2007-01-21 02:02:46 · 13 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
It's a free country!
2007-01-21 02:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by Feeling Mutual 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Both Hilary and Obama (the two leading potentials for the Democratic party) have a lot of baggage. Put straight-forwardly, Hilary is a woman. On top of that a lot of people disagree with her. On the plus side, however, a lot of democrats stand behind Bill Clinton and could hope that some of his nobility would return to the office with Hilary.
As for Obama, he's a black man, he's very young, and he's a one-term senator. Even the black community seems not to be behind him, and is supporting John Edwards instead.
So things don't look super for the Democratic party... although, the mess that the Republicans are leaving behind may just be enough to make the American people want to get those nutcases out of the office. Unless they have a very strong candidate like McCain... I think a lot of Democrats would vote for him over Clinton or Obama (or Edwards for that matter).
Anyway, Hilary may just be the best of the "untraditional" Democratic presidential candidates for 2008... In the hopes of getting a Democrat back into the seat, and even though Obama is an amazing speaker and leader, I'd probably guess Hilary may pick up more votes (after all, this country has only recently, in the grand scheme of things, gotten over it's massive hatred for black people --- and even that, it isn't entirely over --- but while there's still some prejudice against women, it's been airing out for a bit longer, and the women's rights movements seem to have made more progress than the black rights movements).
2007-01-21 02:13:38 · answer #2 · answered by ya_tusik 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i in my opinion won't be able to have self assurance we are nonetheless discussing the viability of a woman president. PUH-leaze! How is that an argument? A student at present asked me whether that's against the regulation for a woman to run for president! Are we desperate to no longer evolve in this u . s . a .? As for Hilary Clinton as president -- she could on no account be elected yet no longer because of the fact of her gender. human beings do no longer have faith her and human beings merely trouble-free do unlike her. She does no longer be a achievable candidate. i'm hoping that the Democrats comprehend the magnitude of working a achievable candidate -- somebody who can truly WIN the presidency. Why does everyone care concerning the gender, the creed or perhaps the call, as some cretin complained approximately in an in the past question. Even you Republicans won't be able to argue that your "management" has completed astounding injury. Oh, wait, it extremely is you, giving me a thumb's down. could desire to all of us merely bear in mind that we are human beings and that what's sturdy for united statesa. is what we could desire to seek for!
2016-11-25 23:55:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
She will and has announced it. From her perspective she should because she is extremely popular and has the best chance of any woman ever. Should the Repubs nominate the wrong candidate she would be a shoe in. The republicans right now don't seem to have a good choice with enough national recognition -- but it's still early. McCain vs Hillary -- Hillary eeks one out. McCain's lock-step position with Bush will be his undoing.
2007-01-21 02:19:36 · answer #4 · answered by pilot 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The thought of Hillary Clinton as president scares me. She says whatever she thinks people will believe. Just seeing her first name is a reminder of that. Her explanation of why she has 2 l's in Hillary is that her mother was so taken with Sir Edmund Hillary after he summitted Mt. Everest that she spelled her daughter's name with two l's. Problem is that Hillary was born in 1946. Sir Edmund Hillary didn't summit Mt. Everest untili 1953.
2007-01-21 02:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure,someone has got to prosecute billy for discracing the white house
2007-01-21 02:10:37 · answer #6 · answered by tom 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
HUH? In her case you should be asking if she should halt the candidacy she commenced in mid 1993. Please resubmit the question.
2007-01-21 02:12:06 · answer #7 · answered by Evita Rodham Clinton 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no. she cant control her husband and was too dumb to let his cheating go on, what will become of our country?
2007-01-21 02:11:01 · answer #8 · answered by jrtoyboy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
best pick of the litter so far
2007-01-21 02:12:37 · answer #9 · answered by stash1340 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes she has plenty of experience and would make an excellent president
2007-01-21 02:06:04 · answer #10 · answered by Mya G 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋