She's "all of a sudden" taking GW's side when he's on the way out. Give me a break!!!! She's been against everything this Admin is for (don't forget who her husband is). If its cigars for a man, what would be the White House "toy" for a woman. I'm sick of this.
2007-05-30 10:52:21 · 15 answers · asked by jamestoddscott 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
She blows back and forth weekly, doesn't she? You're not the only one who sees that.
2007-05-30 10:56:22 · answer #1 · answered by amazin'g 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
What I'm sick of is all the insinuation about Clinton without any of the facts. How exactly is she taking GW's side? On what? She just voted against the Iraq bill, how is that being on Bush's side? My confidence in America would be uplifted by seeing actual factual arguments against Sen. Clinton instead of vague accusations with no basis, and rehashing of the past over and over and over. There is rarely anyone in this forum among the Hillary Haters that ever gives any pertinent information about why they hate her past referring to old debunked stories about Vince Foster & association with the Black Panthers, and her personal decisions about her marriage, and calling her a socialist - which clearly shows they don't know the first thing about what socialism really is. Can you give me some facts about what you are talking about, are you any different? I would give a lot to have an intelligent discourse with someone in this forum about Sen. Clinton. The trouble is that those who constantly deride her don't seem to have a clue about her stand on the issues or what she really intends to do about Iraq. They are simply content to repeat what they hear from each other, and it amounts to a lot of schoolyard name-calling. Good example? You asking what "toy" Hillary will be using in the White House. I'm sick of THIS.
2007-05-30 18:16:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. If she is so "un-electable" then why is she is scaring the s#!t out of the reps? Dennis Kucinich isn't scaring anybody.
2. If she is a neo-con in disguise then why don't neo-cons support her? Why bash a person of your own ideology?
3. Why do republicans who claim Hillary is a conservative in disguise support Ron Paul (a liberal in disguise)? or Guiliani (another liberal in disguise). If you support either of these two then you are much more liberal than you know as both of these candidates have borrowed much from the liberal agenda while calling themselves conservatives.
None of your arguments for or against these candidates make any sense. People who straddle party lines should not be elected by EITHER party. If you are going to pick a fight, then pick a side and follow through.
2007-05-30 18:19:51 · answer #3 · answered by David M 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's no worse than any and all of the republican candidates going up on stage and offering no solution to any problem that we face today.
Instead they focus on kill and murder people in the name of the War on Terror.
So my question is, does anyone understand the game that any of these politicians are playing? These people will say whatever they can to get elected, you and I both know this. So why is it a big shocker when a republican says this, or a democrat says that. Republicans are splitting on Bush, and Congress has now given Bush a blank check to keep waging war, therefore, negating what they said they would do in the run up to the election. Where does it end?
Personally, I trust two people in this election and neither have a chance at getting elected. Washington is all about big bucks and political clout. Who cares that Hillary voted for the war and that Barack voted to enact the Patriot Act starting the assault on our Constitutional liberties.
This whole party system is bogus. These folks are not loyal to America, they are loyal to their party, and we are just along for the ride.
2007-05-30 17:59:07 · answer #4 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I know exactly what kind of game she is playing, the same knife in your back, then both hands in the air claiming she knew nothing about it or she would have voted different. Clinton's are the two most exaggerated people in the world. People need to use their Internet to type in their names as far back as their high school days and continue the search until now. Many would get educated on the pair real fast. I am sick of them two myself. People need to start doing some research before election time. Not that I am against all Dems, just these two.
2007-05-30 18:00:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well, I know youre working your whole dessent thing, but Hillary has the best chances of getting through this election with a W. This seems to bother a lot of the hardcore left, because they hate the idea that they could agree with anyone on the right without years of conflict and then an eventual resolution that we seem like we hate. How about this, we'll just pretend we had heated arguments about this, you guys can offer up Hillary as a middle candidate that everyone can tolerate, and then we can move on with our lives. Cool?
2007-05-30 17:58:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
She and her husband have always been on Bush's side.
The Clintons are Neo-Cons in Democrat clothing.
Why do you think Rupart Murdoch, owner of Faox News, is one of her biggest campaign contributors? She'll soon be the darling of Foax News. Mark my words.
RON PAUL 2008!!!
......
2007-05-30 17:57:03 · answer #7 · answered by ladykofnyc 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Can you say Madame President?
Hillary 08
2007-05-30 18:30:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its a game that many of the dem leadership plays.
Move to the right to appear less wacko so that you are more electable. Hillary has a track record of doing this moreso than any other Dem that I have seen.
2007-05-30 17:59:47 · answer #9 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Then don't vote for her. I know I am not going to. Then again it will be a frozen over hell before I vote for a republican candidate at this point.
2007-05-30 18:01:32 · answer #10 · answered by bs b 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋