i don't care i don't know anything about our country's president

i really dont think smoking affects the person, he isnt promoting it to children i dont think, so i dont see the problem

i dont judge a person by the color of thier lungs!

I'm not sure, it doesn't really matter. Churchill is probably one of Britains most famous prime ministers and was also famously a smoker. But I think it is good for his health and image.

I don't care about their personal habits, I care about the country being run in a non-corrupt and responsible way. For example I *personally* don't like how GW Bush has run our country and he would not have done anything differently if he happened to puff on a cigarette everyday. Of course smoking isn't healthy but that is their personal choice. I'm proud of Barack for choosing to quit though.

This is a ridiculous question. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Honestly, Fit, you're on a smoker-bashing kick, and it's kind of annoying. I am not a smoker, and I've never been a smoker and I've never lived with a smoker. No, it is not good for you. That said, it's none of your business (or my business) if someone chooses to smoke a cigarette.

Yes.... because it's the ISSUES that matter, for God's sake! If someone decides not to vote for someone because they smoke or they aren't as attractive as the other candidate or some other equally ridiculous reason, then they are making a complete mockery of what an honor/privilege to vote.

Most of our presidents have been smokers... this has only changed in the mid-20th century. I don't see what it matters at all - I'm tempted to agree with scorpstar. Yes, smoking is a terrible, dangerous, and gross habit, but guess what - smokers aren't stupid! Nor are they bad people! And honestly, in a capitalistic society, I find it hard to condemn cigarette companies for propaganda adverts when fast food chains, alcoholic beverage companies, soda companies, and even car companies are somehow given a pass to do the exact same thing!

I think that people should be able to smoke if they want to - but I think that it's always a good health decision to quit! That said, I don't care if our president is a smoker, I just hope that he/she isn't a moron or an amoral liar!

Who are these people voting NO? I'm totally against smoking, but what has that got to do with the president being intelligent and guiding our country on the right path and good decision making?

If you wouldn't vote for someone because they smoke, I seriously think you should reconsider voting at all. Personal habits like smoking don't mean anything to me compared against the persons ACTUAL qualifications for the job. This poll is completely stupid.

actually, scorpstar, if there's anything recent scientific lierature has taught us is that secondhand smoke is really dangerous and can lead to health problems for non-smokers. so I think that does make it my business.

What a person does to their lungs has absolutely nothing to do with how'd they run a country. I'd vote for Obama if he weren't trying to quit.

No. Which is just one of the primary reasons I won't vote for Barak. How can an intelligent person in the year 2007 think that smoking is ok especially in front of his small children? No - poor judgment, lack of reason a pure display of faulty logic on his part.

Lol you people kill me! I bet 99% of the smarties who said no are republicans, the same people still defending Bush to this day.

It is an unhealthy habit, VERY unhealthy, and I applaud Obama's decision to quit. He SHOULD quit. But if someone has a weakness for McDonalds and fatty-/artery-clogging food, then that means he's an incompetent leader? Having a (non mind-altering) vice/bad habit does not mean he is incapable of reason and that he cannot make important decisions on behalf of & for his country. It is completely unrelated. Bill Clinton, who many would argue was a great leader, was a cigar smoker, among other (ahem) vices.

I'd vote for a smoker before I'd vote for a coke head. That said, why are people bashing on Fit? It's only a question, just answer it.

No one should vote for anyone who eats tacobell, fastfood ,candy,and or trans fat either because they will be a horrible leader. Just going by the same logic! We should start a list for sure.

I'm voting for who I agree with and think the best candidate is (which, as you can see by my icon, is obviously RON PAUL!)

I could care less if a President smokes.That is there personal business.

i know it shouldn't matter, but i find it ironic that people of incredible intelligence smoke (like doctors, lawyers, and, oh say, presidential candidates). i think it says something about how they value their own health. but all that aside, i agree with many of you, i'll vote for the best candidate and if the best candidate is a smoker, then i'll vote for that person.

but kudos to obama for trying to quit on the campaign trail...that's gotta be compounding the mountain of stress he's probably already under.

and as for the Fit-bashing, DUHHHHHH, this is FITSUGAR, which is dedicated to healthy living. smoking is not healthy living...not for the smoker, nor for the people around him or her.

I would vote for a president that smokes. I base my votes on issues of the country that are important and not on personal habits. It is 2007, it is a well known fact that if you smoke you will most likely get cancer and die. I honesty don't feel bad or even care about people facing health issues who chose to smoke. As long as they are not smoking around me, people can do what they want to do, including the future president.

That is one of the stupidest questions ever. Seriously wether he smokes or not is his problem, its not like he's on coke and crack. Bill Clinton was an adulterous junk food eater but he did what is arguably a pretty good job. Not to mention way better than George Bush.

i think it's ridiclous to vote or not vote for someone based on how they vote it's their opinions and policies that matter

people who voted must not be at all interested in the politics. it's ridiculuos so take that into an account.

i don't mind the president being black/white, straight/gay, man/woman... and definetely smoking is not a factor for me, as i vote for the person and his politics, not his habits.

who voted no*

That's like asking "Would you vote for a president that never works out?" or "Would you vote for a president that eats trans fats?" Smoking is a bad habit and a nasty vice, but I think it's Obama's personal problem and it shouldn't affect how he governs the nation. Just because he smokes doesn't mean he's going to try to convert the nation to smoking...he IS trying to quit, after all. And yeah, I think a lot of past presidents have been smokers.

Depends on his political views on certain issues. Smoking would not be the only factor on whether or not I'd vote for a candidate.

in the spirit of Plato and Aristotle (I'm taking a class), I do think our politicians should be the most virtuous and the most moral, I don't think that politics and morality are mutally exclusive. Unfortunately, in democracy you hardly ever see politicians who are virtuous and moral.

I digress - in North American society, smoking is seen as a vice and is certainly a bad example to show to our children. I think you have to ask yourselves - do you want the president, who inherently acts as a role model for the younger generation, to be a smoker? By voting for a politician who smokes, you are essentially voting for an immorality.

Furthermore, a young smoker in today's society - Obama does qualify as a young smoker - is clearly a) someone who does not value their health to the best of their abilities, b) nor do they value the precious nature of health care resources, so how can they be expected to create policy on that most vital of issues?

P.S. I hope Obama does quit, he is young enough to see many health benefits.

Wow. Since when is whether or not you're a smoker part of one's platform??? Barack has been catching way too much flack lately.

Let the man smoke his cigs, as long as he knows what's important, which he does - certainly more so than GWB

muchacha, you are jumping to many conclusions there. If you are saying that it follows that Obama is an "immoral" person because of his decision to smoke, then heaven help us all. Because I think we might all be doomed to fall into the same category under your book in one way or another.

Do I want my future president, the role model for younger generations, to be overweight? To be a liar? To be a bad dresser, even? Of course not! But unfortunately, we don't have a pantheon of perfect gods/goddesses to choose from for our leadership - we just have regular old fallible human beings with flaws & weaknesses, just like the rest of us.

If ALL candidates were exactly alike, (including their experience, their stance on issues, their proposals and perspective for the future and these same things from the minds they will be surrounding themselves with)... then and ONLY then do I think it's acceptable to judge their body and their personal choices. But the chances are extremely unlikely we'll ever get a pool of people that are that similar and likeminded, thankfully.

I'm willing to take the bad with the good, as long as I was sure that the person was the best choice.

I saw his wife on 60 Minutes months ago. She said that when he came to her about running she said she would be ok with being subjected to the lifestyle of a candidates wife if he gave up smoking. He's keeping up his end of the bargain.

I was seeing the subject of immorality rather on a continuum, rather than simply as one of black or white, so let me clarify. I do think that the decision to smoke is an immoral one, and as such leads one to an immoral lifestyle - but does that make an individual immoral? Not necessarily. I was thinking about this some more yesterday evening, and like you say freegrace, no one is perfect. But I do expect our politicians to be aiming at the closest thing to gd that they can achieve. They should be the ones at the end of the spectrum closest to pure morality. Of course the goal of pure morality will never be achieved because we are after all, human - but I think if you want to represent an entire nation of people you'd better be trying damn hard to be the best moral representative possible. In my opinion, smoking should be the first thing to go on the path to a moral lifestyle.

As a side note, I am remind that after the bridge collapse in Minnesota, Obama made a mistake of saying 10,000 people died instead of the correct figure. Afterwards, he apologized, saying he was 'tired'. I wondered what would be his excuse in the future if he made another big mistake but one of larger importance..

Don't get me wrong - I realize I have focused on negatives of Obama's character, I am sure he does possess many virtuous qualities, and so at the end of the day you have to take the good with the bad of a person's character in today's political reality. Also, I do agree that it would be something different if all our politicians came from the same stock. I need to ask you, freegrace, why you think it's unacceptable to judge personal choices when choosing a political representative.

I wouldn't be so quick to devalue a person's lifestyle choices from the things to take into account when choosing your representative. I think it's only one aspect of many to consider.

Smoking has nothing to do with intelligence. It's common sense that smoking is BAD for you. It's not a question of whether or not it's healthful. It is an addiction--be glad you've never had to deal with an addiction, but at least try to have a little more empathy and a lot less self-righteous judgment. Politicians aren't super-human; they are just like YOU and ME. They are not more intelligent, more enlightened or more capable of kicking a nasty habit. Sheesh! They are simply in a different profession.

With that said, I smoked for 9 years, and I quit cold turkey over a year ago.

Is it common sense or rather scientific fact that smoking is bad for you? Based on rationality and science we have determined smoking to bad for one's health, and economic measurements have shown complications from smoking drain our scare healthcare resources.

There is a difference between addition, habit and disease. Many physicians are now refering to smoking as a disease.. there are plenty of schools of thought on this topic.

This said I also know how hard it is stop smoking, as I did so eight months ago, and I also know how hard it is to watch someone you love die from lung cancer caused by years of smoking. So, as the feminists would have it - the political is personal.

Most people are immoral.
Who decides morality?
Each one of us
Immoral hypocrites
Pointing fingers
Shame shame shame
At least I'm not
I don't
I didn't
I wouldn't
I couldn't
We shouldn't play that
game to feel
better about our own
fallible
errant
ignorant
mortal
selves.
Immoral selves.

Whether or not someone smokes has zero to do with how they would run our country. Seriously, things like this just prove to me that so many Americans don't even understand the political process, or they're so out of touch they make decisions about our leadership based on whether or not the person smokes, or has hair, or good teeth or whatever.

I'm much more concerned about his position on health care, the environment, the war on terrorism, and global policy than whether or not he smokes, or has a cigar now and then, or even drinks.

To answer the question, I could give a flying rats ass to whether the pres smoked or not. Yeah sure it's bad, but if that's his only vice, then it's fine by me.

As long as s/he's not screwing the country over, throwing us into unnecessary wars, refusing to do anything about the enviroment, ignoring the internal problems of our country such as poverty, sit idly by as our education system crumbles, or whatever else this current administration is doing to us . . . . then heck I'll pull out my lighter and light one up for the pres!

Since when is smoking a sign of whether someone is capable of running a country or not. I think it is a disgusting dirty habit, it's gross but I don't really care if the leader of my country smokes or not. I care about policy and leadership not gross personal habits. Why not make the question would you vote for someone who picks their nose, or someone who cracks their knuckles.

Considering the last 7 years of leadership in America I think you have way bigger problems than whether you elect a smoker or not.

Wow what a shallow question! Is this what this country is coming to? "Oh he supports the political agenda I like but he's a smoker so sorry can't vote for him" We have so many important issues hanging in the balance and you're concerned about whether the president smokes or not?