What Should Kamala Harris’s Role Be Now?

To the Editor:

Re “Kamala Harris Really Matters in 2024,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, April 26):

Mr. Friedman identifies the heightened peril of this moment and states that President Biden “absolutely has to win.” Having declared his candidacy for a second term, Mr. Biden needs to address age-related questions head on. Consequently, his running mate faces greater scrutiny.

Thus far, Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t forged her own identity. By the very nature of the job, she is confined to a supporting role, but she needs breakout moments of not being a tightly programmed V.P. She must trust her own best instincts. Go off script. (Her handlers will be aghast.) Make mistakes and learn from them.

After many years of being the consummate pragmatic politician, Mr. Biden seems to be more fully at ease in his own skin and seems to revel in the daunting challenges his presidency faces — head on with admirable grace and courage. He can free her to dare to do the same.

Barbara Allen Kenney
Paso Robles, Calif.

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman is way off base in suggesting that Kamala Harris may be saved by giving her a variety of portfolios. She simply lacks the foreign policy and defense chops to justify putting her a heartbeat away from the presidency, especially when the president, if re-elected, would be well into his 80s as his second term progresses.

The challenges posed by Russia, China, North Korea and others are simply too great to put a rookie in charge.

Rubin Guttman
Cleveland

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman’s column about a Biden-Harris ticket as a must win in 2024 is spot on. I disagree, however, with his suggestions for how best to elevate Kamala Harris on a national and international stage. Working on rural U.S. initiatives?! Ensuring our pre-eminence in artificial intelligence?!

Come on! She needs to be in charge of those things she does best: passionate defense of social justice issues, including international diplomacy and equity for nations that are struggling with ruthless civil wars.

We need Kamala Harris to develop and demonstrate her ability to both challenge autocracies and support struggling democracies à la Madeleine Albright.

Judy Wagener
Madison, Wis.

To the Editor:

Here’s an idea for the Democratic Party to consider: Get Kamala Harris back to California by having her take Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat. Ms. Harris was very productive in California as attorney general and later as a senator. Unfortunately the 89-year-old Ms. Feinstein is no longer capable of doing the job.

Ms. Harris might relish the opportunity to once again represent the Golden State. Furthermore this would free President Biden to select a running mate without its looking as though he were abandoning his loyal vice president.

A relatively progressive running mate such as Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona would likely garner more votes and the electorate wouldn’t have to ponder whether it is Ms. Harris they’d want in the Oval Office should Mr. Biden’s health become an issue.

Steven Brozinsky
La Jolla, Calif.

To the Editor:

While I agree completely with everything that Thomas L. Friedman says in his insightful column, there is one aspect about it that mystifies me. I agree that President Biden’s age is a concern for voters. But why isn’t Donald Trump’s age an even greater concern for voters? He is only four years younger than President Biden, is seriously overweight, and apparently never encountered a hamburger he couldn’t resist.

Please stop focusing so obsessively on President Biden’s age without also raising the issue of Mr. Trump’s age and physical condition.

Stephen Creager
San Francisco

Conflict in Montana Over a Transgender Lawmaker

To the Editor:

Re “Montana House Bars Transgender Lawmaker From Chamber Floor” (news article, April 27):

Our legislature’s problem is that this is the 21st century. Young people and marginalized communities want to express themselves and to have a voice, but many older Montanans remain set in their ways. From Native American rights to climate change to transgender rights, the old guard appears oblivious.

Historically, the state has suffered from a lack of diversity, and the influx of recent transplants in communities such as Bozeman and Missoula exacerbates a reactionary mind-set.

The state is struggling to find a new equilibrium. Until it does, unfortunately, we may see more pictures in the news of stodgy old people making fools of themselves at the Montana statehouse.

In the meantime, all Montanans and all Americans should stand behind Representative Zooey Zephyr, who was barred from participating in deliberations because of her impassioned comments on transgender issues, and the other courageous young people working to bend the arc of history toward justice.

Peter Capossela
Whitefish, Mont.

Women at Peace Talks

To the Editor:

Re “The Violence in Sudan Is Partly Our Fault,” by Jacqueline Burns (Opinion guest essay, April 24):

The admission that U.S. and international peace negotiators got it wrong by engaging with leaders of Sudanese armed groups must spark a new kind of action to ensure that peace negotiations include women and the concerns that they bring to the table.

Women’s exclusion from peace processes is all too common, such as in Syria and Afghanistan, and the consequences are dire. Women must be at the table, not only because that’s what fairness demands.

Research has shown that when women are meaningfully included in negotiations, a peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. That’s because women’s leadership represents the needs of wider communities, resulting in greater legitimacy and democratic participation.

We must also ask: Why? Why was it so much easier to patiently engage armed leaders with no demonstrated interest in peace, while women and other civil society leaders were told to wait their turn? If we can name the answer — patriarchal attitudes that permeate policymaking the world over — we will be in a better position to confront them and get peacemaking right.

Yifat Susskind
New York
The writer is executive director of MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization and feminist fund.

Medical Assistance in Dying

To the Editor:

Re “Medical Assistance in Dying Should Not Exclude Mental Illness,” by Clancy Martin (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, April 21):

As a psychiatrist, I have always had concerns about physicians assisting dying in those with terminal medical illnesses. Patients can change their minds about that wish with better pain control. If depression is present, its treatment can help lift spirits and facilitate discovery of reasons for wanting to live longer.

Medical assistance in dying (MAID) for mental illness, scheduled to start less than a year from now in Canada, is more problematic, as the wish to die is a symptom of depression. Significant improvement has been made with psychiatric treatments. But the movement for MAID is a clear message that greater progress and access to care are essential.

Jeffrey B. Freedman
New York