Well, for starters, she apparently hasn't dumped a bunch of pork-barrel spending back into NY like the GOP crooks do to their home states. The role of a Senator is to craft NATIONAL LAW, not fix their home states. That's why you have a STATE CAPITOL, filled with legislators, and congressmen. That's why you have a GOVERNOR. That's why you elect a mayor.
The GOP whines and whines about pork-barrel spending (while setting new spending records every single year), yet begin bitching if they don't think they got their fair share.
Now....on to your question....
Hillary would be a vast improvement of the current administration because she understands that you fight terror with infiltration and intelligence gathering, not by just invading random countries, and then creating chaos there.
She understands that Americans who decide to play by the rules, and work a 40 hour week, need to know they will receive a LIVING WAGE.
She knows that the healthcare system is broken and will actually attempt to repair it. Can you name one successful Bush healthcare initiative? All he has is a drug-plan, crafted by drug-companies that confuses everyone, while filling the coffers of the companies that crafted it.
She knows Americans deserve better that no-bid, guaranteed profit sweetheart deals to former employers. Our taxpayers deserve better stewardship of their hard earned tax dollars.
She understands that future generations deserve better than to be crushed under massive debts and deficits left behind by the irresponsible GOP.
She understands that immigration policy will probably mean a compromise - tougher border security, coupled with an amnesty to bring the MILLIONS of illegals already here, into the fold. Just wishing they were gone, or whining that they are being rewarded for breaking the law doesn't change the reality that there is no way to round up and deport 12 million people. Reagan understood this (back when the GOP had some f'n common sense. Lord, that was a long time ago), and granted an amnesty.
Basically, take all of Bush's incompetent nonsense. Do the opposite. Country all better.....
2006-08-11 19:42:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by lamoviemaven 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
She has yet to sponsor a major bill in the Senate, and said that Mrs. Arafat was a good role model, while she was stealing millions of dollars from the PLO, she stated in 2001 before she was a senator that " I know Sadam has WMDs".
So sure she would make a good president. Just like her husband who gave North Korea the weapons and equipment to build a nuclear bomb.
2006-08-11 19:35:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by fatboysdaddy 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I can answer that ..... SHE WONT !
But in a hypothetical situation that she did become President, I guess she would be good at accomplishing one thing ...
SHE WOULD PUT AN IMMEDIATE HALT TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION into our Country !! Who the heck would move here with her as President ?? ... It would be an immediate shift where Mexico and Canada would have the illegal immigration problem because Americans would move to those Countries in droves !! I would be FIRST across the border !! Join me ?
2006-08-11 19:54:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by ValleyR 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a Senator, she is representing New York in the national government, so you might not see results in New York (but nationwide). Unfortunately, her power is being squelched by the Republicans who are currently in the majority in the House & Senate.
She's intelligent, diplomatic and strategic. These are reasons why she would make a great president. However, these are also why she won't be president. A woman as powerful as HRC is considered by many to be a b-tch.
2006-08-11 19:32:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by seattlecutiepie 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
No i think the only reason she's going to try is so she can clear up her name from what Clinton did to her name. Thus she has to make herself look even better then before Clinton was an a**.
2006-08-11 19:32:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by nodreamsnomusic 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would be interested to see a women as president. Just not her. She presents herself as being to aggressive and uncaring. As president I would want a more diplomatic approach and positive cander for the ideal canidate. Considering the current political situation I suprised we are not in WW III. Someday I hope that a womens perspective to world events will usher our country into a more stable geopolitical enviroment.
2006-08-11 19:32:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Super Sean 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think I'd rather swallow rat poison than utter those terrible words. Clinton and president should never be used in the same sentance. I hope God forgives me for doing it just now, even in the context of explination
2006-08-11 19:41:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by CJ 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dont know if I like the idea of her becoming president. Shes doing well as a senator, why mess that up.
2006-08-11 19:30:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dont..BUT......it doewsnt matter if shes qualified or not...
I dont think anyone would vote a woman into office in this day and age...humans arent that progressive yet. Neither a black nor a jew also...the voting population is STILL very "Old White Male" friendly...
and that wont change for quite awhile.....dont ask me why??
2006-08-11 19:29:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by G-Bear 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think she will make a good president. if she's anything like her husband she'll have the white house pool boy under the desk in the oval office.
2006-08-11 19:28:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋