Why or why not?
Personally, I wouldn't vote for her if she was the only person running.
----
I'm giving away some of my old, unused domain names at http://1337domains.com -- come check it out.
2006-10-02 09:19:48 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
no way in hell brother
2006-10-02 09:21:21 · answer #1 · answered by caparoja50 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
All though a lot of people answered this question, very few put any thought into their answer, for example, no, nooooooooo, or I don't vote for communist. This also goes for the yes people. This is the problem with modern American politics. Where is the substance? Where is the debate? Let talk issues and see where the candidates stand. Who cares what party a person comes from if they are going to leave our country in better shape when they leave office then when they enter it. Stop letting your parties label people and think for yourself. Read about the issues, listen to the candidates, and then make up your mind. It is your voice, not the voice of your parties. Use it.
The best answer is let us see what our other choices are in 2008 and then decide.
2006-10-02 11:39:33 · answer #2 · answered by Jeffery B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES! I think Hillary Clinton is a phenomal Senator and an incredibly intelligent person who will make a fantastic President.
2006-10-02 15:46:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if i would vote for her or not. She has yet to put anything on the plate as to what she would do. Where she see's the country going.
Although maybe it would be a good idea to get a women in office so we can get these boys with big toys out. Men sometimes get power happy and i'd like to see a change in that.
2006-10-02 09:21:38 · answer #4 · answered by digitaldancer22 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no way her party would allow her to be the Democratic nominee, it would guarantee a Republican victory in 2008, not enough party support and definitely less opposing party support.
Perhaps in 2016. There are better odds she would become the vice presidential candidate before then.
2006-10-02 09:24:36 · answer #5 · answered by ©2009 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am a devout Democrat but I dont' like Hillary will because she will tell any lie, do any pandering, try anything she thinks she has to if she thinks it will help her get elected.
Note: I said I was a Democrat not a socialist! We need to keep Hillary out, but I do think we need a Democratic President!
2006-10-02 13:25:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i don't experience she'll be too historic, in spite of the undeniable fact that i've got faith she could superb serve for one term if she ran and replaced into elected in 2016. She'll be sixty 9, no longer 70, so serving from sixty 9-seventy 3 in case you have no longer had any existence-threatening ailments like cancer is first-fee.
2016-10-18 09:07:43 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can say most emphatically and without a doubt; if it was a choice between a pink flamingo and Hillary, I'd choose the flamingo.
2006-10-02 10:37:51 · answer #8 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I wouldn't - I'm a Brit and not on the voters register and neither are the other billions of people in the world.
2006-10-02 09:26:52 · answer #9 · answered by john b 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! I don't disagree with pretty much everything she stands for. It may make me enemies, but better a dumb Republican than a smart Democrat. I may not agree with everything Bush does, or even everything the Republican Party stands for, but I still agree with more things lumped under 'Republican' than those lumped under 'Democrat'. Except let people marry whom ever they want, keep politics out of it.
2006-10-02 09:24:34 · answer #10 · answered by mrslititia 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hell no! If I wanted to vote for the Whore of Babylon then I'd be better off than wasting a vote on that scuzz.
2006-10-02 09:29:16 · answer #11 · answered by Donald W 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋