is most likely to support enviromental change ? (i.e Global Warming)
2007-03-20 13:01:57 · 16 answers · asked by [-♥-] 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Some people say that Al Gore might be running in 2008, so he'd probably be the one. If he didn't, I have no idea who'd be the best.
2007-03-20 13:14:31 · answer #1 · answered by Future Chairman of Antarctica 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary, truthfully will smile her plastic smile and develop right into a candidate i'm particular. yet when she wins tx ought to declare itselfa Republic fora at the same time as. as a lot as we desire, Condoleeza Rice likely received't run inspite of the actuality that we favor her too. She on the time i have self assurance has different plans, inspite of the actuality that a woman needs to run on the Republican area if Hillary (barf) runs. the girls human beings's rights communities will vote for her if no longer, even inspite of the actuality that they are not for what they help. inspite of the actuality that i odn't imagine some thing else of the international may settle for a women human beings president right now.
2016-12-02 07:47:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ones who aren't paying attention to the present problems that need to be our focus. The environment does need to have priority, but not top priority, so I would say that whoever has the environment at the very top of their list isn't the right choice for President in 2008.
2007-03-20 13:06:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Barack Obama
2007-03-20 13:05:37 · answer #4 · answered by Just Dixal™ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, major environmental change can only be done at the cost and expense of all us. Most of all big companies. Understand this, the public at large and big companies are not willing to make hardly any sacrifice towards this cause at this time. Hence, I beg of you....... Please don't vote for a candidate because of what they say will be done in regards to the environment. I promise it will be a huge let down to you in the end if you do.
2007-03-20 13:12:40 · answer #5 · answered by Shawn P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Edwards is probablty number one on the environment followed by Clinton, Obama, and Gulliani (yes, RudY)in a tie for an ineffectual second.
MCCain is no good and Sam Brownback is dead last.
2007-03-20 13:08:09 · answer #6 · answered by Akkakk the befuddled 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd chip in for Clinton, simply because a woman president would encourage minority groups that they can be great also. As far as the environment goes, I wouldn't be able to decide.
2007-03-20 13:07:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Billary
2007-03-20 13:04:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just so you all know, Hillary Clinton is a Republican.
http://weneedtoblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/hillary-clinton-hides-past-as.html
Not only is she a Republican, she's a war-mongering democracy-hating Israel-first Zionist crypto-Jew neo-con shill. If you're not a Zionist Jew, Zionist Crypto-Jew or Zionist non-Jew who hates America and puts Israel's interests first, then you really have no business supporting or voting for that P-O-S Traitor.
2007-03-20 13:10:55 · answer #9 · answered by eatmeneocon 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No one. All will say they will, but its political suicide to deny global warming. Ask any politician, they won't deny it, but they won't do anything for it either
2007-03-20 13:05:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋