Most of you might think that this is a reference to Bush.. but only in part...
By February 2007, Clinton made a point of refusing to admit that her October 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake, or to apologize for it, as anti-war Democrats demanded. “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Clinton told an audience in Dover, New Hampshire. [4]
I'd say those that support Bush for his convictions could find some appreciation for Hillary's
2007-03-29 04:46:50 · 9 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Only if they support my belief system. Kidding. Hillary's "convictions" are based on what is popular at the moment. She is only concerned about poll numbers. She is a swindler like her husband. She will destroy this country if elected.
2007-03-29 04:55:33 · answer #1 · answered by only p 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hillary is only avoiding from saying her vote was from a mistake because politically it would kill her in the election. Similar the John Kerry "flip-flop" issue. I don't believe she has any conviction other than to obtain power. As evidenced by her unwillingness to dump her husband after his multiple fillandering. She stayed for political aspirations.
2007-03-29 11:55:41 · answer #2 · answered by kmg3798 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am impressed with people who stand behind their convictions, provided they can articulate their point of view intelligibly, and can respect and understand that not all people may agree with them.
IMO, Hillary Clinton is a poor example of someone who sticks to her convictions. She changes her opinions to reflect the polls.
2007-03-29 12:40:52 · answer #3 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I'm glad Hillary is standing strong on her conviction of why she voted yes to going into Iraq. But it is still not enough to sway me into voting for her.
2007-03-29 11:58:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mikira 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's one thing to stand by your convictions. It's another to continue a course of action when new information comes to your attention telling you that your original assumptions are wrong. I respect someone who doesn't view it as a character flaw to adapt to the new reality of a situation.
2007-03-29 11:58:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I support those who stand strong to their convictions when they have rational support for doing so. It's one thing to stand up for your convictions; quite another to refuse to see when it's time to reassess and possibly change your convictions.
I respect realism.
Hillary has also made it clear that her stand on the war in Iraq has changed. She supported the decision to invade, but as things have progressed, it has become clear to her (as it has to many of us) that the invasion was poorly planned and even more badly executed. And we're just spinning our wheels in Iraq now.
2007-03-29 11:50:58 · answer #6 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I do when their convictions are right.
The mistake was not Senator Clinton's. It was the mistake of the Bush administration to cherry pick information to give to Congress.
2007-03-29 11:53:24 · answer #7 · answered by Retired From Y!A 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I do support and applaud people who stand by convictions that are noble and just.
Hillary and Bill lost ALL credibility with me with THEIR scandal plagued administration.
2007-03-29 11:56:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I do.
Which is why chickenhawks that SAY they support WAR but refuse to go FIGHT disgust me so much!
2007-03-29 11:52:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋