We shouldn't measure how we vote for someone just because they kissed the cheek of a small child, or paid out thousands of dollars to help people in Katrina, because they were a powerful Senator for a few years, instead we should measure our votes out to people who have the same morals as us, who know what the guy down the street wants, we should vote for someone who can live up to the responsibilities of being President, who can just a normal person who happens to decide the fate of our nation, who can justify their actions and make all people believe in them. Hillary, in your book may be all of these, but she hasn't won my vote. I still see past the little smirk and the pants suit and see someone who has been weak in the past, and will carry that on for the future.
By the way, everyone should do their research before entering the polls, my question to you is how? When there are over 300 million people in our nation, 200 something that can vote, how can you reach every single one of them? A lot of people can't afford any type of technology. I think our candidates should focus more on education, not just in school, but LIFE education. They should focus on helping those families keep up with a fast pace world, either financially, or emotionally. Find a way to get rid of the national debt, and start having a positive cash flow and be able to have plentiful money to help those in need, and I'll vote for you. Until then, we have to rely on the media to tell us whose better than who, we have to rely on our friends who tell us what candidate did what, we have to rely on what information we have to decide who our next president is going to be.
to finish
Lastly, why is this tunneled vision? I want to critize all candidates, but Hillary just sticks out like a sore thumb, sorry. Instead of saying that we should vote for someone just because a lot of people say a lot of bad things about them, and we should give them a pity vote, we should question why are we voting for this particular person and not that one? I challege you to ask yourself what makes Hillary better than any other candidate?
Next Stop: New Hampshire
My question is about Hillary's experience and specifically her war vote. I read her speech from 10/10/02 and her recent reasoning for the vote after things went bad in Iraq and during her campaign. They simply don't match her voting "nay" to Sen. Durbin AMDT 4865, Sen. Byrd's AMDT 4868 & 4869 and Sen. Levin AMDT 4862. Why hasn't the media pressed her about these major inconsistencies when she touts her so called experience during this campaign.
Good question. Your knowledge of senate amendments is more precise than mine. But I recall plenty of questions about her shifts, changes and re-evaluations of her positions on Iraq.
Sioux City, IA: Everybodies talking about Hillary without telling us what caused the collaspe Of Obama's support? We've heard McCain carried the ready to "Commander in Chief vote? Where was Barack on that question compared to Hillary?
He lost a narrow race in New Hampshire. Does that count as a collapse? I think we should be wary of these pendulum swings in our analysis.
Columbus, OH: The Obama-ites on MSNBC are now saying that race was the decisive role in the NH election results. If there is any role that prejudice played in this primary, is it the prejudice of the voter or, in fact, the prejudice of the media that would have ended this election effective immediately, instead of allowing it to play out as it should ?
Are they related to the Clintonites who declared the race over back in September, when Obama allegedly stalled? I think the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa have clearly showed that their voice is more important than pages of punditry.
Decatur, GA : What has truly disturbed me during the primary season is the disparity in the language used to describe Clinton vs. Obama both in the media (e.g. MSNBC Clinton escapes defeat--Obama--beautiful, soaring concession speech) and especially in the blogging world (very, nasty comments about women in general). Even nuances make a difference. Why is is okay to disparage someone based on gender, but to have a different standard when it comes to race? Why does one trump the other?
It's not OK to disparage anyone for race or gender. I'm not sure what headlines or language you're looking at today - I see lots of talk about a Clinton comeback, not about escaping defeat.
El Paso, TX: Why is the media so enthralled with Hillary Clinton? Her expertise in government is like this analogy: I have a brother who is an electrician so therefore I'm an expert on electricity. Why do Americans like the backwards people of New Hampshire believe the continuous lie that Hillary spouts about having 35 years of experience therefore she is qualified to be President? Obama has more on-hands experience than Hillary Clinton in government. Besides how can she be a president after the order of President Bill Clinton she don't smoke cigars around white house aides?
We're enthralled with the race, I think. But you raise a good point about "experience". I think her White House experience was a process of osmosis, whereas her Senate experience is her own. But my guess is that her campaign thinks the White House years are a better sales pitch for the presidency, no matter how strained the argument.
Austin, TX: Didn't journalists learn anything from the early calls in the Bush-Gore vote? You got it so wrong ... again.
I don't believe anyone "called" this race early.
Discuss