My Dear One, I don't believe that ANY Politician is Honest or competent.. That's why they're Politiciant. The root of the word Politics is thus : Poli (latin) meaning many and Tic: meaning blood sucking parasites.
It has fallen to us to only be able to choose between over educated lawyers who mostly work for special interest groups and not for the American People. there is no third Party any more and a man getting elected out of the back woods of Kentucky on his laurels and ethics won't happen again.
Sad? Yes. True? Unfortunately.
2007-12-05 14:08:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mama Otter 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
I know that she is competent - She ran their investment business, she spearheaded the health insurance initiative, she successfully ran for the senate seat from New York even though she is not from there originally, and she was not destroyed politically by Bill's infidelity.
Honesty though, that's a different matter. Nobody knows what she really thinks about Bill's controversy. Whitewater - how much was she involved? and she puts a great spin on her votes for the war. She could certainly run the country, no doubt about that, and you could trust her to go along with the current Democratic ideology, when it comes to politics. But she is not totally honest.
I prefer Obama, but I would vote for Hillary if it was a choice between her and any Republicans. After all, the last time she was in the White House, this country had the longest streak of running in the black since the Korean War, and I don't think that was all Bill.
2007-12-05 15:05:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Your intention of focusing solely on Hillary is begging for the answer you want to hear. But that's purposefully misleading. Who, based on their experience, is entirely qualified to run the largest enterprise in the world? Because no one is, you can't use this as a line item veto for a single candidate.
I think the idea that she has no management experience is flawed and largely irrelevant anyway. What a candidate needs is courage and leadership, not experience managing personnel issues. It's also not like she's never done anything significant or sufficiently complicated. Decide for yourself is she's "qualified" based on this - and do it in comparison to others. Ultimately, you'll have to pick one.
Remember also, George Bush had plenty of experience running things - into the ground, the Texas Rangers ......
2007-12-05 14:03:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rasputin 5
·
5⤊
1⤋
Ya know, I don't trust ANY kind of government. Lies, lies and more lies. They just want to have their piece of the pie to an extent. But, some truly care, and they have to contend with other lies and other lies and the bullshit of political murder.
Actually, we should have a whole room full of presidents, not just one. One half democrats, and half republicans and/or liberals and independents. And MATURE, spiritually and truly honest! But, I don't see that in my lifetime.
I loved, as a child, in the 60's, JFK. But, he ended up dead because of the simple fact he wanted to make things right, he knew a lot, and tried to fix things, just like all the others that wanted to truly fix this government. They end up dead! So they keep lying and lying, so all we have is lies. So you just take what you hear and what you feel within your soul, and go with it. I feel that Hillary, would be a very good canidate and probably a very good president, since our economy, back then, was very good. In all actuality, she did run the country.
Big deal about Bill, that was acutally none of our business as far as I'm concerned. Freakin bitches anyway!
There are "Secret Societies" in which run this world anyway, and GW is in it. But look who are friends, GW, and Daddy are still very close to Hill and Bill! So just listen to your gut.
My landlady just said something yesterday, and I was kinda shocked, but now giggling about it. She told me that she thinks Hill is EVIL!! I mean, I just wanted to laugh. She said that she feels that she is, because if it was up to her (Hill), ther'd be guns out on the streets doing marshall law!! LOL!!
What the hell? She, as far as I'm concerned has listened to some cult or something! LOL!! Where did that come from?
Anyway hun, I predicted that she would run for the presidency back in the spring of 2006 that she would run "and" become the first woman president. And, it will surprise everyone! Doesn't matter the polls now, she will be nominated and run a very close tie with Obama.
Think about his name, Barak (Hussein) Obama, think about it! That is a little scary just in the name.
And in all actuality, she has managed more than anyone knows. All because she is a woman. BFD, woman can multi-task, it has been proven.
2007-12-05 15:53:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by cydnimo 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
It COULD be headed, and it might yet be.
The right question is "Would it be headed WELL ?" I say no.
I do NOT think she is honest, not one bit.
Competent ? Well, look where her health care program went.
See an article in the Wall St Journal, 10/11/07, p W-14, where Peggy Noonan compares her to Margaret Thatcher. I quote:
A word on toughness. Mrs. Clinton is certainly tough, to the point of hard. But toughness should have a purpose. In Mrs. Thatcher's case, its purpose was to push through a program she thought would make life better in her country. Mrs. Clinton's toughness seems to have no purpose beyond the personal accrual of power. What will she do with the power? Still unclear. It happens to be unclear in the case of several candidates, but with Mrs. Clinton there is a unique chasm between the ferocity and the purpose of the ferocity. There is something deeply unattractive in this, and it would be equally so if she were a man.
Kucinich ? Dennis the Menace ? You gotta be kidding. Of course, I lived in Cleveland during his mayoralty, so maybe I have seen what you have not. Sure, he may have learned something since then, but no way would I want him in ANY executive position.
2007-12-05 14:41:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by redbeardthegiant 7
·
0⤊
4⤋
She may be competent, but here in the UK she doesn't look too honest.
She has had supposed 'chance' meetings with people throughout the US, and the newspaper reports here have clearly shown that these were all stage managed set-ups to make her look good.
It's the modern equivalent of kissing babies.
2007-12-06 03:41:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lady Silver Rose * Wolf 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
i do no longer think of that any flesh presser is honest and honest. i've got been much less worried approximately ethical and character subject concerns these days, because of the fact they are all only mendacity besides. i want a candidate with rules I consider. i do no longer care in the event that they are sleazy, I only desire to get out of this present day state of the U. S..
2016-11-13 19:39:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Better never to have managed than to have managed badly.
But Senators are more managers of Government affairs than you seem to realize.
And no politician is honest, if you see that is a requirement.
But you just don't like Hillary so somebody just saying why they do like her won't change your opinion.
2007-12-05 13:59:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by cosmo 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
Honest? Hitlery?? That's a laugh!
2007-12-06 04:51:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Tim A 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
she is not in touch with the real world. Some of her
ideas and comments prove that she really doesn't
understand issues that she would like to make policies
on. for instance the healthcare system, she is completely
aluff
2007-12-05 14:07:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by WorldClassPlayer 2
·
0⤊
5⤋