no matter what side your on who do you think would be best for our nation?
2007-08-18 12:36:17 · 42 answers · asked by n 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Hmmmmmmmmmm, let's see....bad or worse?
I think that Obama is the lesser of the two evils.
2007-08-18 12:37:59 · answer #1 · answered by la buena bruja 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Neither.
They are both so fake.
They both talk about change and blah blah blah without EVER really saying anything.
It's all a scam.
They just want corporate money. Why do you think they go through all of this trouble.
Plus, they are both controlled by the Rockefellers Global Campaign.
The Democratic party and the Republicans are ONE PARTY.
Why do you think the democrats NEVER do anything different. They just TALK.
It's a fake system designed to make it look like their is a democracy in this country.
Good cop/bad cop but still cops or "New World Order Puppet gatekeepers.
Trust me.
2007-08-18 13:39:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obama
2007-08-18 15:12:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton!
I thought a lot more highly of Obama when he started out, but he is losing support, not gaining it, mostly by his negative attacks!
I agree with the above person as well, I will NEVER vote for a Republican! So it really is whoever the party candidate will get my vote, but Obama won't in the primary in New Hampshire!
2007-08-18 12:41:22 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Obama. He seems far more sincere like he has an actual working brain, nulike Clinton who is driven solely by political instinct. She just recites answers that she knows will sound right. Obama makes 'mistakes' in his speeches, not stumble stupid mistakes like Bush but the kind of mistakes that tell you he isnt as much of a re-hearsed politicial like Hillary is.
2007-08-18 13:28:29 · answer #5 · answered by coachfolds 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither. I wouldn't vote for either one. Granted, they are both WAY better than the entire field of Republicans (especially that gutless, fear-mongering turd Giuliani)...but that still doesn't mean they are good. None of the candidates are ideal but Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul are the best of the bunch, by far. (And yes, I know Paul is running on a Republican ticket but he's not a Republican, he's a Libertarian.)
2007-08-18 12:43:42 · answer #6 · answered by The Man In The Box 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
given those two choices i would pick obama over clinton...why you ask??? because 14 or so years ago when bill (i never had sex with that woman) clinton became President, his wifey vowed to reform medical care, shut the doors so we couldn't see what she was doing, told the people of the US that it was none of our business how she does it as long as it gets done... and its now 14+ years later and we're all still waiting for reasonable cost health benefits...now i'll grant you that most politicians lie about what they're gonna do for u before they're elected, but with this health care thing still burning in our memory, why should I or any of you trust what she is promising to change if elected now?
2007-08-18 15:54:56 · answer #7 · answered by junkyarddogfan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Either one would be a total disaster for this country and what it stands for; they state they are for things that are opposite of the administration...just because it's an opposite stance (how ridiculous and extremely juvenile)! The fact of the matter is that Tom Tancredo would make an awesome and incredible president and return this nation to even more greatness!!!
2007-08-18 12:50:32 · answer #8 · answered by AgsFan 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who is cliton? I heard of Clinton.
2007-08-18 12:38:48 · answer #9 · answered by Remo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton
2007-08-18 12:40:18 · answer #10 · answered by Funny Girl 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Obama
2007-08-18 12:38:13 · answer #11 · answered by Helicopter 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋