I'm supporting Hillary Clinton because I think she has the best chance to beat the Republican candidate, and I think she'll make a very good moderate President. If she wins, than I'm going to look to Obama in 2016. If she loses, than I'll support Obama in 2012, unless Gore decides to run, in which case I'll have to make a decision between those two. Does this make sense to anybody else?
2007-12-11 07:51:57 · 37 answers · asked by Stephen L 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Although some of you have made legitimate points (i.e. the problems associated with creating a Clinton/Bush "dynasty"), those of you who think that Hillary is some radical leftist are terribly uniformed or deluded. Here's my proof that she's more moderate than the other candidates: the things she's criticized on by her fellow democratic candidates are positions she's taken to the right of them. The idea of universal health care is not radical at all -- in fact, it was endorsed by many Republicans before the Ronald Reagan error of "supply-side economics" (accurately described by the older Bush as "voodoo economics" until Reagan chose him as vice-resident). Stop with this irrational hatred of Hillary already, it's getting tiresome!!!
2007-12-11 08:25:57 · update #1
I understand your reasoning for voting for Hillary Clinton, however i urge you to reconsider. Voting Democrat, or republican for that matter will not be enough to change our nation in a positive matter. We need to take new and refreshing steps to gain back what it means to be America. This will not happen with either party, because they are all in bed together. You're picking the lesser of two evils, instead of voting for someone who has new and different ideas and will give power back to the states, which is where it belongs. The federal government has to much power and is abusing the system and us at the same time. Don't vote for who can win, vote for what you BELIEVE in!!! This is the only way we can ever get the crooks out of Washington. Don't believe the media spin, this country needs someone who is not affiliated with either party. Open your eyes people, i beg you!
2007-12-11 08:06:40 · answer #1 · answered by Travis D 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If Clinto is the DNC choice for the general election, I'm very concerned that republicans who haven't voted in ages will come out of the wood work just to keep Hillary out of the WH. There are several political rumblings on several blogs indicating seniors who haven't voted since Nixon and other voters who have been silent since Regan will vote on a mass not seen sicne Truman ran against Dewy. I respect the lady, but I don't think she can beat the GOP nominee. However, Obama has that JFK appeal. The question is, is America ready to elect an African American for president. I'm not so sure. Be that as it may, because the war isn't going away any time soon according to all the DNC candidates, I suspect the GOP will retain the WH either way.
jay
2007-12-11 08:02:20 · answer #2 · answered by Jay 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Hillary is moderate. Some people label as an "extreme leftist" because they're threatened by a woman in power. This is especially frightening to right wingers. Is it coincidence that a female right winger has never run for President? For that matter, do you think it's coincidental that there has never been an African American candidate on the GOP ticket?
Gore would be an excellent candidate. People made a mistake by voting for Ralph Nader and George W Bush in 2000. A costly mistake. Too bad Gore isn't running this time.
2007-12-11 07:59:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
If the Democrats nominate Hillary its because they have a death wish. She has a very good chance of losing to a Republican because so few people like her. Obama though better, has a decent chance of losing too for the obvious reason. Edwards would most likely win though will most likely not be nominated. A ticket like Gore-Obama would win in a landslide unknown in American history. Unfotunately it doesn't seem likely to happen.
2007-12-11 08:22:57 · answer #4 · answered by David S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not about who has the best chance of beating a republican. You should study the candidates and choose the one that you think will do the best job for our country--not just the richest 1%. I think Obama is our best choice, by far and we should all stand up and get behind the man! When we play into the way that the political system seems to work, we can't expect to get anywhere. We (regular folks) need to be a little more involved in telling the right wing where to go with all their garbage. Rock on Obama!!!
2007-12-11 08:05:46 · answer #5 · answered by little miss smarty pants 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes--Senator Clinton is the candidate to beat the Republicans unless they come up with someone electable.
Yes--Obama in 2016 if Hillary Clinton wins 2008, she will make the world a gentler place as she will tackle the massive complications it faces today.
No--Al Gore will not run again.
2007-12-11 08:04:56 · answer #6 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm sorry to answer you question with a question but; what has Hillary done for the people of the State of New York...nothing, check the congressional record. This is exactly how she will act as president. Why would you vote for a person who has obviously failed as a Senator???
2007-12-11 08:17:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its no assure of a McCain election, even though it would easily harm Democratic possibilities. a million) It seems undesirable to the voters -- the effect given is "you could no longer run a prepare, how are you able to run a rustic?" 2) It expenses money that could greater desirable be spent working against the Republicans 3) As you allude to above, somebody will finally end up embittered. they might nonetheless vote for the winner, yet they might no longer deliver money or paintings for the marketing campaign. so some distance as divide pass, the Republicans have one great one -- social conservatives as against financial/small government conservatives. they have controlled to hold it together for occurring thirty years now, however the anti-McCain flow is particularly threatening to bust it huge open.
2016-10-11 02:01:16 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No do you really want to support a Busch Clinton Busch Clinton political dynasty? I dont im tired of the old school politics and our entrenched fat cats on capital hill. Dont you want a better and more effective government? Or do you want another 4 to 8 years of political back stabbing and gridlock in congress? If Hilary is elected she will be a laughing stock and a nightly joke on Leno and Letterman in one or two years and the public will be calling for her to be burned at the stake. Do you really want to go thru all this over and over again.?
2007-12-11 08:01:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not even in the US, but reading the US press and websites, it seems that the republicans hate/fear Hilary more than any other candidate.
I figure it isn't because they think she's gonna lose the Presidential race.
If Hilary were a man, 90% of the attacks on her simply would not apply. Seems to me, she's a woman - therefore she's a '*****' to her opponents: - there doesn't appear to be a similar word for a male candidate, does there?
2007-12-11 07:58:10 · answer #10 · answered by JZD 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋