• Y e s

    Y y y y y y y y y y e e ee e e e e e e eee e e e e e e e e e e s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s ss y'

  • She is a representative of the President.

    I do not see any reason why she should not. The first lady is judged almost as much as the presidential candidate during the elections, so she has been scrutinized. Plus the President is entitled to appoint someone of his choosing to political roles, and who does he know and trust better then the first lady.

  • Impossible not to

    It is impossible for the First Lady not to have a political role in the US government because she is so close to the center of power and, ultimately, regardless of whether or not she wants to, her actions and stances on issues will be taken as political statements in the press.

  • They usually seem to have there one cause

    I have no problem with the first lady talking up a cause. They need to have a purpose too. Besides, it is good for the country to see the first lady out and about. It shows people other ways of making something important to an individual and how one could go about gaining attention for said cause.

  • No we didn't vote for her

    Giving the first lady a political role would be going against democracy. We elect the president and vice president to have a political role, we do not elect the first lady. If the first lady is going to get a political role should would need to be included on the voting ticket.

  • No, the first lady shouldn't have any power.

    I do not believe that the first lady should have a political role. The first lady is not a politician. She did not get to her role by campaigning to voters. I think that she should not have any type of power. But I do think that she can play an important role of helping some programs and issues have more attention.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.