Clinton was the first First Lady to have been subpoenaed to testify before a Federal grand jury when she was called in January 1996 to explain circumstances surrounding the sudden reemergence of documents regarding her work at the Rose Law firm.[22][23] This was in connection with the Whitewater affair, for which she never faced criminal charges. During her time as First Lady, Clinton was also the subject of official investigations regarding firings in the White House travel office, the circumstances of White House counsel Vince Foster's death, and the improper use of FBI background files. In none of these cases was Clinton ever officially charged with any wrongdoing.
2007-01-29 10:03:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
She is a woman - That irks the male establishment
She did not toss the bum out when he cheated - that irks the house wives.
Because she is intelligent and can form complete sentences - that irks the cons.
Because she does not believe the government should have there hands in a woman's womb - That irks the right wingers
Because the view through her window is green - that irks the talking heads.
Because she is electable and that is why we get to here so much from an allegedly liberal media about how she is not electable
Take your pick.
2007-01-29 13:40:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because many say she should win because she is a woman. Being a woman has nothing to do with leading a country. On top of that, she is a very polarizing figure. If she took over, everyone who hates Bush would love her, everyone who loves Bush would hate her. Do we really want 4 or 8 more years of a divided America? We need a president that more than 60% of America can rally behind and stay behind.
2007-01-29 08:18:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
1) She is a social liberal who tried to create the largest entitlement program ever in the form of national health care.
2) She may be a criminal. Only because one of her former partners refused to testify is she even able to be considered a candidate.
3) The Clintons already had their shot.
4) She is a liberal.
5) She is a lawyer.
6) She is shrill and uninspiring.
I could keep going, but that is enough. If you think I'm against women as president, just consider I vote for Condaliza Rice in a heart beat!
2007-01-29 08:27:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jeffrey P 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
She will undo the tax cuts on investment income. Investments are already taxed at the corporate level, including capital gains: stocks trade at a multiple of POST-TAX earnings, meaning the corporate tax eats up 35% of my gain.
I save and invest. That is the best way I can get ahead now. That's me improving my situation, on my own. I owe that to no one. I'm good at it because I work hard at it. It's not perfect but it's not the lottery either - I stick with the NYSE, I do a lot of research about the economy, certain sectors and individual companies, and I buy stop loss orders. The income is already taxed at the corporate level - I've calculated that my gains and dividends are even with the present level of investment taxes taxed at about 58%, including the corporate level tax.
I think that's high enough. Hillary thinks it isn't "fair" to people who don't save and invest. It's not her money. She feels entitled to my money. I feel the same righteous indignation about Hillary thinking she has a right to interfere because I'm 'selfish' that homosexuals probably feel about Pat Robertson thinking he has a right to interfere with their lives because they're 'sinful' - they're both way out of line.
2007-01-29 08:24:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
I think you have to consider who her husband is and how well he ran his campaigns during his rein of power. Secondly, I know plenty of Democrats who say they won't vote for her because she is a woman, but in reality they will vote for their party. She has some good leadership qualities and she is well liked in New York. As much as some of us question a national health care program it is long over due and if you remember right Al Gore brought it up during the questionable campaign of 2000. We still have over a year and a half, for all we know, Bush could have us in a global world war before the next election. I would vote for Hillary now and I wasn't so sure six months ago, so a lot can happen during the next year or so.
2007-01-29 08:35:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by tenbelow 1
·
0⤊
3⤋
From her high school days at Main Township and her up bringing in Park Ridge, Illinois ......she was then and is now a pathological liar....such a sad and pitiful creature . only now she has bitten off more then she can chew...You the voters had better make sure she never gets the chance to have the keys to the White House not to mention the key to the launch box of our ICBM atomic weaponry .Good luck America and again Voters its up to YOU...........God Bless America
2015-09-06 05:34:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by loverboy 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not a threat, she is a nice person, but I don't want her as the president because she just wouldn't do well with that much power.She is a good role model though and I would support her if she was president because it is our job as citizens to do so.
2007-01-29 09:26:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by angel 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Democrats are all a threat they are giving ammunition to our sworn enemies. I am sure that Hillary agrees with John Kerry that the "US is an international pariah".
2007-01-29 10:48:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
For myself, I have nothing personal against Hillary, but I'm Republican, and don't quite agree with her political posturing.
So, I tend to look into our own resources when voting.
2007-01-29 08:22:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by onAhhroll 3
·
4⤊
1⤋