The nail has been hit directly on the head
2007-01-21 02:54:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by RTM 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
The Presidency under Clinton was not as bad as it was now under the Bush Administration. The people mostly under Clinton were mis informed and dealt with bad cards from the past Bush.
So better get informed and get your facts right before bombarding such a debatte. I think it' s time that women have equal opportunity in this country. We are bright, intelligent, highly educated and can govern . Not without a reason are we the best care takers, running multiple households and managing everything there needs to be done. So why not, I would rather vote for her than for the other oponents!
2007-01-21 10:57:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by angelikabertrand64 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
I must admit, I am a little leary of letting a woman take control of the country. But I am not prejudice against it.
To answer your question, this country is suffering in other arenas than just politics. It's economy isn't as good as Bush says it is. CEOs and presidents of companies are lying to say that it is, but everyone knows internally that this country is in bad doo-doo.
I am just not certain that a woman president would be the solution. So on that right, I agree with you. But then again, who knows? Maybe it is what this country needs.
(However, I don't want Hillary Clinton in the White House. That's just scary.)
2007-01-21 10:57:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Oklahoman 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I am not from the USA but i can see exactly what you are saying,Time for a change,The need for a new opinion,Time to move on.Are there no other female,s that could do the job?If Hilary Clinton gets the top job will there be the whole Clinton saga all over again??
America look further afield for your next president!!
2007-01-21 10:57:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bella 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
It does seem like American political dynasties are forming. If Hillary were to win and serve 2 terms, that would mean that since 1988 there has been a Bush or Clinton in the white house. Thats 28 years!
2007-01-21 10:56:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
President Hillary Clinton? 44th President of 2008. Well I might
vote for her.
2007-01-21 11:08:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jagger Otto 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Cant have new blood unless he/she's a prodigy. Know why? Because 69.1% of the US are made up of whites. You know most people have pride, and will vote for their own race. But unless the majority of the US shine out of the usual, and be able to see the true abilities of others, new race won't be possible for a long, long time.
2007-01-21 11:00:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by dan 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
huh???? how can you call reagan a comparison to travelgate, filegate whitewater, the vince foster coverup, the largest tax increase in us history, jennifer, paula, monica, what is....is, the tie breaking vote to tax social security, etc. im sorry pal but the clintons set the benchmark that wont be breached anytime soon.
2007-01-21 10:53:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by koalatcomics 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
YES THEY ARE!
Remember CLINTON served "TWO" terms!
How about Condelsa Rice FOR THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT?
Thanks, RR
2007-01-21 10:58:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I would give a woman a preference - just not Hillary. We need a woman not so deep in the political games.
2007-01-21 11:34:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yep-I'm tired of dynasties in the White House. Especially failed ones.
2007-01-21 10:54:45
·
answer #11
·
answered by Big Bear 7
·
2⤊
0⤋