Which one, if those were the only two choices, would you pick?
Haven't seen you recently (unless you've been over on religion forums -- I haven't).
Good to see you.
Looks like you're the solo Romney supporter thusfar!
Well, the pickin's are kinda slim. haha. Only two choices given, so I chose (hypothetically anyway).
The religion forums? Yeah. I half expected to see you there.
It is a curious year, for sure!
Do you have a candidate that you actually do support and if so, who and why (if you don't mind my asking, and with apologies to the OP for hijacking, but this discussion is kind of quiet right now and maybe we can stir the pot a bit by talking about the wider candidate pool).
Is there anyone you feel is better than Romney?
Not anymore. Both those Candidates dropped out.
But Santorum is just as good as Romney, maybe better.
My question is why doesn't your Democrat Party actually put a Democrat candidate up against Obama? Don't they want their Party to survive? Or are they content with it being dissolved into the "Progressive" Party?
I think there's a possibility the Dems will put Hillary up. I read hints here and there all over the place. But I'm skeptical.
Why don't all the reasonable people (and there are lots on both sides of the aisle) meet in the middle and declare ourselves the Sane Centrist Party.
We would kick booty!
I'm sorry, guess I didn't make clear........I should've said why don't the Democrats put up a "true Democrat" against Obama. Which, Hillary is not, in my view. She robotically urged all her followers to vote for Obama (a Progressive/Socialist/Far-Left Activist) after he won the nomination; she knew he wasn't just a Democrat and knew he wasn't a statesman. Perhaps she herself is more like a Progressive, and is simply waiting to inherit the liberal ground that Obama broke. That's what I mean. Why she would abdicate to him is beyond me, unless she's wanting the Oval Office for her own liberal agenda (not Democrat agenda). You see, there should've never been such a distance between Democrat and Republican agendas. Citizens should be able to be presented with two viable Candidates, not from one viable and one far-out-there one.
"Sane Centrist Party"? lol. Well, that's kinda the same thinking as mine, if it weren't for the fact that we already had that option with both Parties, and would still have it IF people don't allow Obama's time in Office to break the original mold of viable politics.
As it stands now, and even moreso if Hillary runs, there's no way on God's green earth that I'd ever vote for a Democrat over a Republican even if the Republican was the weaker Candidate. Party platform matters. As soon as the Democrats reform their Platform back to something even close to viability, then there might be hope for America to consider trusting the Democrat Party.
So you would vote for Gingrich as a Republican, even tho his personal record on family values is repulsive?
I would vote for Gingrich, yes, IF he were the only option from the Republican Party, as opposed to a Democrat, because he advocates the Republican Platform (which itself stands for good family values). When a Party has a specifically good Platform, there is responsibility and the hope of actually holding that Candidate or Official TO the rules of that Platform. Yes, even if his past isn't good. Remember I said "past", too; and remember I believe in repentance and forgiveness. Gingrich's past shouldn't be brought up like it's been. At the very least, he NOW stands for much better values than Obama or Hillary either one do now or ever have! The Democrat Party has exhibited unusual unforgiveness toward Republican candidates, while conversely ignoring and/or covering for their Democrat Party candidates. Even a Rhino would be better than a Progressive or a liberal Democrat. That being said, I personally think the rules for recall should be more lenient, giving the people the ability to toss out of Office those representatives who veer from the Platform they've run on.
Re: rules of recall.
Also apply when the people collectively change their minds about what it is they want.
Case in point. The Tea Party craze that swept TP candidates into office in 2010. These candidates still uphold the platform they ran on, but the citizenry seems to have shifted in its perception of what that platform is and how valuable it is.
Case in point, Governor Kasich of Ohio.
He has actually shifted from the platform he ran on, taking it to an extreme and draconian application.
Ohioans are now in the process of trying to recall him.
Is it because he has bastardized the platform into his own image?
Or is is because people are waking up to the fact that the platform itself is tripe?
I think it's a bit of both.
In this day and age it's pretty difficult to point to your party, whether D or R, and state with pride/certainty, "My party is and always has been the party of X." Both parties have morphed into something far from their ideals.
As for Gingrich. He is not repenting. His past cannot win him the confidence of the American people today.
I dunno. I haven't kept up with Kasich's doings.
I do know that part of the issue with Parties is that people themselves often propogandize candidates into something they're not. How else would Obama have been able to be declared a Christian, when he himself mentioned his "Muslim faith"! lol. People make candidates into something they're not. Why? To further an agenda. Not to hold to a particular Party Platform. It's the Platform they should be looking at, as equally as at the Candidate. Defectors play into this too, like Arlen Specter and sleeper rhinos like Colin Powell.
We have defectors as well. Joe Lieberman, for example. Traitor.
But the thing about holding a staunch, rigid party ideology (and Obama talked about this in his state of the union speech ln) is that the only way to get things done in Congress is by finding common ground and meeting in the middle (or a little to either side on any given vote).
There has been too much digging in of heels and unwillingess to take even one step toward the middle.
The thing is, there are more than two ideologies in the country.
Many of us are truly centrists, not extreme on one side or the other on all issues (social, national defense, economy, environment, taxes).
Each case, each vote, needs to be examined on its own merits, without undue influence by lobbyists.
At this point, I always like to cut to the chase.
I'm of the opinion that there is no middle ground on several issues.
A centrist Party only causes more confusion. Case in point is indeed the Libertarian Party. And "reaching across the aisles" is okay on simplistic matters of who can build better bridges or send men to the moon more efficiently, but that's uselessly wrong when it comes to matters of utmost importance.
No, the Republicans shouldn't go slodging into some "middle ground" just so Obama can get things done. He's already done enough.
Mitt Romney MIGHT be the next Ronald Reagan. But then, he isn't exactly new to politics, is he? So what we see now, after many years, is going to be it, I suppose. He might be what America needs in terms of cutting corporate-style fat from government agencies, but overall, he'd be hard on those less fortunate, a possible recipe for disaster.
But, Hillary? She is the type of statesman that America was founded on. The concept of her ending up as a bad President seems absurd, doesn't it?
I wanted Hillary to be the Democratic nominee last time around and would have voted for her for POTUS in 2008. But then (and this will probably give Brenda a migraine) I'm what has been called a "yellow dog Democrat"--meaning I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for any Republican, only a pejorative adjective usually precedes "Republican" in that statement. This is why I don't usually take part in political forums....
In years past, for me, at least, there was always an opportunity to think through a tradeoff. I liked something about both candidates, but one's position on something was a dealbreaker, or the balance of one person's strengths and positions outweighed the other by some margin, etc.
Not anymore. On all possible fronts, I disagree with the Republican candidate on everything, from social, economic, foreign policy, or even educational and science, issues, and rather easily choose the Democrat as the lesser of two evils. This dog just keeps on getting yellower.
Hillary. She is experienced, level headed and brilliant and is a wonderful statesman. However, she does not want to run, and I believe her. Too bad because I think she is what this country needs right now.
Mitt Romney! He is the one I would choose out of the current GOP field any way. The other two front runners would lose in a general election vs Obama. Romney has been characterized as a " well oiled weather vane" & with the current grid lock in Washington, is isn't that what we need? Bill Clinton for all his faults, got a lot of good legislation past, being characterized as a "flip flopping well oiled weather vane" most of his second term.
Between the "99%er's" & the "tea party die hards" both parties seem incapable of any compromise for the good of the country. Perfect example the"Cut Cap & Balance" fell 3 votes short in the house due to pressure of the tea party, the Democrats would not raise the dept ceiling with out a tax increase on the wealthy. The result, wallstreet tumbled over 500 pts & our credit was down graded for the first time ever. A failure of leadership on both sides, but ultimately the buck stops with the President!
The better question would be Hillary versus Barrack
Now there's a no-brainer. Given that a Dem win was pretty much inevitable after Bush, why, God, why did Obama have to win the nom over her in '08?
It took me till about mid 2010 to stop asking that question.
Wouldn't Congress have had the same mandate to make Hillary a one-term president? Same issues. Same players.
Hard to say what she would have done that he was unable to...
I'm still asking that question, MM! I think one difference would be that Hil would have been better at joining both sides. I don't think the nation would be so divided under Hil. She also had more experience, and we would have gotten Bill for free! lol. Oh, well...spilt milk and all that.
Could you expand on that? Is it because you like her way of thinking and speaking more?
She's a bright woman and she's not a Republican. Romney is a flip-flopper and a Republican.
What is your def of bright?
Someone who doesn't know how to get a cup of coffee out of a drink machine? If that is it, man shes bright.
Don't go getting upset, I am a dem and voted for Bill both times. Proud of it too.
All jokes aside. Politics, I'd say she would be the best player. She is good at that.
Sounds like I missed a good Hil v. coffee machine story!
Got a link to the video on that?
Not being defensive, but smart does not necessarily equate to common sense.
Absent-minded professors and all that...
MM, it was on one of the campaign stops she made during her sprint 4 years ago.
I laughed till I cried. Yeah, you are right. Absent minded it was, right along with funny.
I love those campaign blooper videos.
One thing I have to say about Obama is he is simply not funny.
Not intentionally and not unintentionally, either.
Gotta have a good laugh every so often.
I remember too that George Sr, while on his campaign tour, stopped at a grocery store and was simply amazed at how the little scanner tool they use to scan the prices worked. He had never seen anything like it.
I am beginning to ask myself is it funny or are they just so out of touch with the common folks way of life.
Hilary, because I think she has a better understanding of how Congress works. I also think she has a better understanding of how to lead a country and the pressures associated with it.
Hillary, Because I believe she could accomplish tasks that Mitt Romney could not.
Hillary. She's a Democrat. She has a brain. She smiled nicely when Obama spoke. Romney has no concept of the reality of anyone normal.
She's been inside Congress.
She's been inside the White House.
She's been SOS -- unparalleled foreign policy experience.
She's got domestic policy experience as well.
Her husband is brilliant (and no longer a liability).
She's got bigger cojones than ANY male in Washington*
And she should have been POTUS in 2008
*Wellesley women rule!
Clinton. She is a very smart woman.
A former president is her husband.
She knows foreign policy.
And Rommney is a rich douchebag.
i'll choose hillary.. brimancandy is absolutely right.. hillary clinton is one of those few smart women the world have this time...
Hillary would be my choice. Only wish Bill could run again.
I don't really trust Romney. Something about the way he stammers when he's fumbling for an answer during the debates just doesn't sit well with me. However, as to an earlier comment about him being a "rich douchebag" well he wasn't born rich, he earned his money, and I don't think the Clintons are exactly living on Skid Row. How many millions did Chelsea's wedding cost? Also, the Clintons don't exactly have a spotless reputation. Can you say Whitewater? But, I suppose if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with Hillary.
You are acting as though there would be a difference amongst them.
LOL, maybe I'd just like to see a woman president , and I live in the northeast, I remember when Romney was Gov of Mass, another reason not to vote for him.
Actually, there are some major differences between them if you follow their political history... they vote differently, have different reputations for their actions, etc.
This is a choice between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney? Hillary has earned it. She kept Slick Willie in office. She knows how to run with the wolves.
If it was just those two to choose from, I would look at their voting records on two main issues: 1) the war, 2) the environment, esp. the Keystone XL pipeline and fracking.
Offhand Clinton has looked warmongerish to me, which I do not like, but I'm aware that she's unhappy with the stance she has had to take at times and her husband is unhappier still. I don't know the details, though. Was she unhappy because she couldn't be more forceful? Or because she was prevented from working out solutions peaceably? With the pipeline, so far, she seems to be responding well to public outrage against it. I would have to look further to see if it's genuine.
Romney I don't know about on either issue, hence the need for further research.
Hillary had a chance to climb Everest and failed. Meanwhile Mitt catches all the flak.
Mitt was a pretty good governor in Massachusetts. You should see what a mess his successor has made of the Bay State.
Mitt has plans and will take action. You may not agree with him some of the time, but he won't be spending most of his term on vacation like the incumbent, and he will aggresively attack the nation's problems.
That would be a hard choice for me to make - I like them both. I think, however, that Hill would be a stronger leader.
I'd have a hard time voting for Romney, and No it's not out of jealousy. I don't feel he can relate to the average American.We've all seen or read from his tax returns he makes around 22 million a year. So I found myself wondering just what does that equal in a per day salary. So after the math, working on 20 million a year, I came up with an astonishing $54,794.52 a day. I don't begrudge anyone being successful in business, but I have to wonder can anyone making that kind of money really relate to the average American.
Me too! And beyond that Romney and the other GOP candidates' are proposing tax reforms that would primarily benefit the 1% not the 99%. Moreover, I wonder why he has accounts in the Grand Cayman islands and in Switzerland. He owes us an explanation for that. Sounds fishy to me.
I'd have a hard time voting for Obama. He didn't grow up in the US, and he had a foreign father and a foreign step-father. I just don't think he "gets" Americana and all that it implies. No - I'm not a birther. I believe he was born in Hawaii. But there's no denying that he didn't exactly grow up in an all-American home. That's not saying he's a bad person. I simply think that many Americans view Obama as "different." I believe he has lofty ideals, but he sometimes seems to lack the ability to see them through. Even many Dems I've talked to say the same thing.
Some people think Romney was handed everything he has, on a silver platter. When George Romney died, Mitt inherited some money - which he gave away. Mitt made his own fortune by being smart and by working long days, nights, and weekends. Did he have advantages growing up that most of us don't? Yes, but he built his own wealth. And I was glad to see him, for the first time, NOT run away from that fact in tonight's debate.
I grew up a Republican and have voted Republican all my life. I would never vote for Obama because of his extreme left leaning policies. If Clinton were to run, I would probably vote for her before I would vote for what I consider to be a very uninspired Republican group of candidates. Of course, this is just my own belief and I would never try to encourage someone else to do what I do. That is why I am not going to get into the particulars of why I feel this way.
So President Obama, because his father was foreign and his step-father foreign, suggests he didn't grow up in an all-American home? So an American soldier, marrying a woman from say Europe, comes home and has children, makes those children less American? Because they move around to different bases around the world. Sorry, I don't get it. As for Romney, I agree he made his own money. I have questions as to how, even though legal. I have a problem thinking he can relate to any average American citizen, given the fact he makes over $54,000.00 a day and doesn't even have to get out of bed to get it. Makes more in one day then most make in a year. Said he does speaking engagements and only made $364,000.00 last year. "Only $364,000.00", that alone shows he's out of touch. I'd like to ask him if he knows how much a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread costs. I seriously doubt he knows.
That's a false dichotomy. The children you describe grow up in the US and/or on American bases around other Americans. Obama grew up in Jakarta, while Romney grew up in Bloomfield Hills. Sorry, but I somehow think of Michigan as being more "mainstream America" than Indonesia. And as far as wealth is concerned, Obama isn't exactly a pauper. How often do you jet off to Hawaii for a $4 million vacation? How many dresses does your wife have that cost over $2,000? I relate more to Romney, while some Americans relate more to Obama. That's the great thing about America - we can all have our own opinions and vote accordingly.
Sure, I wish an "average Joe" could run for POTUS, but the way our political system is set up, it takes piles of $$$ to run. Re: Mike Huckabee.
Well, here's something:
"But, Mitt Romney was born in America, right? He was born on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan. That is not in dispute. But, what is in dispute is his father's citizenship at the time Willard was born with the exact same situation with Obama/Soetoro.
While I don't entirely trust Wikipedia, they at least get part of it right regarding Mitt Romney's father: "Romney was born to American parents in the Mormon Colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States when he was a child."
Mr. George W. Romney, was elected Governor of Michigan. Because there was talk George W. might run for the presidency, his citizenship eligibility came into question and because it extends to the child at the time of birth, there is now question regarding Willard (Mitt) Romney:
Mitt Romney's, father George W. Romney, Not A Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America, and was NOT, eligible for the Office of President, by Pinckney G. McElwee of D.C. Bar.)
Congressional Record (House) June 14, 1967
"I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born In Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution."
Thus, we have the same situation as with Obama/Soetoro: A father born in a foreign country who never became a U.S. citizen."
Now we shall see if this becomes an issue as is it with Obama! And, will Trump lead it? Taitz? Anyone?......Oh what a tangled web.
I've never disputed Obama's right to be POTUS, LMC. Anyway, from what I can find, Mitt's grandparents were U.S. citizens, so that would have made George a U.S. citizen, no matter where he was born. I think all this was hashed out in 1968.
As to the DNC talking point about Romney's being responsible for MA's job ranking, read the full story on Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ssachuset/
When Mitt took office, unemployment in MA was one of the worst in the nation. By the time he left office, unemployment was at around 4%. Also, personal income increased in the state, as did the state's credit rating. Please compare these three statistics with our current U.S. economy.
Kind of like what happened to Obama in 09, huh?
And, my feelings for Romney are personal, I don't need to read about him. I lived under him, and just do not like the man.
He really did cut funding for poor people, while raising it for police and business.
He really does support Jeff Perry--pervert of teenaged girls.
He really was incognito from the state when he ran for senator.
He really has as an advisor Kofer Black, who was president of Blackwater...wasn't Wright made a big issue for Obama? Black is mine.
He really did strap his dog on the hood of a car for 12 hours.
When asked about his family serving in the Iraq war, which he championed, he really did say "My sons are serving the country by helping to get me elected"
And his tax plan really would cut his taxes in half, while raising them for the least among us.
I see him as a perfect example of a 1%er. And they don't NEED any more representation!! They have had it all! Personal Opinion.
So...you don't think Obama is a wealthy 1%er? I find it amusing that Obama supporters are making a big deal about big business supporting Romney, when the EXACT same businesses backed Obama in 2008.
And as far as the Obama birther thing goes, I never joined that bandwagon.
But it's not about Obama not being born here, it's that they claim he has a foreign father...just like Romney does. They have to make an issue out of it if they are sincere....*cough* *gag*
And the difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama wants to make the tax system fair, Romney doesn't. It's not about having wealth, it's about getting all the breaks!The loop-holes and right-offs and taxing huge wealth less than labor.
The rich have had most of the breaks for 30+years.
And they take it from the middle class to do it!
Obama wants to give it back to the middle, as well as give businesses breaks to keep jobs here. Hire veterans, get people out of poverty.
Spend Money on America, NOT overseas companies!
Romney wants to increase his bracket's tax cuts, and give poor people more to pay.
He outsourced businesses,outsourced his money, did not care about America, only the bottom line. IMO.
And yes, Goldman Sachs funded Obama big time, and you see they got their way with his administration....but that has ended. Geithner is gone. Summers is gone. Emmanuel is gone. It takes TIME.
And now GSachs is full-steam Romney. But HE never wavers in defense of big money. He thinks nothing of the lower classes! IMO IMO
Interestingly enough, Goldman Sachs now has a program to help jumpstart 10,000 small businesses across the U.S. I just attended a breakfast seminar in Los Angeles last Friday. Apparently they've remembered that the only time our economy has been really healthy is when we've had a strong small business sector. Currently we have just over 7%, Lichtenstein being the only developed country with a smaller one at 6%.
He had absolutely NOTHING to do with the change in unemployment figures.
I've lived here 64 years. He's a charlatan.
If that's true, then he can't be blamed for the lack of employment, either. You guys can't have it both ways. That's like the libs who said Obama had nothing to do with jobs when unemployment was over 9%, but now that it's getting better, all of a sudden, the POTUS DID have something to do with the number of jobs. lol
I didn't say that he did. I agree with the article : he had nothing to do with it either way.
Good point. Been saying the same thing about Congress for a few years now.
Either government DOES have something to do with creating jobs ... or it doesn't.
It seems like the prevailing party spins the employment or unemployment situation to whichever way they want it.
I would go with Clinton. This country is ready for a woman President, especially one who won't take any garbage from anyone.
Hillary. I love that lady. She is intelligent, rock solid, experienced and like Margaret Thatcher "not for turning."
Dang that Hillary! If she'd run for POTUS, just look how many arguments could be prevented on the HP forums! She obviously doesn't care about the peace on Hubpages. lol
She ... And her husband would be attacked constantly, nothing would change
LOL. You caught that, too? For as polarized a group as we forum posters are, we seem amazingly unified around Hillary. I wonder if that could be simply because she is NOT running?
BTW, Hillary may not care about the peace on the Hub Pages forums. But does she care about really poor people? Or rich people?
*slaps self for unnecessary silliness*
Good question. She comes from a poor family, as does Bill. Her father seemed militaristic by the description I read in a book about her, whereas Bill didn't really have one. One would think they'd care about poor people, but then again, they could be shunning their backgrounds in favor of ambition.
I think the President has come to rely on her for her treasured advice, and that they've become close over the past few years. I wonder if anybody behind the scenes tried to see if she would take on the incumbent, though
Hilary because she seems to be pretty clear on what she thinks and believes. And, she is one tough cookie....I think Mr. Romney vacillates too much on his position on issues and will say whatever it takes to get elected.
This being said, sadly, once the person is IN power, they really do not hold MOST of the power.
Mitt Romney. Democrats shouldn't be allowed to rule for at list 3 more terms. Their policies will bankrupt this country.
If Hillary and Mitt are my only two choices, then I choose suicide!!!
Hillary is all around - with experiences on domestic and international relations. She is smart as well!
Did anyone catch the PBS show on Bill Clinton last night?
I tuned in only for a short while. But the part I saw was about Hillary being the powerhouse behind Bill. It was talking about how they met at Yale Law School and what he saw in her and what she saw in him.
Make no mistake. She wouldn't just step down as SOS into a gracious early retirement. She's only 65.
Nope, Hillary (and Bill) are plotting SOMETHING.
Let the record show that:
Romney was an 'action' Governor in Massachusetts. He got things done.
Romney took a bankrupt olympics and fixed it. His performance was stellar.
Romney has been a no nonsense businessman. He made hard choices, shut some businesses down, propped up others, and never stood down when it came time to make a decision.
Romney has a proven track record of accomplishment and acheivement.
Romney doesn't talk a problem to death, he fixes it.
I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat over the wall street supporter Romney is. I can't in good conscience vote for a guy who was for the Vietnam war and used religeous and educational deferrments to avoid the draft. Yes, many deferments (4 or 5 I believe) until he ran out and his draft number (300) in the end, kept him from serving while the rest of us risked our lives. That in it self shows me he was for big business but not for protecting this great country.
No, but he stayed in America. Mitt wants to paint Obama as this "European guy".....but it was Mitt who spent 3 yrs in Paris, not Obama.
No President Obama didn't but to my knowledge he didnt use 4 or 5 deferments and the draft wasn't in place. Typical Carl Rowe reply to an argument one has no answer to. Flipit!
"It is time to take off the kid gloves with the wingnuts."
Yes, we need a Democratic answer to him. Morals, honesty and integrity need not apply.
Id have to watch faux news to know that I guess. Again, no answer, but the flip.
I answered this on another thread. Thought you saw it - you responded.
"Even in the era of unbridled campaign contributions, Irving Moskowitz's $1 million donation in February to American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked super PAC, is eye-catching.
A retired physician who made a fortune purchasing hospitals and running bingo and casino operations in the economically depressed California town of Hawaiian Gardens, Moskowitz is well-known to those who follow the Israel-Palestine conflict. His contributions to far-right Jewish settler groups, questionable archaeological projects and widespread land purchases in East Jerusalem and the West Bank have routinely inflamed the region over the past four decades and, according to many familiar with the conflict, made him a key obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
Now, at age 83, Moskowitz has turned his money on the American political realm in a more prominent fashion than ever before, funding "birther" groups that question the legitimacy of President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and others that stoke fears about the president's alleged ties to "radical Islam."
another Mitt supporter:
"There are a lot of things that haven't been hammered at because Rick and Mitt have been going at each other," Friess said during an interview on Fox Business News. "Now that they have trained their barrels on President Obama, I hope his teleprompters are bulletproof."
anyone else seeing a pattern here??
Stephen Colbert Debunks the GOP’s War on Women . . .
http://gawker.com/5900931/stephen-colbe … r-on-women
by Susie Lehto3 hours ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ )...
by Grace Marguerite Williams14 months ago
her? Why? Why not? Ms. Clinton seem to have the best qualifications for president. She also has political experience and is a quite savvy person?
by Grace Marguerite Williams10 months ago
PresidentLove or hate Hillary Clinton, she is leading significantly in the polls for Democratic presidential candidate. She has the political smarts & experience to led this country. She also have...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
OK, bitch is a strong word. And of course you know I don't mean a female dog... but I use it to convey a description that I think almost everyone will understand. I did not use it to be offensive... so if it does offend...
by Credence213 months ago
Be it not for me to speak ill of a fellow Democrat, but Hillary Clinton disappoints. Please read the articles, I confess that Salon is a left leaning publication, but I have included the article placed by H. Clinton in...
by screaming4 years ago
Yet he managed not to serve in that war!
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.