WI: The First Lady became pregnant?

Funny that this thread should come up. I was thinking about this last night while watching the current first lady on the news.
 
Frances Folsom-Cleveland was in fact the most beautiful woman to ever be First Lady. Not criticizing the others, I'm sure any number of them were quite lovely (or lovelier) compared to Mrs. Cleveland, but they weren't 21 years old when they were First Lady. Mrs. Tyler was young, but...uh...ugh!:eek:

IDK, Grace Coolidge has to be up there; and of course Jackie.
 
Ive always wondered what the most likely scenario would be if the first lady became pregnant (by her husband) during one of the President's terms. Would the president resign to help raise the baby?

She would recieve the best of medical care and full press coverage. Her husband would not resign.
 
Double whammy

Okay, let's put a different spin on things.
1st case: It's the first female president of the US who becomes pregnant.:cool: She would still have to be young enough to conceive, sorry Hillary fans, and at the same time old enough, at least thirty-five, to be eligible. This would be a tall order at best, but not impossible; women have been known to bear naturally even into their forties. (It would have to be a natural conception, doing in vitro would be pushing things too much.) The outcome, the baby, would affect the President far more directly, both before birth and after.
2nd case: Assuming a male President, what if it was his mistress who became pregnant, and in a more troublesome vein, was found out and exposed? :eek:How far would this go and what would be expected of the First Family and of the other lady involved?
 
Also, the date of birth may also be a factor. If it happened during the last year of the term, it wouldnt be that big of a deal, but if it happened during either the first year or during an election year on the other hand,,
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
Can a negative spin be put on this by the opposing party?

Consider this:

The first press conference after the child's birth. The President is holding the new First Baby. The First Lady stands proudly beside him. Both parents smile for the cameras. After the expected innocuous questions, a journalist steps forward.

"Tell me, Mr. President, which is more important to you, your responsibilities as President, or your child?"

Unless he can think very quickly on his feet, or has a carefully prepared answer to this question, the President runs the risk of either sounding like an uncaring parent, (a narrow careerist, and not the sort of man you would trust with family policy issues), or someone who places his family before his job, (not capable of the high responsibilities of the Presidency).
 
It's a slippery slope they attack the backlash would be nasty, first of all it would be attacking the family which is generally off limits, unless they put themselves in the mix.

Assuming we're talking about the Obamas, conservative media would be full of congratulations to the president, I don't see Rush committing career suicide by outright attacking the Obamas new baby, or a pregnant Michelle. Some of the more out there your Alex Jones or Michael Savage might try attack over it.
 

Cook

Banned
"Tell me, Mr. President, which is more important to you, your responsibilities as President, or your child?"
That's a no brainer: the child of course. It would be an inept politician who hesitated over that question.
 
I bet we'd see some conservative anger if the child was named Barack Obama, III and an attempt to make the name look vain.
 
Okay, let's put a different spin on things.
1st case: It's the first female president of the US who becomes pregnant.:cool: She would still have to be young enough to conceive, sorry Hillary fans, and at the same time old enough, at least thirty-five, to be eligible. This would be a tall order at best, but not impossible; women have been known to bear naturally even into their forties. (It would have to be a natural conception, doing in vitro would be pushing things too much.) The outcome, the baby, would affect the President far more directly, both before birth and after.
2nd case: Assuming a male President, what if it was his mistress who became pregnant, and in a more troublesome vein, was found out and exposed? :eek:How far would this go and what would be expected of the First Family and of the other lady involved?

I am sorry but you make it sound as if women having babies above the age of 35 is somewhat unlikely when its very very common, and perhaps less so into their forties, Cherie Blair was 44 or 45 and perfectly natural, as in non IVF births have been recorded for late 40's and although unusual can be a lot later, see link, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sh-woman-worlds-oldest-natural-mother-59.html my apologies that its the daily mail.
 
True, but there seems to be far more kerfluffle over childbirth after age 35 than there should be, esp for any woman in the public eye.
 
Top