<p>Bill Clinton may have plenty of skeletons in his closet, but political popularity is very much relativistic; with over 60% of Americans disapproving of Bush, Bill Clinton's image, his foreign policy, and in fact everything associated with him is a reminder of the "good ol'" days for them, however accurate that may/may not be.</p>
<p>bill clinton's skeletons as same as hillary rode-a-ham clinton. I don't support any party out right but hillary in office is a big no-no. I really like Obama but as my friend put it, "some dumb redneck is going to shoot him", and some one made a post saying that his own race doesn't support him. I want the guy to win but he has to pull a miracle. That leaves the republican's, my top choice is guiliani, yes he has skeletons in his closet but they are nowhere near Clinton's.</p>
<p>Ron Paul!........</p>
<p>(In deadpan voice): who the **** is ron paul</p>
<p>Some loser that has the ability to turn on internet n00bs.</p>
<p>About the things fencermother listed...Does anyone feel like explaining them? Whitewater seems to be an ultra neo-con conspiracy...and China-gate seems to be over exaggerated. (Possibly from distortions fox news gave) And aren't the names just associate with those controversies?</p>
<p>I think John Edwards will ultimately get the nomination. </p>
<p>Obama's star is fading, he has already peaked. In the debates some thought he did really well (specifically the youtube debate), but in my opinion (and in the opinion of many political analysts), he seemed rather sophomoric in his answers and did not really answer the questions. His recent arguments with Hillary through the media are not helping matters either. People bring up the money issue, but it really isn't too important. Edwards is on pace to meet his original goal of 40 million before the Iowa primary. Edwards also just took the lead in Iowa. He is not a man of idealism or slandering, rather he is the only true populist running and he has many concerete ideas. He has plans for dealing with global warming, the economy, and health care. </p>
<p>Hillary is too offensive of a candidate. Many democrats would be tempted to vote for Giuliani or Romney if Hillary receives the nomination. I know I would have to reconsider my vote. She has a rather high unapproval rating and is unlikely to get the support of southern states. Edwards would win at least one southern state (perhaps Arkansas, Alabama, SC, NC, or VA) against a GOP candidate. </p>
<p>Go Edwards!</p>
<p>
[quote]
May I ask, So Authentic, WHY you are so pro-Hilary?
[/quote]
no, he can't. all he can say is that you need to do your own research, and when you do, you'll magically see Hilary leading this country out of this dark cloud and into better times.
..oh, at least that's what you see if you take a drink of that red stuff in the punch bowl... kool-aid, i believe.</p>
<p>Hopefully Ron Paul will win. But since he doesn't have a chance in hell, I'll go with Edwards. Hilary's an ass that I wouldn't want to win office and hopefully won't. Barack is forever under scrutiny for not having "enough experience"(********, we've had plenty of people with experience that still sucked ass). So Edwards wins by default. It's between Edwards and Hilary, even though Barack has my vote.</p>
<p>Tisk tisk Tisk
since you don'tw ant to do your own research I'll just give you one thing I fidn appealing about hillary ......Shes reducing health care cost. Duh! I think thats one thing we really need to worry about....The health of our citizens these days</p>
<p>walmrt is coming out with the $5 clinic, hell for doctors.</p>
<p>so authentic> okay... but I disagree with her... that's why i don't want her president. I've read her point of view on many things, and I disagree with her on many things, and therefore don't want her to be my president.
While I agree that the healthcare system needs some major reform, I disagree with how she wants to go about it.
Unless I'm mistaken (which I may be!), she wanted to make it mandatory that employers provide health care for all their employees. While I think that that would be great for corporations, it would ruin small businesses in America.</p>
<p>I agree with MBP on the healthcare thing</p>
<p>Plus, So Authentic, you are aware that Clinton's not the only candidate with universal health care on her platform, right? <em>cough</em> Edwards <em>cough</em></p>
<p>MBP, but whats more important? The lives && health of citizens? or small businesses crumbling? Think about it. I think life is worth more than money</p>
<p>jakor, you're right she isn't the only candidate with universal health care but something about her stands out to me more than the others. && Its not because shes a woman. I just see her as more benevolent than the other candidates</p>
<p>None of them. Hillary and Edwards are major scum. Hillary has already turned on Barack. Gravel is the only Democrat worth supporting.</p>
<p>Prove it!^
Supprot what you just said or send a link</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gravel is the only Democrat worth supporting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd have to admit, he's my favorite candidate on the issues and personality wise. But, he's like the Ron Paul of the Democrats just with less money. Its a shame he has no chance. :(</p>
<p>Clinton ftw</p>
<p>So Authentic> if you take away the small businesses of this country, you take away the American dream! Which is more important, capitalism (something this country was founded upon), or having Hilary's idea be the one that attempts to fix health care.
Besides, universal health care at all would ruin the thing. By making it a government run program, it will become like going to the DMV! The lines will be unbearable, the service will be **ty, and it will be far, **FAR worse than it is now.
If the government needs to get involved, they need to do a version of what they did to break up the monopoly of the phone service by creating all of the Belles.
If they create a company that sells health insurance, but make it so that it covers what needs to be coverd, and it isn't unreasonably priced, then tax payer money could pay for part of it like the british have taxes to pay for the BBC.
That way, they would put a company into the economy for the citizens to decide what they want to do. If enough people switch to the company that gives better benefits, the other health insurance WOULD CHANGE WHAT THEY COVER, which i think is what the point of all of this is!</p>
<p>tell me, which really makes more sense?
...and to think you accused me of not doing my own research!</p>
<p>whoaaaaaaa!! So the American "Dream" is more important than the American "Lives"?!?!?!</p>
<p>Really? Since when? What lifetime?
you shouldn't try to contradict what I said because if capitalism was so damn "great" then it should've put the people first before anything else(that includes health care). It would've made health care much more affordable because its not everyone thats making above 30,000 annually (talk less of 6 figures) && with other expenses people have to cover, health care is very expensive</p>
<p>I hope you know that there are more people in this world that are not getting an income that satisfies them than they're are that does satisfies them
I never heard of a company that sells health insurance MBP. I think they just need to reduce the cost of health because thats whats more important and any candidate willing to da that is on my good side. Not to say Hillary is perfect but I see potential in her</p>
<p>MBP, I think theres a difference between whats "Important" vs. Whats "Very Important"</p>
<p>TritiumKnight, It really is sad that you need money to get to certain stages like its that important. What counts is what you're able to contribute to the US && how you're going to bring upon prosperity</p>
<p>MBP is right. Without the American Dream, what difference does individual health make? I have lived under socialized medicine and we always came to the States for MRI's etc., because when you blow out your knee in Sweden or Canada, or UK, you have to wait 3-9 months for that MRI, and then surgery is another 3-9 months. In the US, you get the tests, medicine, etc. in a few days, most. If you can't pay for it, tell the doc upfront; there are tons of plans out there for the un- and under- insured. My S right now is paying off a bill for an MRI on his foot. Yes, the MRI was expensive, around $800, but to pay that off over the course of a year was far less costly than to pay off a $600/mo insurance bill. And, when he did have surgery, it cost him less than $300- docs and hospitals can be very kind, if you just ask. And, Universal Health Care is not free. It just restricts your access to better medicine.<br>
I can't vote for Hillary for a lot of reasons but my main one with her is that I am completely committed to pro-life issues. HRC won't even acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer.
My problem with Obama is that he's actually NOT BLACK - he was raised by his white grandparents after being abandonned by his black father (Halle Berry for President, if that is our standard now.). And don't call me a racist, I'd vote for JC Watts in a heartbeat.</p>