I feel That Hillary defintley has the Political experience and know how to effectively be President...she is a strong willed and very intelligent woman. I would vote for her. All those that say she is trying to be "middle of the road" need to remember that this is how most politicians run....trying to appeal to the populace...ALL candidates do this in one form or another...it's called POLITICS! You can't expect her (or any other politician) to appease everyone. Hillary definetly has international clout-unlike Bush, she would be a much more hands on politician on the domestic front-something Bush has failed at miserably.
If you take into account that, for the most part, ALL politicians have a personal agenda, it is ludicrous to demonize Hilary at the expense of claiming republican candidates to be pure of intention....HOGWASH! I in no way base this on the fact That Bill Clinton is her husband and ex-president (although it doesn't hurt-Clinton was a very effective leader), I base this more on Hilary being a self made political force in her own right. To all those misinformed idiot's who say America is not ready for a woman president...I say you are backward and Moronic...look at Margaret Thatcher(Great Britain) Corazon Aquino (The Phillipines) Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Indira Ghandi (India), Hell look at Queen Victoria (who ruled the English into the Great English Empire)...and Numerous other women leaders thoughout history (Cleopatra, Eva Peron, Elizabeth I, catherine the Great etc. etc, etc.)
2006-07-01 19:43:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Pie's_Guy 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I dont think so, but anything is possible. Hillary is shrill, and stands for nothing. She has a lot of skeletons in her closet. The far left in her own party dont like her. Cindy SheeeHAMM is calling her names. Although her last name is Clinton, she's nothing like Bill.
No, I'm not going to look up a bunch of news facts, or statistics, or what ever the hell details you are wanting. Hillary doesnt mean that much to me for me to keep track of her life. In fact, she really hasn't done anything at all as a Senator that I can think of. Can you think of anything worthwhile she's done?
Anyways, the far leftists own the Dem party, and they don't like her. She may get the nomination, but she'll never really get their true support. Remember, Bush cannot run again, and the hatred from the left is focused at Bush, not the Republican party.
2006-07-01 20:01:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by jack f 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, because too many people are too lazy to take the time to find out what she is really about or has accomplished. It's much easier to sit and be told what their opinions should be by the spinmeisters at FauxNews.
Now, if people took the time to educate themselves, they'd find:
She helped lead the fight to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), which passed in the last Congress, and authored a new program to ensure children with emotional and behavioral disabilities receive the services they need without disruption to other students
She proposed legislation to rein in tuition increases at postsecondary institutions, increase Pell Grants, make it easier to balance work and college, and strengthen the Direct Loan program to save taxpayers’ money.
Senator Clinton worked with Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to enact the National Guard and Reserves Reform Act for the 21st Century, a bill to expand health care for the National Guard and Reserves. This bill allows guard and reservists to buy into TRICare, lower retirement age, and other benefits, including health care coverage for their families. Now, Senators Clinton and Graham have authored an expansion of TRICARE to all drilling members of the National Guard and Reserve, which was passed unanimously by the Senate.
She won approval by the Senate Armed Services Committee of a provision ensuring that wounded soldiers will not lose their combat pay allowance while they are in the hospital. She co-sponsored the Retired Pay Restoration Act so veterans with service related disabilities can receive both retired pay and disability compensation, and she has called for increased funding to ensure the Veterans Administration can meet its obligations.
Senator Clinton helped secure more than $20 billion for New York City's clean-up and recovery, and supported the establishment of the Victims Compensation Fund to provide payments to 9/11 victims. She also introduced legislation, which became law, to make sure that the families of firefighters, police and other public safety officers who died in the terrorist attacks received their benefits immediately.
That's just a sample. She is more moderate than she is portrayed and she works very well with her colleagues in the Republican Party. She would be far less divisive than the current "Either you're with us or you're against us" Administration.
2006-07-01 19:50:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bruin 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. I think she stands a serious chance simply because she is a familiar face. Name recognition is this country's bag!
Shopping for a computer? Would you prefer a Dell or a Dwayne's? Never mind the features...
Stereo? Sony or Itchinutsak?
Cheeseburger or Lamb Dopiasa?
Name recognition. It comes first, and it sticks with us.
"Well, I have no idea who this person is, but this guy here is a Bush, and they know a little about runnin' countries, I know!"
She may not win, but she can't be brushed off as a total gimme, either.
I hope that was "decriptive and creative enough" for ya!
2006-07-01 19:49:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no longer any extra. by utilizing being made secretary of state, there is little or no " politicking": she will be able to do to extra her career. And, in 3 years one among 2 issues will ensue./ Obama may have finished an excellent job and he will coast to a second time period, or may have finished any such unfavorable job that there is not any way a Dem, any Dem , might want to win. Then, if you're wondering 2016, that's;s 8 years from now, and thousands of thousands of electorate who undergo in ideas invoice Clinton may have died off, and the Clinton mystique may have lengthy change right into a element of the previous.
2016-10-14 01:21:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, and I say this mainly because there is history and odds at play. There has never been a female president and I don't think the general population is ready for one yet. I'm not against the idea, but I still don't think the climate is right for a female president and to be fair, that goes for Rice as well.
2006-07-01 18:50:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by bobble242 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No .. The secret service has ask that they be allowed to live in a mobile home off the white house grounds if she is elected .. It seems the last time they were in office a lot of things came up missing from the white house .. you know the dishes, spoons, forks and something about presidential gifts that were to go to Bill's Museum They just don't want to go through that again...it seem there was a lot of things bill couldn't keep his hands off
2006-07-01 19:06:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by ralphtheartist 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hillary Clinton, will never be President of the USA..Don't you remember all the lies she told, when first lady? Do you remember the billing records, that were found in the white house, Vince Foster, Webb Hubbell, kissing arafat, her good friend..To many more to list, I think you get it now!!
2006-07-01 18:50:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
alieneddiexxx: inventive and creative... as usual... hahaha
no... because she will flop in the south and heartland... and if they run giuliani, which they probably would, if Hillary looks like she is going to win... he would turn traditional democratic strongholds into battlegrounds... there are quite a few dems that don't even like Hillary...
however, if the dems went with someone like Edwards, they can do just the opposite and turn the south into a battleground... especially against "liberal leaning" Republicans McCain and Giuliani
2006-07-01 18:47:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say no due to the fact that she can't seem to take a stand on anything and appears to the people as more of a crowd pleaser that says what she thinks her audience wants to hear.
Also, and I'm not sure what it was called, but I have heard of a poll that showed 40% of Americans would definitely NOT vote for her as well.
2006-07-01 18:43:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Boob 3
·
0⤊
0⤋