TV Schedule

Hillary...Why 2008 and not 2004?



  3. embed code
  4. jeremiahpasternak
  5. related topics
I think Hillary is a very intelligent, qualified candidate who truly believes in change...I just question why it's so important now as opposed to in 2004 when many people expected her to run and topple john kerry and then george bush to claim the white house. change was needed then too and she was nowhere to be found. some would say better late than never; I say that the country would be in a very different place now if she had stepped up to the plate in 2004 and I can't help but hold that against her.

Jeremiah Pasternak, 24

to see more of my political videos visit youtube.com/jeremiahpasternak or search jeremiahpasternak on current.
jeremiahpasternak

1 response // Hillary...Why 2008 and not 2004?

  • 1st thing 1st. She didn't run because she couldn't win.
    It's as simple as that. I hate to say it, but that's the case.
    <br>
    Now. I have to say it. Why is it that in 2008, the one election where we can elect just about anyone in the wake of Dubya, we have a relatively unknown and the spouse of a previous president as the front runners?
    <br>
    Last time I checked, America is supposed to be a democracy, not a dynasty.
    <br>
    While I think Hillary is formidable and possibly qualified enough, I have to ask why she is even within our catalog of choices. Are we a country so engrained in the political machine that we can't find a more qualified candidate for the top seat of our system?
    <br>
    Here is the simple reason I will vote democrat: Dubya
    Here is the simple reason I will vote Obama or Edwards: 1. Bush SR 2. Clinton, 3. Clinton, 4. Bush, 5. Bush....6. Clinton? 7. Clinton???
    <br><br>
    <b>
    6x4= 24 years of Dynastic rule. Possibly 28 years?
    </b><br><br>
    Seriously folks. We've got to re-evaluate what a democracy is.
    <br><br>
    This is supposed to be a democracy.
    cpomeroy

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.