2007-10-31 02:26:32 · 16 answers · asked by Spartacus 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You have to give her time to take a poll and see the results , then she will tell you where she stands, at that moment anyway.
2007-10-31 02:36:51 · answer #1 · answered by booman17 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I know I will get many thumbs down for this response but here goes anyway. Before the Bush administration, bills were not written and voted on until studies were done as required by the committees to be able to intelligently devise legislation that actually would result in some benefits to the country instead of just mouthing a demand that sounds good to one public interest or the other. No president can promise anything that the Congress and Senate will not write legislation for and pass for the president's signature.
Hillary Clinton's responses in the debate last night reflected that type of thinking. While it is seen as a political ploy, it only reflects her frustration that some issues have been neglected for so long that we are now expected to deal with issues by making laws to cope with them instead of correcting the root cause in the first place. She is also showing her willingness to work with the Congress and Senate in going along with what the studies show will result in what is best for the country.
Bush should not be the decider. He should be listening to information that the decisions should be based upon. If you could compare previous administrations with this one, you would see how our governing bodies have lost the power they were intended to have to keep a balance of power and to base our laws on real information.
2007-10-31 02:53:52 · answer #2 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who's 'with' the Bush Junta has to be nuts.
Two wars, both going nowhere, and a third on the horizon. An 'oil only' energy policy. Tax breaks for the already well off. A real contempt for the American wage-earner. Full support for the right wing talk show propagandists. An abandonment of environmental issues. A staggering debt. An anti-science attitude. Total commitment to kissing the anatomy of trans-national corporations, the Oil Mafia and the Jesus freak right. A total refusal to to do jack about border security...the list goes on. It makes you want to hurl when you think about how badly this 'new' conservative band of weasles has ripped up a perfectly good country. Red and blue states? What ever happened to the United States? Down the gurgerler along with huge chunks of the spirit, if not the letter of 'our' Constitution. War, destruction of our social and physical infastructure, incompetence, and the Ex-Lax touch is what the Bush Junta has subjected the US too......and your only response is Sen. Clinton...are you for us or against us? Sometimes I wonder about you people!
2007-10-31 02:47:38 · answer #3 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends. Her message tends to change dramatically depending on who she's talking to.
Like her husband, what she says is meaningless since it's intended only to get her elected. Once elected, again, like her husband, she'll try to do what ever the heck she wants and America be darned. This is why it's important that if a Hillary presidency is a genuine threat that we make sure we get a Republican congress so that we can stop her before she does any real harm.
2007-10-31 02:39:00 · answer #4 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I was left with a lot questions last night in the debate. I fully agree with her that we really need to be hard nosed in our diplomacy and that she is correct about economic sanctions. I also agree with her that it is not a black and white issue where you either bomb Iran or you don't do anything. However, I do not like that she voted for Iran.
2007-10-31 02:29:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
She side stepped every question, but she did manage to mention Republicans 19 times and Bush 25 times...looks like she is in her own world and more than a little obsessed...All of the other candidates ganged up on her, Obama actually said republicans are comfortable with fighting with her because she is one of them...wow.
2007-10-31 02:33:26 · answer #6 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
According to her she would say both.. with her Flip Flop and dodge the questions without a direct answer in last nights debate..
2007-10-31 02:33:17 · answer #7 · answered by Antiliber 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would probably be a good idea to identify WHICH end of the political spectrum YOU call home, so she could properly answer your "question".
However, like almost every other Republican in Y/A, you waste everyone's time and resources asking meaningless, divisive questions you know you will not get legitimate answers to.
It seems pretty obvious you could be considered "Against Us" as well.
2007-10-31 02:34:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
H. Clinton kept making $$$ signs to the US corporations while Edward and Obama were criticizing her.
2007-10-31 02:32:07 · answer #9 · answered by Whitest_American 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's about time people started noticing how she has a "but" in everyone of her answers. I voted for the war but....
I voted for calling the IRG terrorists but...
But but but.
Obama and Edwards were brilliant.
2007-10-31 02:36:44 · answer #10 · answered by Enigma 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋