories of our Founding Fathers and first Presidents, you'd be alarmed at the depression and heart disease, among some other pretty scary health issues, that ravaged them. George Washington suffered from: "Malaria, smallpox, tuberculosis, dysentery, boils (carbuncles), tooth loss, hearing loss, presbyopia, infertility, quinsy, pneumonia, epiglottitis or strep infection of the larynx."
We would balk at the risk of electing a President who could not fulfill the requirements of his office, communicate on our behalf, represent us to our global society or defend us against our many adversaries. We would hardly balk at a guy who recently quit smoking.
While health may be an issue that some of our candidates, like McCain, want to make a "non-issue," we're more concerned about qualities like leadership and morality, even by association. Frankly, I'd rather elect someone who admits to a health issue than one who claims to not have inhaled. I think it's great that McCain is leading the way to breaking tradition with hiding a troublesome health past.
Whom I choose to vote for, however, will depend entirely upon my preference over candidates based on what I believe their qualifications are for the office, not the waiting room.
Posted: Mon., June 2, 2008, 08:05 pm
Who has the right stuff for the Oval Office is what matters
Because he appears healthy and vibrant, his smoking past is not the issue. His candidacy is based upon whether or not he possesses the right stuff for the Oval Office.
Because McCain has, in both his Presidential bids, been open and candid about his health issues - remember that he was a POW from the Viet Nam era - his candidacy is based upon whether or not he possesses the right stuff AND the physical stamina. McCain has the added mark of age going against him.
All I really care about is who has the right stuff.
Posted: Mon., June 2, 2008, 08:13 pm
Agism or experience?
Obama's lack of experience and continual skirting of issues is more of a concern than McCain being 70-whatever. Who cares? McCain has more experience than any of them and he's a straight shooter. I like that.
That said, I don't know if I care for anybody's politics. Someone has 4 months to step up.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
lagunanaturalhealth.com
Posted: Mon., July 7, 2008, 12:09 am
Agism or experience?
a
Posted: Mon., July 7, 2008, 12:10 am
Oh, Please...
OK, are we really going to look at Obama's health versus that of McCain?
Posted: Sun., July 6, 2008, 10:57 am
Post new comment here