I totally agree with you. I mean do we really want a woman with her finger on the bomb during that time of the month?
2007-10-06 16:06:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by the_honorable_spm 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
I think she is likely past menopause.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a very smart and also a ruthless woman. She is likely smarter than "Slick Willy" ever was.
She comes from one of the more notable families of the American Aristocracy, so she has the right connections.
Compared to the second string losers the Republicans are trying to present, she is far superior.
Wait until the elections race really starts and the dirt starts coming out from underneath all of the rugs. You can expect many more Republcan senators to be exposed as corrupt.
You can also expect many more references to Republican smear campaigns and the rigging of the ballot boxes and voter lists in the past 2 presidential elections.
I think things like the *Swiftboating* of Kerry are going to come back and bite the Republicans hard. Nobody likes dirty politics and the Clintons are good at looking like clean players.
----------
As you should be able to see from other answers, smearing her by alluding to the fact she is female will backfire. When you do that you are labeling all women as incompetent and inferior. If a republican is dumb enough to do that the Democrats will reap huge rewards, they might even go looking for choice quotes to that effect just in case the Republicans are smart enough to keep their mouths shut about her having a vagina.
Slandering her on Bill will not work. Women will sympathize and Men will be aware that Whitewater was another Republican slur campaign. They will likely feel a bit sorry for him over that whole Lewinsky set up.
Republicans learned that slandering Bill Clinton during the midterms cost them seats. I bet if anybody brings that up again it will be Democrats.
Hillary has so many advantages in an election race it would be remarkable if she did not sweep the polls for the Dems.
2007-10-06 16:11:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Y!A-FOOL 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Last poll I saw she was in the lead. I dont support her. However, I am a Christian and I have nothing against women in leadership, be a church or country. I just dont care for Hillary. Has nothing to do with her gender, or her political affiliation, more on a moral stand point. I do like some of her other points...but the path to get there is unreal in my book. For example....All of us want good schools for our children, that's great. We all want that. However, if the plan to kill off all the bad kids so that all the good kids can have an education, then its way off kilter. Im not saying that she said this or anything....but some of her thought processes are like this. She is pro-choice....So she is in favor of killing off some of the population (which she deams as the bad kids). There are some other issues,,,,,but we are not here to discuss those.
2007-10-06 17:00:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by bandaidgirl 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not saying that I want her to be President, only you seem to be a man that doesn't think woman need to be in control. I hope you never have a female boss, I bet everything will break of then. Back to Hillary Clinton yes she is a woman that has been in politics for most of her life, and She is a strong woman for holding to her vows of marriage and forgiving Bill, and I don't believe they would be the same in office. And I am sure she doesn't have PMS anymore, she is old. e.
2007-10-06 16:09:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by flannelpajamas1 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Don't confuse the world's system with the Kingdom. Besides, whoever becomes president is so by the will of God, so we must deal with it. Women are not to have governmental roles in the church (such as pastor), though they can be in ministry, along with preaching and teaching. But, in business and politics - that is not the Church. Women can lead well.
My personal opinion is that Mrs. Clinton is a deceitful opportunist. Her femininity is not in question. Her policies and agendas will cost this country greatly. She would not be another Bill - in some ways, she may be worse. That is what is in question.
2007-10-06 16:11:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by TroothBTold 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
You know what, I really have zero respect for Hillary. In fact, if it's even possible, I have less than zero respect for her. She's such an airhead. Also I'm a conservative. And yet despite all this, I *HOPE* she is the main democrat candidate, because that means a free victory in the next presidential elections for the republicans. Why? Because only the hardcore liberals like her. I really really hope she does become the primary candidate.
I don't believe there's anything wrong with a woman to run for president though in its entirety. Not at all, I am not trying to be at all sexist by my comments, because I'd definately welcome a REAL woman for president, not some freak lesbian moron.
(I'm being nice by my comments by the way. I have some other choice words which I will refrain from using here.)
2007-10-06 17:36:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Xan 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
I respect Hillary Clinton as a business woman, but I wouldn't vote her in office because she voted in favor of the war in Iraq. And † Jesus; lover of my soul †, in case you weren't aware, we're living in the 21st century now and women CAN AND SHOULD have as much authority as men and should never have to be dependent on men. I'm shocked to hear, as a woman yourself, that you would say such a thing! You can't always defend your opinions with religious facts because not everyone believes in God (and obviously you cannot force your beliefs on anyone else because it's subjective).
Of course a woman should be able to be president. Maybe not Hillary. It disappoints me that your vague question has a very sexist undertone to it.
2007-10-07 03:11:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Victoria the Viking 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The skill or ability to be a good president has nothing whatever to do with one's gender, and certainly nothing to do with PMS, periods or motherhood. Hillary, however, would most certainly not be a good leader for America; she is dangerous, deceitful and would take only the actions which would be to her own benefit, regardless of the effects those actions would have on the rest of us. The fact that she happens to be married to Slick Willie is mere coincidence; he is only a puppet in the Great Hillary Dog & Pony show and she would not hesitate to replace him were it to her benefit to do so (and should she find someone else who is easier to manipulate). In my own humble and relatively unimportant opinion, the question is moot; her presidency has already been bought and paid for. Poor us! - p&l to you all, and remember in Nov. to vote anyway - perhaps we could take a page from the script of Brewster's Millions (remember that movie?) and vote for None of the Above!
2007-10-06 17:43:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by gone 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
There is nothing wrong with a woman being president of the US. What Hillary wants is power. If a Christian woman was lead by the spirit to be president then it could happen.
2007-10-06 16:08:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Curtis 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
She can run for Presidency.
I say women can be in ministry. Just look at Joyce Meyer.
2007-10-07 07:40:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by LottaLou 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
What is your problem?! None of those things has anything to do with fitness for the office of President of the United States. Gender is no determinant of ability, neither is marriage or parenthood. Get over yourself.
My only problem with Hillary Clinton for President is that she is Hillary Clinton. Look at her past, not her husband's or anyone else's. She's a lying, cheating, stealing scum-bag all on her own.
2007-10-06 16:03:15
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋