Why?
2007-02-26 12:46:40 · 15 answers · asked by Chelly 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
They both are members of the pro-war, pro-corporate rights party. The only difference is that Hillary Clinton has more corporate backing and more experience with working for the corporations.
2007-02-26 13:24:01 · answer #1 · answered by Murry 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
John Edwards wouldn't be so bad, I guess... I'd like to see someone who really was a true-blue populist, but his college for everyone program does do me a bit of good... I'd much rather see him than Hillary. Her economics are pretty much the same as the last few president's we've had, and I'll tell you what, they don't help the average Joe at all. I don't think that Edwards'd be that different, but he seems to be an interesting guy. I'll give him a chance, sure.
2007-02-26 21:54:16 · answer #2 · answered by crimsononice 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You know, I'm not a big fan of either. But I'd have to go with Hilary (even though America is not ready for a woman president. They will not vote for her and she has no chance of winning).
I happen to live in NC and as that, I don't see how any person could possibly vote for Edwards. My neighbor WORKS in his law office and she wouldn't even vote for him. He apparently is very much aware of how to get to DC but got lost a lot on every day they voted. Congress is only in session roughly 100 days a year. Wow that must be nice. He couldn't show up for 50. Didn't show up for 25. In fact was there for about 3% of the votes.
Then quit representing NC at all so that he could create a great campaign ad talking about how he is a southern boy from a mill town and wants to represent the common people. And from reading what people say on these boards it worked. They believe his cute lil charming act.
Except he didn't want to represent anyone. Couldn't be bothered to vote on things that mattered to his cute lil mill town he was so proud of.
Then runs for VP--which apparently means he doesn't have the sense God gave a mule as the VP actually has to go to Congress, not sit in the Oval Office like he thought. A Vice President is the deciding vote on issues. Guess he was hoping it wouldn't be so close and therefore he could continue his dismal appearance.
He had no intention of representing the people of NC, and quit. Who can say if he gets elected to a position of power (which he is merely power hungry for) he won't decide it's too hard and quit as well.
I disagree with a lot of what Hilary says and definitely think she is a bit rough around the edges. If people are hoping for a democrat to smooth over the rough edges Bush left with the EU and other foreign gov'ts, Hilary won't be the person to do that. (Kerry even worse--hate the war, not the soldier) But at least Hilary does seem to know the job she is running for. She knows what life is for a poor Arkansas farmer and a rich NYC socialite. She actually seems to know what matters to America. Will she act on that? Who knows. But at least she seems to get it, unlike Edwards.
How can I vote for a democrat when they continuously pick the worst of the bunch to run? Edwards is young and attractive--is that ALL that matters to the party??? Tell me there is more to our system of government than that.
2007-03-02 10:57:47 · answer #3 · answered by phantom_of_valkyrie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll give you ten to one odds right now that neither becomes president. In the general election the successful candidate has to run to the center (and be believable).
Neither of these two can pull that off, especially after they both spend the next 12 months trying to win the Democratic nomination by proving to the rabid party lefties which one is more liberal and who hates George Bush the most.
The dilemma for the Dems is to realize that you can't have these ultra-liberal litmus tests to get the nomination and then run back (hypocritically) to the center during the general election.
The next president will be someone who won't have to change his or her positions after winning the nomination.
2007-03-01 12:23:35 · answer #4 · answered by idlebud 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why Hillary? Because she is the only one in the bunch that can run the country. We do not have time to break in a smooth talker, we need to get to work and get this mess cleaned up.
2007-02-28 03:49:19 · answer #5 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ANYONE other than a Clinton or bush. we need someone new. with fresh ideas Hillary's bull is old. Edwards is a little too rich, but if i had to choose it would be Edwards.
2007-02-26 21:30:10 · answer #6 · answered by JAMES S 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
AGAIN i get a laugh by the obviously biased bs spewed by you bush lovers."oh my god if either one is elected the world will end" give me a break people. just how much worse can a leader do than bush??? do you all remember the "GOOD OLE DAYS" under bill clinton?? probably not, but i do. gas was 99 cents a gallon. the stock market was poised to reach 13k. interest rates were 4.5%. everyone had a job!! the national treasury was in the black!! we were not involved in an illegal, immoral, useless war full of euphemisms like the WAR ON TERROR!! now even the british see that was a bs. term!! and for the record i would like to see a GORE /EDWARDS TICKET!! WONT HAPPEN BUT TOO BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-02-26 21:41:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Either way America is screwed!!!!! Run we shall run to France. Or Canada I can be a Mountie.
Wait let's not make fun of France, cause deep down we all know they'll always be around when they need us..
2007-02-26 20:55:08 · answer #8 · answered by Theoretically Speaking 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
considering hilary clinton is one of the biggest liars and bullshit artists around, thats an easy, Edwards all the way, no brainer
2007-02-26 20:54:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If hillary wins, I'm moving to mexico. or canada. or whatever.
2007-02-26 21:02:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋