In our next election (USA) would you vote for Senator Clinton?

Question

Explain why or why not.

Answer 1

no, she is such a politician, and has no soul

Answer 2

Since only people from New York can vote for Senator for their state, the question does not apply to the rest of the country. If the question is would I vote of Hillary Clinton for President, the answer is no.

She is an opportunist. She is a Senator right now because her husband got elected President and that gave her a big platform. She never served on a school board, much less had any real experience in the workforce. People with those qualifications don't usually get elected to the Senate on the first try.

Before anyone else draws a comparison to President Bush, I have to say that I am not a big fan of the practice of the political dynasty. To get elected just because you have name recognition has proven to be bad for the country. There are way too many Kennedys for example. While it can be argued that the public voted them in, I also think it is true to just having a connection to someone who is already in office can be a huge leg up.

I would like to see more regular folks making decisions. They could not possibly do any worse that what we have now.

Answer 3

No.
On TV two nights ago Dick Morris, a former advisor to President Clinton, and a man who knows her said that "she does not have the temperment, qualifications or leadership abilities to be President of the United States."
Let me add that I do not find her trustworthy.
She may have had moments as a First Lady, and she may have popularity in her political party but she is not a person who should have the job of President.
She also has plenty of questionable activities in her past that are unresolved.
Not a viable candidate.

Answer 4

Never, she is a self serving I will change my position for any vote but Bill's. She is a good mother but would make a terrible president. To be a Senator from New York, it would have been nice if she had lived there - she is from Arkansas but they were not powerful enough to get her the presidential nomination.
It shows she has no loyalty.

Answer 5

I believe in liberty and freedom.... Senator Clinton believes in the government controlling and looking out for everyone. She is a socialist liberal who thinks the government knows best and that the average Joe citizen is unable to take of themselves without constant supervision from the all powerful big brother. Ronald Reagan once said An Americans worst nightmare is to answer your door to someone saying ...Hi, I'm from your government and I'm here to help you." .... I think that pretty much sums up how I feel about socialism. Sure we need to help those less fortunate members of our society. But we need to replace those safety nets that only serve to trap people in poverty with safety trampolines that will help them quickly bounce back to productivity. Most libs want to keep the poor and minorities down so they can be their providers ensuring they will always have a voter base. So NOOOOOOOO I would not ...could not vote for her.... she is anti Freedom ... anti capitolism.... anti-liberty.... anti constitution and in my opinion that equals anti-American.

Answer 6

i for my section do no longer comprehend. The Clintons fundraising approach has constantly been to courtroom huge donors that could provide the max $2300 and not concern with the small donations. That has been the downfall of her fundraising. She went to her huge donors, have been given her money and spent it. Her base has been decrease income, low knowledgeable human beings --no longer your best donors to political motives. that's what makes her website ironic, they now are inquiring for $5 donations. in case you have been conscious of their techniques-set of small donors until eventually now, it incredibly is enormously a snort now. Obama has created a extensive community of donors. tens of millions of them giving $50 right here $50 there. . the component is those human beings are not on the component of max-ing out so as that they are able to grant repeatedly. He has a money gadget of donors that he can circulate lower back to repeatedly for donations. that's why he's killing her in donations. Plus his demographic base is wealthier, greater knowledgeable voters--the type that provide money to campaigns. So if Hillary's base voters, those do no longer often provide to political campaigsn get so annoyed they do no longer donate: nicely i do no longer comprehend how numerous a substantial deal which would be. in basic terms time will tell.

Answer 7

No. I have serious questions on her performance and her ethics. Also the presidency needs some new blood and thats not Clinton

Answer 8

as a registered republican, I would vote for any one who articulates a course of action to deal with the many problems we face. H. Clinton so far is not one of them. but I am still listening.

Answer 9

I would, in a heartbeat. She is way qualified for the job, and, if she were elected, we would get the added advantage of William Jefferson's intelligence, personality and the good will he has engendered with world leaders for his altruism and leadership. We need that!

Answer 10

Not in a million years; she is more corrupt than her husband and has an apparently insatiable appetite for power.

Answer 11

No, it my ABSOLUTE belief that she is not AT ALL qualified to run this country. The same applies to most of the republican candidates, as well.