Personally I think the country and us taxpayers (Read the productive members of society) would be better off with an empty White House if Obama or Clinton were our only two choices
2007-02-25 16:44:37 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
PCPY, you might be on to something there.
2007-02-25 16:50:03 · update #1
Personally I think that lawyers should not be allowed to run for any public office and that the American people should bury everyone that is serving in a position above dog catcher. That would help the US.
2007-02-25 16:49:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
bill Clinton ran a platform that bragged approximately his ideas-blowing wellbeing care plan and how 3 hundred,000 new jobs may well be created. Neither got here approximately, however the Clinton acquaintances became multimillionares and so did the Clintons. Obama has carried out his homework on the Clintons. So ought to you. examine into White Water, Travelgate, the Rose regulation enterprise examine, the Hsu debacle, and notably that very unusual Vince Foster " suicide".
2016-11-25 23:36:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do so many ask this same question over and over? The election is a little less than 2 years away! By that time there could be totally different players on both sides.
If we ended up with an empty White House, you'd be screaming your guts out in fear! Get real.
2007-02-25 17:01:50 · answer #3 · answered by Petrushka's Ghost 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not really a BAD choice, considering what's happened the last FOUR terms, but GET SERIOUS: Can you (gasp) imagine what it would be like if CONGRESS were TOTALLY in charge? (lol) all those (cough) politicians
running pork barrel wars, departments, states rights, appointing justices,
and vetoing each other. They'd spend 80 trillion $ on repeated elections after $60 trillion studying the issue.
2007-02-25 17:10:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You offered three options, one of which will definitely not happen(empty white house). But, the problem is they both are running on a ticket of race and gender. Additionally, I don't trust both!
2007-02-25 17:56:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
PCPY makes a good point.
So far the answer is still;
D. None of the above, EXPECIALLY NOT hillery clinton!
2007-02-25 16:59:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
In this order : 1) Obama
2) MT White House
3) Lucifer
4) Clinton
2007-02-25 16:51:34 · answer #7 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I agree. Those two are terrible canditates but its all a publicity contest sadly so a respectable canidate is not happening this time.
2007-02-25 16:57:43 · answer #8 · answered by the Animal 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
why???? because Clinton is a woman??? or because she speaks the truth??? i think that the United States will be a hell of alot better off with Clinton in the office....... what are your reason??? you have the right to speak your opinion yes but what are the facts that your opinion is based on???
my husband and the rest of the military, in my opinion would be alot better if clinton was there....... atleast they would most likely be home with their families instead of in Iraq or in the field training for Iraq...... you talk **** but what are you doing to help the situation thats going on here????
2007-02-25 16:54:38 · answer #9 · answered by i_luv_my_army_man 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Nah. Clinton was FAR more fiscally conservative than the liberal spending, nation building GW Bush. Discretionary spending by Bush is far, far beyond Clinton.
Bush is a huge fiscal liberal.
2007-02-25 16:54:25 · answer #10 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋