Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she ran for president???

[ProudArmyWife]

Brad:

How about because she is pro-homosexual marriage, pro-human cloning, pro-euthanasia, against Christian judical nominees, hasn’t done a thing for New York state, has no political experience prior to her senate career, has a litany of unexplained firings, deaths, and probable lies in her past, supports radical femminists, and wouldn’t even support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act for women that want their babies?

Being military your state of voting can vary from one election to another. When we moved to NY I changed my state of residence just so I could vote against her.

Why did she have to move to NY to get into politics? Was she afraid that her own state wouldn’t listen/trust her? She promised the people of NYC that she would live there - I guess if you count 50 miles north of the City living there, I guess she did fulfill her promise.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I suppose there is a candidate out there so bad that I would feel compelled to vote for Mrs. Clinton, instead, but that isn’t too likely. It is almost a moot point, however, since she will never win the Presidency.

Even if I agreed with her views, I think it is obvious that she lacks the ability to sense who she is talking to when she talks to voters. If you are president, you are going to offend plenty of people. There is no way around it. You don’t have a chance if you habitually offend them without even realizing it. You will never get the quorum required to lead at all, let alone to lead effectively.

It is not a matter of merely being likable. It is an ability to connect, a charisma that cannot be taught. It is said that her husband has the ability to make a person feel on their first meeting with him as if they have always known him. Ronald Reagan had it–the most I’ve ever seen–and George Bush has it. To be blunt, John Kerry didn’t have it, and neither did Michael Dukakis. Bob Dole and George HW Bush had it a bit, but neither could hold a candle to Bill Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have that “it”, not a bit of it. You have to win converts to become President, and she is never going to get much past preaching to the choir. She’s not going to beat the caliber of opponent she’ll face nor withstand the level of scrutiny that it takes to win the White House. No way.

(Note to Democrats: A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a Republican White House. Bank on it.)

 

[jlw]

WHOA. Check this out…:tiphat:

Bill Clinton, on stage with Charlie Rose, in Davos, Switzerland today:

“And most of the terrible things that Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government. Because he wasn’t Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of their parliamentary democracy back in the '50s. At least that’s my belief. I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it is true.”
Applause from the Davos crowd.

Does Senator Clinton agree with this analysis?

 

[TPJCatholic]

Aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[Matthew1949]

For those who “think” Hillary has “done a good job” in the Senate, consider this:

Can you name even ONE major piece of legislation, authored solely by her, that has become the law of the land?

The point is that she ran the country for the 8 years her hubby was in the White House, so why do we need her again? Didn’t they almost totally ruin the Presidency the last time around?

Please, if there is going to be a Lady as our President, I hope her name is Elizabeth Dole. Pro-Life, Pro Traditional Marriage, Pro Family.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

“And most of the terrible things that Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government. Because he wasn’t Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of their parliamentary democracy back in the '50s. At least that’s my belief. I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it is true.”

I don’t really disagree, but would be interested to hear what his point is. I remember just that question being debated when I was in high school: should the United States support regimes that oppose the USSR and her enemies, even if those regimes are morally reprehensible themselves? Should the United States oppose all communist regimes, even if they are democratically elected? I’m not saying Iran was ever communist, just that these were big questions without simple answers.

I think we made some mistakes, but hindsight is 20-20. If it is 1980 and Iran’s democracy has been gone for 20+ years, what are you going to do about it? As Mr. Clinton knows very well, wringing your hands and wishing for a time machine is not foreign policy. If Iran and Iraq are the most unstable countries in the Middle East and Iran hates the United States, do you let Iran take over Iraq with the help of the USSR, hoping the US-friendly monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don’t meet the Shah’s fate? It is glib to say the oil was too important to let that happen, but really, the choice was between the economy–how many Americans are we going to send into hardship and poverty–and foreign policy–how much responsibility are we going to take for the lives and civil liberties of the citizens of our allies? I would like to think that there was a third way, but I was 17 years old at the time, so I can’t say. What I do know is that we did not even imagine ourselves “the world’s lone superpower.” Every question seemed to have annihilation of either the entire democratic experiment or the world as we knew it as the worst-case scenario. When your legitimate concern is an outcome far worse than 9/11, that changes your outlook.

I’m not saying we might not look back and ask questions, but let’s be honest about what the conditions and the stakes were.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Matthew1949:

Didn’t they almost totally ruin the Presidency the last time around?

You can’t be serious. Nixon almost totally ruined the Presidency. An administration that lies, does end-runs around the law, and covers up their internal activities could ruin the presidency. Clinton’s lies, on the other hand, stained him far, far more than they stained the office.

 

[Matthew1949]

geezerbob:

I checked lesser of two evils, although I can’t realistically imagine a major candidate any worse than she. Osama can’t run because he wasn’t born here and Chick is too old and out of touch. Senators Byrd or Kennedy, maybe? Now, that would be a tough choice.

**What you need to remember, though, is that if Byrd or Kennedy were to run, they would be running AGAINST “Her Hillariness”. They are in the same party, so there would be no conflict when the final election came around. **
Just remember to throw the switch for whichever Republican is running against her.
Here in New Hampshire, you would not even have to do that! You could simply put an “X” in the box at the top of the Republican candidates for various offices, and cast what we call a “straight ticket” ballot with that one “X”.

<Riddle: What do they call it when they combine Hillary Clinton with any Rabbi?
Answer: A loser with a Mezzuzah.>

 

[Matthew1949]

geezerbob:

I checked lesser of two evils, although I can’t realistically imagine a major candidate any worse than she. Osama can’t run because he wasn’t born here and Chick is too old and out of touch. Senators Byrd or Kennedy, maybe? Now, that would be a tough choice.

**What you need to remember, though, is that if Byrd or Kennedy were to run, they would be running AGAINST “Her Hillariness”. They are in the same party, so there would be no conflict when the final election came around. **
Just remember to throw the switch for whichever Republican is running against her.
Here in New Hampshire, you would not even have to do that! You could simply put an “X” in the box at the top of the Republican candidates for various offices, and cast what we call a “straight ticket” ballot with that one “X”.

<Riddle: What do they call it when they combine Hillary Clinton with any Rabbi?
Answer: A loser with a Mezzuzah.>

 

[Matthew1949]

geezerbob:

I checked lesser of two evils, although I can’t realistically imagine a major candidate any worse than she. Osama can’t run because he wasn’t born here and Chick is too old and out of touch. Senators Byrd or Kennedy, maybe? Now, that would be a tough choice.

**What you need to remember, though, is that if Byrd or Kennedy were to run, they would be running AGAINST “Her Hillariness”. They are in the same party, so there would be no conflict when the final election came around. **
Just remember to throw the switch for whichever Republican is running against her.
Here in New Hampshire, you would not even have to do that! You could simply put an “X” in the box at the top of the Republican candidates for various offices, and cast what we call a “straight ticket” ballot with that one “X”.

<Riddle: What do they call it when they combine Hillary Clinton with any Rabbi?
Answer: A loser with a Mezzuzah.>

 

[Matthew1949]

geezerbob:

I checked lesser of two evils, although I can’t realistically imagine a major candidate any worse than she. Osama can’t run because he wasn’t born here and Chick is too old and out of touch. Senators Byrd or Kennedy, maybe? Now, that would be a tough choice.

You need to remember that if Kennedy or Byrd ran against “Her Hillariness”, they are in the same party. You would not have to worry about who to vote for in the final election in November. Just remember to check the box labeled “Republican”.

 

[Matthew1949]

geezerbob:

I checked lesser of two evils, although I can’t realistically imagine a major candidate any worse than she. Osama can’t run because he wasn’t born here and Chick is too old and out of touch. Senators Byrd or Kennedy, maybe? Now, that would be a tough choice.

You need to remember that if Kennedy or Byrd ran against “Her Hillariness”, they are in the same party. You would not have to worry about who to vote for in the final election in November. Just remember to check the box labeled “Republican”.

 

[AnnieD]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


Annie

 

[FightingFat]

flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6660

 

[Perry5]

Is it not amazing how religian and politics can make babling idiots out of otherwise well educated and intelligent people???

 

[buffalo]

Being military your state of voting can vary from one election to another. When we moved to NY I changed my state of residence just so I could vote against her.

Why did she have to move to NY to get into politics? Was she afraid that her own state wouldn’t listen/trust her? She promised the people of NYC that she would live there - I guess if you count 50 miles north of the City living there, I guess she did fulfill her promise.

NY is just GAGA over her. It matters not what she has done. Strange.

 

[Trelow]

Matthew1949:

Please, if there is going to be a Lady as our President, I hope her name is Elizabeth Dole. Pro-Life, Pro Traditional Marriage, Pro Family.

Ann Coulter !!!

 

[lindamar]

WhiteDove:

Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she ran for president???

NO!!! Never in a million years. This woman is pro-choice, pro gay marriage and against everything we as Catholics stand for. In recent weeks she has used the word God more times than she did the entire time Bill Clinton was in the White House. This is a woman not to be trusted.:tsktsk:

 

[INRI]

flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6660

Fighting Fat, that is HILARIOUS!!!
We need katherine2 to show up to start a good fight.

 

[Magster]

Maybe if I had a spike wedged in my head causing me to lose all sense of right and reason! But I can’t envision any other circumstances in which I’d vote for Hellary!