I would say if you create policy based solely on polls, as Clinton did, you aren't risking upsetting as many people. Of course true leaders don't lead by polls.
2007-07-21 03:51:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Brian 7
·
6⤊
5⤋
When Clinton was in and you called the White House, you had to take a ten minute poll before you could speak to an operator. Bosnia and Somalia weren't exactly nothing. Albeit he turned them into nothing. He did have a contest for the children to name his dog. Then after thousands of kids sent in their suggestions he changed his mind and named it "Buddy" after his uncle's dog. Buddy met his demise by getting hit by a car. How responsible is that. He made friends with the Chinese military money people.
2007-07-21 11:01:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by ohbrother 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Modify it slightly: he was only concerned about himself (including his sexcapades) and in his narcissistic way measured constantly where the wind was blowing in order to make some trivial and irrelevant speeches for the clapping idiots. Remember the fiasco, when he felt to respond to the deficit situation (balancing of budget) where he had within a few weeks contradictory numbers and predictions (made by him and his incompetent staff). Only the then Republican majority in congress brought order in his delusions.
2007-07-21 11:03:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Though I supported Clinton in 1992 he lost me on his own accord. He was ineffective and you are right- did little. Avoiding the hot topics was his specialty as was appeasing those that we should have been pressing hard such as the North Koreans. And his excuses on OBL are pathetic- though we should have been able to kill the bastard by now (probably in Pakistan)
Easiest way to remain relatively popular??? Avoid taking a stand.
2007-07-21 10:56:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
In case you've missed the point, leaders are elected to represent the majority's beliefs while still taking into account the minority's concerns. A leader who listens to his/her constituency, and still makes the best decision based on the facts, is a truly remarkable leader.
2007-07-21 10:57:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Could we really want another do nothing again in office.You see what there getting do know.
2007-07-21 10:56:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by 45 auto 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Clinton did something. He failed to get Osama Bin Laden when he had a chance and then 9/11 happened.
2007-07-21 10:49:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
5⤋
his approval rating soared..with Republican initiatives that
Dashacle and company screamed about to the point he was
voted out of office..as a failure
2007-07-21 10:53:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by UMD Terps 3
·
1⤊
4⤋
I hear what you're saying, and you are totally correct.
We need Abraham Lincoln or George Washington to be our president. Too bad they are dead.
2007-07-21 10:50:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Viola G. 6
·
6⤊
4⤋
start purchasing bottled water as that valley run off water is destroying your brain kid. I would prefer a president who did nothing rather than a chimp who did the wrong things.
2007-07-21 10:50:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
6⤋