2006-07-26 17:35:15 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
While I think that eventually this country needs to have the experience of a female executive, I'm not entirely sanguine with these options. However, I would probably choose to go with Ms. Rice as she has more experience in the executive branch and I fear that Ms. Clinton would be a re-hashing of the disastrous first two years of her husband's administration. This would be in the absence of a legitimate third alternative.
2006-07-26 17:47:03 · answer #1 · answered by Ѕємι~Мαđ ŠçїєŋŧιѕТ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Condoliza Rice. I am from upstate NY and Hillary does crap for this state unless you live in the city. Plus every time she talks she says nothing 50 different ways.
2006-07-26 17:39:55 · answer #2 · answered by MissAB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yechh... what a horrible choice! If it comes down to those two, I would give serious thought to emmigrating to another country; no bullcrap. If I didn't move, I would at least vote independent so I could honestly say that I had no part in this abomination.
I have such a burning hatred for both of them. Clinton is a leftist, self-worshipping bee-yotch, and Condoleeza is a "yes-woman" to the worst president in United States history. I have absolutely no problem with having a woman elected to the presidency. It's just THOSE TWO that I hope and pray never make it past the primaries.
2006-07-26 17:44:26 · answer #3 · answered by Baron Hausenpheffer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary
2006-07-27 00:58:32 · answer #4 · answered by Hibernating Ladybird 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rice. Hillary did not even care enough of her home state to run in it. She just cared about getting elected. Sad thing is a state that would be represented by someone who was never a resident.
Rice was a prodigy. Hillary is a lady who would have dumped her husband easily, but has proven she cares more about power than being true.
RICE '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-07-26 17:48:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Condoliza Rice of course.
2006-07-26 17:42:54 · answer #6 · answered by jane 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
none of the above: Hillary is a lying power hungry carpetbagger (I am from New York, so I can attrest to this first hand) while Condi is a Bush shrill who doesn't have the experience or knowledge needed to be President. Oh, and Hillary still has to answer for Vince Foster.
2006-07-26 17:40:36 · answer #7 · answered by Iamstitch2U 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither, Neither, Neither!!! Hilary is a spinless whimp, who took back that lieing jerk, when he did what he did, and even lied about it. This proves she is not the woman for the job.She just wants to make money, money, money., just like that creep she is married to. I wouldn't even show my face if I handled the situation like she did. Spineless once, always spineless!! Would be afraid for a person of her nature to run this country.People who vote for her have no character of their own, much less brains to figure how her goals., and that is to just make a name for herself and to tour the country and make money lieing to the American people who will sit and believe her crap!!! And Miss Rice, don't trust a person who smiles so much! Nothing against her race or for being a woman, its just she is a member of the worst party that I have ever seen in the White House. She would make a better novelist, writing about all her trips around the world, and making all that money for her stories alone!! LOL
2006-07-26 18:12:09 · answer #8 · answered by twanda_C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton easily. Rice would just continue with Bush policy. Rice and anyone pro bush can go to hell. I'd vote for a monkey before I'd vote for a republican.
2006-07-26 17:43:01 · answer #9 · answered by Charles Dobson Focus on the Fam 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton because she sounds very intelligent when she speaks,unlike Condoleeza Rice...tom science
2006-07-26 17:55:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋