Clinton. She will probably come with the same baggage as her husband, but those were some good times with the economic boom, fiscal responsibility by Congress, balanced budget, non-religious politics, and peace. Also, the United States enjoyed a pretty good standing in international relations. I would suggest that she avoid reducing the military and spend a little more on intelligence than her husband seemed to.
2007-02-24 04:49:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Clinton
2007-02-24 12:45:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Gottlos 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Obama is experienced enough to run for President. It's possible for him to become President, but he's got a tough uphill battle to win nomination in his own party. If Hillary runs, then he'll have to contend with the large political muscle that her and Bill Clinton wield. John Edwards has the well-spoken, good-looking guy image going for him as well, (plus he's white). However, Hillary does have Bill's Lewinsky's smell around her as well as her support for the Iraq war. John may get tied again to John Kerry who's been slipping in popularity over the last eight months. If Barack Obama were to run and win, he would be good President but only if he is committed (i.e. his marriage and parenthood could suffer).
Even though the US Presidency is argubly the most important political position in the world, the President does not have to have a wealth of experience that allows him (and maybe one day her) to govern an entire country. He has a Cabinet as well as other high ranking supporters aiding him in his decision process. I am always amazed that when people talk about Barack Obama, his "lack of experience" is seen as a negative. To be President, one only needs to be intelligent, thoughtful, decisive and committed. If I am a manager for Apple looking for someone to program the new I-Pod/Cell phone, I would want to hire someone with experience. But politics is open enough to have a President who is a peanut farmer, an actor, a lawyer, or a businessman.
2007-02-24 17:52:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by GL Supreme 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both are a BAD choice but if I had to chose one I'd say Clinton although she's only in it for the money and not to make a better America for you and I!
McCain hasn't a chance as seen in the past and the only other contender to watch will be Rudy Guillianni! All the rest are on a merciless mission doomed to fail!
2007-02-24 13:23:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Clinton because Obama doesn't seem mature enough
2007-02-24 12:45:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Neither! Vote Mister B!!
http://misterbin08.blogspot.com
2007-02-24 14:55:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Roxi 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
I prefer Obama. Granted he is young, but he is a genuis, has a very mature personalilty, has integrity, and is extremely knowledgeable, dedicated, and charismatic. Hillary is a Politician Par Excellence. She can do a decent job, but she does not have enough integrity. She flipflops.
2007-02-24 12:53:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by browneyedgirl 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't know. I like both of them.
Either one will be a great improvement over Bush. Heck, Dennis Kucinich or Sam Brownback would be better than W. For that matter, my dry cleaner would as well.
2007-02-24 12:58:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Clinton because of her extensive experience, hard work & her ability to focus. Besides, we'll get a BOGO!
2007-02-24 13:48:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
clinton
2007-02-24 12:48:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Archangel 3
·
1⤊
0⤋