The woman is now running on her husbands record. Would she be a serious contender if she wasnt the former first lady? I dont think so. She doesn't have a record of her own. She hasnt done anything. She has no leadership experience. Why should we listen to her?
2007-08-06 22:01:07 · 25 answers · asked by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
..."Her" last name is "Rod-dumb" ! and you are absolutely correct... "she" is a "carpetbagger" politician who has about as many "roots" to NY as the Pope has to Antarctica (my apologies to the Penguins)... this "hitchhiking" socialist, wench-wife to Mr. "drop-his-pants" (for anything in a skirt) is a "clear and present danger" to our National well being... As I have asked many times. How is she going to face AlQaeda when she's terrified to face O'reilly.........
2007-08-06 23:07:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I somewhat agree that Hillary wouldn't be as serious a contender without Bill.
I can't see any great wrong with Hillary, but I do see the advantages for the Nation and foreign policy with the addition of Bill Clinton.
I am strongly for Hillary, mainly because I think with her management skills and brains combined with Bill Clinton can do better for the security of this nation than present leadership who is actually planning to sell military weapons to the tune of 30 Billion dollars to Saudi Arabia. Was it Iraqi's or Saudi Arabian members of the Al Quada who made up the majority of terrorists on the planes that struck the buildings in New York on 9/11?
Thanks
2007-08-07 06:29:59 · answer #2 · answered by telwidit 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
She IS a serious contender: Her poll numbers are now 48%, that's at least 15 pts above Obama & way ahead of Edwards paltry 12. That's because intelligent voters know that she's been a leader since HS & college when she was president of her class & valedictorian. Some people are born leaders, Mrs Clinton is one.
She did more after 9/11 than Giuliani ever did, but of course, as always, he made sure he got all the credit. And please, tell me...what did GW run on ...was it his family name or his coke & booze habit? He was a terrible governor who also ran on the Bush name.
2007-08-07 07:43:25 · answer #3 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's funny because everyone keeps pointing to her as the more "experienced" candidate, however she served as first lady of the White House under Bill Clinton. Her campaign touts having traveled to numerous countries throughout the world, however thus far she has traveled to only slightly more than Laura Bush, and I wouldn't put Laura Bush on the roster of Republican hopefuls.
The reality is that Hillary was an advocate of universal health care early in the Clinton years. But that failed, and she slipped into the background. She ran for the US Senate, and that was her first real exposure to real service, giving her 5 more years experience than her nearest competitor and less than 1 year of experience than John Edwards. (Though can you count that last year he spent in the US Senate... he was running for president).
I don't believe that she'd be where she is if she didn't have Bill's last name. There are plenty of more qualified woman serving this country than her. She's just been tailored and prepared to run for the past 7 years, and I for one am sick of hearing Hillary '08.
You're absolutely right, she hasn't done anything and her record isn't there. She tries to get people to believe that we're going to return to the '90s, but isn't that a step back? Lets look forward, new ideas, new faces.
2007-08-07 05:49:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, she wouldnt, but she will still get the nod since there isnt anyone else in the field. Edwards is a peacock and Obama is committing political suicide (How anyone hoping to lead a "superpower" by denying any chance that it would be used is beyond stupid. An Obama Presidency immediately puts the US last of ALL nuclear countries). Since everyone moved the caucus forward, there isnt anyone else with enough money to even be heard, much less challenge her. The debates are all focused where the media wants it- on a woman. Makes for a great story, but a sad reality that there are so many who would want a woman to be President that they would stop at nothing to get one, even if it's the worst one they could find.
2007-08-07 05:20:06 · answer #5 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Im going to have to say no, she would not be a contender. Face the facts, she only lived in NY long enough to get voted in as Senator. What does that show about her character? To me it screams that she will do anything to accomplish her goals, no matter who she has to hurt in the process. Does anyone really believe that she has the people of NY interests in mind when she is voting during congressional matters? I highly doubt that. What about her morals? Why did she stay with a husband who cheated on her? Trust me, you do not want to hear my opinion on why she stayed.
I have no problems with a woman being president. But to let you know how I feel, if the only 2 candidates were Hillary and Satan....... well, Satan would have my vote. At least I would know I was going to get a red hot pitchfork in my posterior.
2007-08-07 05:46:37 · answer #6 · answered by Dj_Ez 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hillary Clinton is popular only because of two things: she stay married to an adulterer; and she has been able to transform her candidacy for President as some sort of symbolic victory for women in general.
If people want to vote for a symbolic candidate, they can choose either Hillary of Barack. As for me, I want to know that I will be getting the President I vote for . . . not some media image candidate.
Joe Biden will bury these symbols in his dust when the hard issues take the floor. Hillary and Barack are already scrambling for ways to adopt Biden's proposals without appearing to be stealing his thunder.
Barack has hung himself with his remarks concerning Pakistan. Hillary will do the same sort of thing. She won't be able to hide for very long the fact that she is so far to the left she might as well be running for Prime Minister of the European Union.
Bill Clinton opened his "office" in Harlem, for Christ's sake! Does anyone believe he did that because he feels more at home amongst poor blacks? Or was it the cheap rent?
2007-08-07 06:52:51 · answer #7 · answered by Steve C 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My question is, if Bush's last name was Smith, would he be working at the local 7-11 instead of running this country? I think she has more of a record then most people, she got herself elected in New York as a Senator, and She is running her own Campaign. Anyone who is a u.s citizen can run for office, so why not her? Is it because she is a woman, and not a man. The real question is, are we ready for a woman president, that is the real issue here.
2007-08-07 05:19:10 · answer #8 · answered by sincity usa 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
She has the potential to win the nomination (but your question is a good one, why does she have the success). Without question she is running on the achievements of her husband, but many candidates take similar advantages with member of their own party.
Not sure if not listening would be beneficial, it’s always good to hear the argument in its fullest implementation (both sides).
Personally, she is not a candidate that represents my beliefs so I would not vote for her based on my own criteria.
However, please don’t get the wrong impression, having worked for several woman managers in my career it is safe to say they were more considerate than men (providing a lot of direct and indirect feedback) and yet still were able to hold our company accountable to critical business objectives.
2007-08-07 05:23:47 · answer #9 · answered by Freeman 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
True, Bush's name had something to with his election to president, but you missed the point. Hillary was not the govenor of a large state before being elected. Hillary, in all her practical experience, has done nothing. She is even a very junior senator as far as experience goes. Had she not spent 8 years in the WH, she would have nothing. I do believe she has some experience. The problem is that she is a terrible leader with Flawed views of the world, and seeks power with a passion that should scare any reasonable person
2007-08-07 05:10:54 · answer #10 · answered by Glenn M 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The woman has smarts if she is running on her husband's record. Do you realize how popular Bill Clinton was among African Americans? By far, Clinton has more intelligence that any other candidate, whether they are democrat or republican.
2007-08-07 06:54:11 · answer #11 · answered by Michael M 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋