2007-01-21 15:29:59 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YEAH!!!! I love that and hope that it is going to happen!!
Vot for Hillary!!
2007-01-22 13:04:54 · answer #1 · answered by Finn 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As much as like Bill Clinton’s charisma, intellectual acuity, and deft diplomacy, I don’t think we should violate our nations protocol in order to place him in power. After all, if we can get who we want in power by breaking the rules, whose to preclude the Neocons from doing the same.
I think there are political figures (John Edwards and Barak Obama) now emerging on the political scene, due to the disenfranchisement of the American people with Republicans and Democrats, who will fill the void that Clinton left behind, and will perform as skillfully as he did.
2007-01-22 17:17:15 · answer #2 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hilary Clinton doesn’t have the experience, in the military or intelligence sectors of our government to be effective in a time when we are fighting a war oversees and conducting a broader “war” on terrorism. Normally, this would not be an impediment, and there have been many good Presidents, with no serious military credentials –– her husband being one of them. However, in order to rectify the quagmire that Bush has got us in, and also to redirect the “War on Terrorism” more effectively, and away from this cowboy/Rambo strategy employed by Bush and his henchmen, requires someone of either military or strategic competence. Hillary might be a stellar policy maker on the domestic front, but right now we need someone who demonstrates mastery of both military tactics and foreign diplomacy.
2007-01-22 00:01:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
American politics is becoming too much of a dynasty setting. I'd like to see the Bushs, Clintons, and Kennedys out after 2008, to be completely honest with you. Plus all these media types keep shifting in between rallying support for candidates and then going back to "neutral" media positions, its all one big happy family up there in Washington
2007-01-21 23:36:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's shame, we need to get away from the Bush-clinton dynasty. We need new blood in the white house. This isn't an anti bush or clinton statement, but just a matter of common sense. We're setting up our own monarchy here. WE NEED NEW BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-01-21 23:34:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Please read the Constitution. The Constitution sets term limits for the United State Presidency. Therefore, Bill Clinton will not be serving a third term.
2007-01-22 15:09:03 · answer #6 · answered by c1523456 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He needs to serve a term alright - but in the Big House ..NOT the White House .
2007-01-21 23:40:09 · answer #7 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
LOL Funny
That would mean voting for Hillary Clinton. I'll pass. But no doubt he would have a say in policy, just like she did when Pres Clinton was in office.
2007-01-21 23:37:38 · answer #8 · answered by robling_dwrdesign 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't think a President Rodham would let him anywhere near the White House if she were elected.
2007-01-21 23:38:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's NOT.
Hillary Clinton is very headstrong, so if she does win, Bill won't be making any policy.
2007-01-21 23:35:23 · answer #10 · answered by amg503 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋