English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Reason I ask is because I find her weak not because of being a woman. Just the fact her husband was getting oral sex from Monica while he was president of our country and she is still with him. I don't find it to suprising they are together just that she would run for president. I am just curious what does that say to woman voters?

2007-12-27 06:35:54 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

I'm a Ron Paul guy but I was curious I don't believe it makes her a worse leader or nothing but to me I would think a woman should be dissapointed. No excuse for it even if lots of presidents have done it. If I was cheated on I would not stay with them but hey we all make mistakes though. So why can't they?

2007-12-27 07:00:48 · update #1

29 answers

I am a woman, and I would be disgusted if she was our president.
GIULIANI '08!

2007-12-27 06:39:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

Talk about flip-flopping - in the additional details of your question you end with "hey, we all make mistakes." So, if WE all make mistakes, then couldn't that be the reason she is still with Bill? She thinks the same way as your statement, so she forgave him? Isn't that the Christian thing to do? We're all sinners & need forgiveness? Seems you want it both ways.

What will truly be the test of a strong woman becoming presient will be when an unmarried or divorced woman is elected based on her own life of accomplishments. Maybe, then, the people who are so negative & think any woman has to "ride the coattails of a man" in order to attain the office can release their ignorance & be open to being educated that it is possible regardless of gender.

I'm glad she's running for President. She is not my first choice, since I don't feel she speaks for me. I like what John Edwards stands for, but I am glad to see Hillary run for the office.

Bill was a great President in my book. His weakness as a man should not detract from all the good things he did as one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had. I assure you that the history books will rank him higher than the current resident of the White House.

Bush gobbled up the surplus funds the Clinton administration left us with; took us into a war he should never have started; let the mastermind of 9/11 slip through his fingers because he was more concerned with protecting oil interests; is spending $11BILLION a MONTH just on Iraq - let alone his other failed pork barrel projects to line the big pockets of his oil cronies. For a party that is supposed to be against big government & extraneous spending he has totally gone the other way. Explain that . . .

2007-12-27 15:51:36 · answer #2 · answered by Cary Cyd 5 · 0 1

Hillary Rodham Clinton,,, A women for all reasons not to be
President. She lied her butt off in Ark, before Slick ever
became president. She has done nothing but feather bed
herself since then. However I must say,, Bill is doing his level
best to derail her campaign. Hillary has no more experience
in running this country than fly, As a Senator she has been a
Major flop, She is a gold digging opportunist, and has ridden
her husbands coat tails to where she is now...

Wake up America this person is dangerous and as president would be far more dangerous.

She has all but put the next qualified womans chances to run
in the toliet, She offers no creadability to the job,,

2007-12-27 14:51:25 · answer #3 · answered by Ron N 5 · 2 1

Your guess is my guess as well after you have gone through the following Report in Croosswalk.com :

Poll Shows Clinton Surge in Iowa
Monisha Bansal
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - A week before the Iowa caucus, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has a significant lead over her Democratic opponents, according to a recent poll of likely Iowa caucus goers.

An American Research Group poll conducted Dec. 20-23 showed Clinton polling 14 percentage points higher than former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and 15 points higher than Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The same poll conducted Dec. 16-19 showed Clinton at 29 percent, Obama at 25 percent and Edwards at 18 percent of likely caucus goers.

Dick Bennett, president of the American Research Group, told Cybercast News Service that the race is still very volatile. "That's the whole point of a campaign."

"There was a drop for Obama with his Christmas ad," he said. "Likely caucus goers didn't like it."



"The ball game all along has been women," Bennett said. "They appear to be going to go to the caucus, and if they stick with it, that is where [Clinton's] lead is. It's women and it's across age groups. That's her strength.

"We found that there was a strong reaction against one of Obama's ads and that sent [women voters] back to Clinton, where they had been in the past," he added.

But Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Cybercast News Service: "It's hard to believe such a significant change in back-to-back polls."

The latest Strategic Vision poll from Dec. 16-18 showed Clinton and Edwards tied for second with 27 percent of likely caucus goers and Obama leading with 30 percent.

"I am not ready to say that Hillary Clinton has momentum based on a single poll," added John Fortier, a research fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

"Looking at the whole basket of polling out there, it is a close three-way race in Iowa," he told Cybercast News Service. "The only discernible movement in the past month or so has been a slight shift towards Obama.

"At this point, I would not rule out Edwards, Obama or Clinton as the Iowa winner, although I suppose Edwards is slightly less likely than the others," he said.

Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, however, noted: "The greatest unknown in Iowa is who shows up.

"It is a bigger deal there than anyplace else because you have so many factors," he told Cybercast News Service, including weather conditions, how motivated people are to vote and the earlier schedule.

"You have the added uncertainty this time of the early calendar, so students are not going to be on campus," he said.

Fortier noted that the caucuses are extremely low turnout elections -- less than 10 percent of eligible voters -- so pollsters have difficulty figuring out who will show up.

He added that the rules for a caucus can be "complicated. Voters do not cast a secret ballot, but meet as a group. There is a 15 percent threshold in individual caucuses, so some voters will have to go with their second or third choices if they want to cast a voter that will translate into delegates."

2007-12-28 08:40:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Hillary has had her eye on the White House since about the time the Senate politely waved her away when she came up with Hillary Care back in the early 90's. I believe then she knew she would have to be President in order to insure the government takeover of the health care system.

2007-12-27 14:48:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I think she'll be a great president if she wins. Her gender has nothing to do with her position as president. As a matter of fact, just look at our current president. he's a man but not the brightest crayon, now is he.

her staying with bill doesn't make her weak. not one bit. her running for president actually makes her the bigger person.

it's not surprising to see that with a possibility of a historical change in president (either a woman or an African American), there will be some put downs, controversy, and questions. oh well, what can you do.

2007-12-27 14:44:11 · answer #6 · answered by thanks life for the lemonade 3 · 2 3

ann richards would have made a killer president and she was a lOT stronger than hillary! hillary is the most blatant flip flopper and would never be able to get elected dog catcher without bill. he was responsible for her getting elected senator. he's the countrys number one fund raiser.if you check her history you will find she is a political incompetent but gets by on appealing to women and others who love bill and feminists. im waiting ot see how fast she tries to use bhuttan's assasiniation to tie in for sympathy: shes a woman leader like I am etc.

2007-12-27 14:40:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Agreed....perverted relationship between those two, and the last thing we need is a perverted President! Plus, she already has earned the same nickname he did, by sliding all around the issues, answering one way on one day and another way another day...."Slick Hillary". Also makes me wonder which Washington White House young intern she has picked out to play with in the Oval Office.......Yuk.And, like her husband, has already been caught in outrageous ways of raising her campaign money and lying about it.

2007-12-27 14:49:02 · answer #8 · answered by DRS 5 · 1 1

I don't think she has the brains, experience, or awareness to be president.
I hate it when people say they are voting for her because we need a female president. Forget about genders people!
Your only making the issue worse by stating it.
Seriously, since her husband did that, she should of left him. It doesn't make her look strong at all if thats what she is going for.

2007-12-27 14:47:46 · answer #9 · answered by Adrela 4 · 2 1

You think she's the weak one because her husband got oral sex from another woman? He seemes to be the weak one. I don't think your sex life or the sex life of your spouse should have any bearing on whether you can run the country.

2007-12-27 14:51:32 · answer #10 · answered by Blondie 5 · 2 1

I find her politics as usual. She doesn't seem like a person that would bring anything new to the table that we haven't seen already, and it would be 4 years of Clintonesque politics. The problem is this time she won't have technological advances like the internet and real estate markets booming to make the economy flurish like Bill did.

2007-12-27 14:44:23 · answer #11 · answered by Christopher T 3 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers