2007-10-22 02:05:56 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes. Hillary Clinton is not as liberal as some people believe.
Everything, however, is relative.
2007-10-22 02:15:08 · answer #1 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would only bother someone if they believed the extremely erroneous assumption that she is a "liberal". Hillary is at best a centrist and at times quite hawkish.
Besides, given the high level of paranoia pumped into Americans by Rove, Cheney and the rest of the criminals in office, I don't see how she has any choice but to pander to the mob mentality.
Actually I think she has no problem with the Patriot Act in most areas, and will actually be a much tougher President than the cheerleader now in office.
Not everyone wearing pants is strong and not everyone wearing a skirt is weak. You can ask anyone who ever tangled with Margaret Thachter about that.
2007-10-22 09:15:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes it does.
Anywhere the wind blows.
Oh well, there's our Hillary.
But although I don't like her, I can't imagine that
she would have let the fighting guys so awkwardly
down as the Bush administration did. They would have
clean water for certain. Not to mention a bullet-proof
outerware as default instead of random extra terms.
2007-10-22 09:21:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it does bother me. I feel like she does not stand up for our liberties enough and that she will not do so in our future.That being said, I think she is still better than those in the Republican party, who believe that we should give up our liberties in order prevent terrorism. Benjamin Franklin said that "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Our civil liberties are what makes America great, as opposed to somewhere like Iran. Unfortunately, they are being systematically destroyed in the search for possible greater security.
2007-10-22 09:23:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It bothers me, but she's one of the few people that could and probably will bring enough pressure to bear to modify it before it gets to be more of a monster than it already is. Just about any republican at this point will be more inclined to make it even worse than it already is. Advantage, Clinton!
2007-10-22 09:16:45 · answer #5 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's all about placing herself in the right light for the general election...she panders to the left during speaking engagements in the primaries, then if she gets the nomination she pulls out that vote to show how she supports Homeland Security for the right.
2007-10-22 09:09:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It makes sense to me.
She full expects to be the next president and wire tapping is a toy she can just not resist.
She will abuse it and get a pass because the media will participate with her as opposed to keeping watch over her.
2007-10-22 09:11:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes but I still wouldn't vote for a con if she got the nomination.
2007-10-22 09:13:43 · answer #8 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
YUP. Twice. Fore thought and intent. Yet? Bush uses it and it's a federal case?
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes
just in case you need some help... scroll down to the end of the link :)
2007-10-22 09:14:49 · answer #9 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes it bothers me very much, and I'm a Liberal.
2007-10-22 09:13:51 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋