English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you think Hillary Clinton would be considered a candidate if her husband Bill Clinton was not the President in the past. She was unable to keep her husband happy during marriage...do you think she'll be able to keep American happy during a possible presidency. Is being married to a former president really enough reason to be considered for president?

2007-07-06 10:13:38 · 28 answers · asked by Answers Nickname 2 in Politics & Government Politics

28 answers

Our current President makes me think my retarded dog could run our government.

2007-07-06 10:27:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Running a country and keeping a husband happy are two unrelated skills.

Come on, would ANYONE ever suggest a male candidate isn't qualified if he had marriage issues?

I'm not a Hillary fan but she is a Senator and has a law degree and other qualifications. It isn't about being married to Bill Clinton. Many would think being married to him is actually a liability not a boon.

It's a shame that just anyone can vote!

2007-07-06 10:21:00 · answer #2 · answered by Karrose 5 · 4 0

Just by the nature and tone of your question, I can tell that you don't have enough knowledge about US politics to be asking questions in this section, but I'll answer your question anyway.

As a young woman, Hillary was a brilliant student, who got a law degree at an early age, worked on public policy and Women's issues, passed the bar exam in Arkansas, and Illinois, I think.
As First Lady of Arkansas, she improved thier education system enough that they were no longer tied with Mississippi for the lowest test scores, and highest drop-out rate.
As First Lady of our nation, she worked out a very workable, and affordable, national health plan, but it never got beyond the planning stage because all the "Good-Ol' Boys" in congress were threatened by her brilliant and forceful style.
As the wife of one of our most popular Presidents, she had to endure years of rumor-mongering and slander by right-wing half-wits, and stand by while the nation's so-called legislators wasted tens of millions of our tax dollars, and irreplacable hours on the Starr Commission's smear campaign, and then when that produced nothing, she had to endure her husband's impeachment, all because he lied about getting a ******** from a little hottie at the office, something any married man would have lied about.
Meanwhile, the President's National Security advisors kept him from killing Osama Bin-Laden, because they believed, (rightly, I think), that the Republicans would say he was just bombing another country to distract people from the scandals.
Hillary has also been elected Senator from New York State, twice, both times by large margins, and has done an excellent job in that position, working across party lines on several successful bills, and building a coalition that helped take back the Senate.
There has never been a more qualified woman candidate for President, and as Bill Clinton said this week, he has never seen a more qualified and capable non-incumbent candidate for that Office, and neither have We !
Hope this answers your question !

2007-07-06 10:50:31 · answer #3 · answered by thehermanator2003 4 · 2 0

i think of it relies upon. there's an incredible form of communicate that she could take a Ted Kennedy like functionality in the Senate. i've got even heard communicate of her being nominated to the ideal courtroom - in spite of the very incontrovertible fact that her supporters say that she's greater of a fighter and a legislator than the ideal courtroom enables. i'm curious nonetheless why you have been "bowled over" that she ended her campaign. there became no way she became going to have the means to win. Obama had the needed delegates. because of the fact the Florida/Michigan subject got here to a good compromise that favorite her greater effective than Obama what case might she have on the credentials committee? For the Wiz: She have been given a greater proper proportion of delegates in the two states, which favorite her. She did win the states, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that that's problematic to assert she gained them "a techniques and sq." for the reason that previous to the election no person theory the election might count, there became no campaigning, and he or she became the only significant candidate on the Michigan poll. Obama did do away along with his call from the pollin protest of Michigan's in the previous election - yet so did the different significant applicants different than Clinton, it wasn't in basic terms Obama. provided that the democratic regulations enable for proportional allocation of the delegates in any case, i think of that the DNC compromise became honest and he or she nonetheless gained greater delegates than Obama from those primaries as a consequence. For Obama campaign worker: Veeps in no way bypass directly to be Presidents?John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren (ok a lesser typical president), Richard Nixon, and George HW Bush, have been all VPs.

2016-10-20 02:34:32 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

You don't elect someone because their spouse is happy. Reagan was on his 2nd marriage. Kennedy was legendary for his Oval office affairs long before Clinton showed his love for thongs and the Macanudo. And these were considered very good presidents in the past 50 years.

While I'm sure Laura Bush is happy, a countrywide approval rating for her husband in the 30s doesn't evoke much confidence. I may not have confidence in Hilary's leadership style but it has nothing to do with whether Bill stayed happy. Bill seems to have varying tastes in women.

2007-07-06 10:23:55 · answer #5 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 2 1

Is being the son of a former president really enough reason to be considered for president?

2007-07-06 10:23:30 · answer #6 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 2 0

A distinguished senator from New York, experience in the white house and as an unofficial ambassador for the United States. Not a bad resume'.

As for pleasing her husband, why is it bad all of a sudden to the "family values" people for a couple to actually stay married? I know that the leaders of the Republican party tend not to, but shouldn't that be a plus? You know, actually keeping the family together?

2007-07-06 10:23:18 · answer #7 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 2 1

She won't. If elected it will still be run by the central bankers and Illuminati. So she has a chance of winning.

Then it will be business as usual. They will make a production of tossing a few bones to the poor, the gays, and the minorities. While quietly concentrating on taking care of pro-Israeli and corporate/central banker interests.

So she might even win her bid for re-election.

The only candidate I see that could shake up the status-quo is Ron Paul. He has been combatting the central bankers for about 20 years. He has the knowledge and the commitment and the record.

2007-07-06 10:20:07 · answer #8 · answered by Watched 2 · 2 1

Well....she has seen what life in the White House can be like during both good times and bad. Firsthand experience can sometimes be the difference between failure and success.

I suppose we'll just have to wait until November of 2008 and see, won't we?

By the way...I doubt I will vote for her--we differ on too many political issues.

2007-07-06 10:19:37 · answer #9 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 2 0

You obviously don't know a whole lot about Sen. Clinton. She was obsessed with and involved in politics long before she ever met Bill Clinton. She was the first valedictorian ever asked to give the address at Wellesley commencement, mostly stemming from her deep involvement in politics on campus. Even then she was so adept at politics that she followed an unpopular Senator's speech with one of her own at this commencement, where she largely disposed of her own pre-written speech and gave a rebuttal to his speech, which earned her a 7 minute standing ovation.

While in college, it is a matter of record that the head of the Political Science Dept. stated he was of the opinion that Hillary Rodham would be the first woman President of the United States. Trust me, she didn't need Bill Clinton to start shining in the world of politics. Before she ever started dating Bill, and before she graduated from Yale, she was working for Sen. Mondale. She had to make a decision whether to follow her heart and marry Bill, or stay in Washington to pursue her political ambitions. Of course we know what choice she made. That's only the beginning of her involvement in politics. Even though being simply Bill Clinton's "wife" was enough for most people, it wasn't enough for her. Her list of achievements in the political arena just continued to grow.

There is no doubt that had she never met Bill Clinton, we would still surely know exactly who Hillary Rodham is. She was headed down that path long before she met him and was being sought out already, as a young woman just in her 20's, by notable politicians of the day, including Jimmy Carter, to assist them in their endeavors. That's quite a dent for a young adult to make so early, do you really think she would have just faded away had she never met Bill?

Couldn't keep her husband happy? That's just too ignorant to address. She is extremely qualified for the Oval Office and those who don't know this haven't bothered to look for themselves, they just repeat stupidity about her that they hear from others. She is far more qualified than Dubya ever thought about being.

2007-07-06 10:30:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

You say if Bill wasn't president she wouldn't be in the running,. What about Dumbo(G.W)? Would he be considered as a presedential candidate if his father wasn't president. I think Hillary could be an effective president and could do no worse than G.W.

2007-07-06 10:31:28 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers