First lady to a corrupt president; 7 years in the liberal state of NY and has not done anything; She has made numerous speaking faux pas for a so called 'smart' women; Can not give a straight answer to any question asked of her; 50% of the people polled would never consider voting for her; She has never ran anything except for her heath care plan into the ground, so why vote for her? It's illogical.
2007-12-20 00:41:33 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, like every other person elected to the office, she pees standing up.
2007-12-20 01:00:27 · answer #1 · answered by mike h 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
how are you able to assert she has much less skills than lots of our previous presidents? She has a regulation degree (commonplace for a brilliant number of former presidents), has been energetic in government provider, is a senator and alter right into a former First woman with insights into the way this us of a is administered. i've got self belief she is a minimum of as qualified, in line with hazard extra so, than her husband substitute into, she in basic terms would not have that "attraction all" character that he has. If Ronald Reagan, an actor, must be Pres., than I constructive think of Ms. Clinton can.
2016-12-11 10:00:52 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I cannot believe people do not see this for what it is. Hillary running is a way to circumvent the two term rule. ANYONE who thinks it will be hillary calling the shots is sadly mistaken. The puppet master BILL will be back in charge.
2007-12-20 02:14:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think I'll be voting for Hilary, yet I don't think it's correct to assume she's unqualified. I dout that many have no idea what she even stands for much less any of her qualifications, yet this certainly doesn't mean that she is unqualified. She has been a senator for quite some time and hasn't done anything horrible.
i have seen alot of what she has been campaigning for both as a president and a senator and while she is not the most elequant speaker, she has good platforms.
before throwing stones, i suggest evaluating the other canidates as well. you will see that they all have their flaws.
rudy wasn't really there on sept. 11 for his citizens. mitt is a racist. etcetera etcetera.
i think you're just mad because she is, in fact, winning.
x]
2007-12-20 00:55:29 · answer #4 · answered by Carol M 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Let's compare Hillary Clinton to the current president. Governor of the State of Texas, where the assembly only meets once every year or two. Owner of several failed businesses. Can't give a speech worth a damn, since he has no command of the language.
BTW, Bush was elected not once, but TWICE. What qualified HIM ?
2007-12-20 00:49:02 · answer #5 · answered by acermill 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
You know its not really Hillary running - its Bill trying for the 3rd term under her guise.
2007-12-20 03:04:42 · answer #6 · answered by brokenheartsyndrome 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing. She is NOT qualified.
I defy anyone to name a legitimate qualification she possesses to be President of the United States.
2007-12-20 00:45:56 · answer #7 · answered by Maudie 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Careful, I asked this question last month, with much the same reasoning, and it got yanked off in about 15 minutes.
Maybe Yahoo has gotten more tolerant by now.
2007-12-20 00:49:04 · answer #8 · answered by Mark A 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't think she has accomplished ANYTHING that qualifies her for the presidency.
She keeps saying that she is, but never lists or otherwise indicates what those qualifications are.
2007-12-20 00:57:24 · answer #9 · answered by MrOrph 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Very little compared to the others.
2007-12-20 04:18:41 · answer #10 · answered by Bleh! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋