Senator Clinton is a 'poll'atician (and so is her husband). She takes a poll and then announces her position. Hardly what I want in my political leaders.
2007-05-13 13:48:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's old venom, left over from the Clinton years, when the Republicans tried so hard to prove criminal activities and could not. Bill brought himself down by committing perjury. It's sort of ironic that after all those millions spent on trying to prove something against the Clintons, that nothing THEY did made a difference at all, but something he did himself brought down the hammer.
It's true that when asked about Hillary Clinton in this forum the Hillary Haters flock to it like pigeons in a park and start yammering about everything from the debunked Clinton Hit List and Paul Harvey story to stupid remarks like you have mentioned. I can at least respect someone who doesn't like her politics and gives concrete answers with reason behind them about why they don't like her. But the rest of these Bozos? They're a joke to me. Half of them just repeat the mantra that she's a socialist when most of them don't have a clue what that even means. They just repeat what each other say and think it means something valid.
Yet, she has moved 15 points ahead of Obama in the last two weeks. It seems there are quite a few people in this country who aren't hysterical Clinton haters with no clue.
EDIT: My two favorites though, are well represented here.
#1: She didn't leave her cheating husband. Now this comes from many people who claim they love traditional family values. But to them, it is okay to fault her for saving her marriage rather than run to a divorce lawyer. Convenient isn't it? Not to mention hypocritical.
#2: Her "accents" when speaking to other states. All politicans try to talk in the local vernacular when they stump. Obama's a great example. She received all the criticism, but here he was talking to those in the South with the cadence of a Baptist preacher, when in reality he doesn't talk like that at all. But that's okay right? And then there's Bush, born and raised in Connecticut but happy to pretend to be a lifelong Texan, accent and all.
I'm just grateful there are Americans who don't cherry pick or ignore the same "failings" in other candidates. She's a strong woman and that makes her a target. She's a Clinton and that makes her a favorite target. Her strength in the face of the challenges that greet her only convince me more and more that she is the right person for the job. She has my vote.
2007-05-10 08:46:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
She is an abrasive person. She has a personality that comes across as very arrogant (most so than most politicians). Although she changes her accent according to the crowd she speaks to she still comes across as being very monotone, lathargic and lacking passion when she talks.
Next, on to her policies. She has done nothing politically that has any substance. She hasn't proposed or passed any meaningful legislation. She comes across as a person who is purely in politics for the power and stature and not because she wants to enact real, positive change. She shopped around for a market that would elect her and found that in New York even though she had nothing to do with New York prior to her campaign. Most New Yorkers from what I heard do not feel she has done anything positive for their state just as she hasn't for the country.
She, like many politicians, has also tried to play both sides of the fence on many issues. Granted, this is done by many politicians but it certainly does not help her and only adds to all the other issues people perceive about her.
Mrs. Bill Clinton also did not do herself any favors by the way she handled the situation with her husband. She came across as being weak. I'm not saying standing by her man was right or wrong as I don't think anyone can really determine what they were going through in their personal lives, but she definitely came across as weak during the scandal and this has followed her.
Overall she simply is not a good candidate for President and in my estimation should not even be serving in Congress. Of course, I think many people serving in Congress should not be there so she is not alone in that category.
2007-05-10 08:45:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by InReality01 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
It was the constant lying and story-changing during her tenure as co-president that turned me off to her.
For some weird reason the press never takes a politician's changing story and replays it in dated chapter-and-verse form for us to see just how slippery some of them are.
Anyway, I give full marks to both the Clintons for their success in never sticking with a story when a different one was better. It worked for them like a charm.
I just don't appreciate that quality in any politician and that's my reason for wishing she'd stick to representing the interests of New Yorkers, especially those in Manhattan - they're very accepting of politicans who, ahem, have a problem with the truth.
2007-05-13 07:41:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think Elway_the _Cat pretty much summed it up for me. I couldn't have said it better myself. Especially the part where they have demonized her for staying with her husband because he cheated on her. Very Hypocritical to say the least. Which is ironic since they are calling her a hypocrit as well. If I could give Elway a couple more thumbs up I would!
2007-05-10 09:12:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Spirish_1 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
She simply isn't too smart, she stayed with a man that cheated on her in order to boost her own career life. She has already been in office when Clinton was president. She ran the show and provided him with no back bone. It was bad enough Clinton lied to america about Monica. Then he confesses.. That lie should have got him impeached.
OH and plus she is a democrat!
I am adding this because I noticed that,
all the people telling their opinions about Hillary they don't like, 'bring out the "best" in her ~ get thumbs down..
You can't bring out the best in someone if they don't have any! Down thumb me all you want! It's the truth!
2007-05-10 08:45:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Hillary Clinton is an elitist snob. She is disingenuous and fake. She is a career politician with a dubious past. She swings her opinion based on what the polls reflect. To me, that indicates that she is focused on doing what is popular, not what is necessarily right. This is not good for America. We need a leader who is committed to doing what is best for our nation.
2007-05-10 09:29:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
They started hating her because they didn't like her having such a large role in her husband's presidency. She screwed up the role she did have. People never stopped hating her from back then--even if their thinking wasn't totally right (anyone who voted for Bill knew Hillary wouldn't resign herself to throwing tea parties in the green room), and was a little mysogonistic.
But once you start hating, it's hard to stop.
2007-05-10 08:45:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by wayfaroutthere 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Well the problem I have with her is that (from her own speaches and political philosphies as related by her) she's essentialy a socialist with no concept of the benefits or functions of free market economics. She strikes me as an opportunist, and at times I have a problem swallowing that even she believes in her own rhetoric. Mainly the idea that she promotes communal responcibility over personal responcibility which is the antitheisis of the ideals this country was founded on, and play against human nature its self is what bothers me most.
2007-05-10 08:42:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
I don't like her because:
--She worked for Barry Goldwater
--She represented Walmart in labor disputes, and later sat on the Board of Directors at Walmart.
2007-05-10 08:42:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by 2 5
·
0⤊
1⤋