interesting...

Sunday, January 20, 2008

now i am not trying to sway anyones vote and in no way is this blog going to become political. but something interesting was brought to my attention at dinner last night.

if hillary was to win the presidental election that would result in the white house having been run by only two families since 1989.

George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
George W. Bush (2001-2009)
Hillary Clinton (2009-2013, at minimum)

that's 24 years! chalk another 4 to it if hillary gets a second term. i don't know about you but 28 years with only two families in charge seems a bit incestuous to me. i think we need some new blood other than a clinton. republican or democrat.

10 comments:

  1. Emma / Georgia PeachJanuary 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM

    So insightful Lexy Poo!!

    I vote a big fat "NO" for Hil!!


    I missed you this weekend! And I can't wait until the bachelorette extravaganza this coming weekend!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi. I am old enough to remember something very important: The George H.W. Bush years were only alright, the Bill Clinton years were a fantastic time in this country's history (both socially and economically), and obviously the George W. Bush years have been an unmitigated disaster. Don't let twelve of the last 20 years take away from the fact that the Clintons are good for America.

    I'm pulling for her (and I've sent plenty of money to her campaign) because I was here and paying attention to what she and her husband can do. No Republican's gonna make it in so our only other option is Obama...and IMHO, he's nowhere near experienced enough to run a country!

    BTW, my name is Mike. Your sister turned me on to your blog. I love your sense of humor! So "Hi there!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4zgXVdSG_k

    All of that social and economic reform must have made him sleepy!

    ReplyDelete
  4. ballz97fm - do you mind if i call you ballz? hope not. so ballz, i see your point. i am also not sold 100% that obama has enough experience to run a county. and i agree that the clinton years were good. but i firmly believe that the reason they were so good was because he was riding the wave of greatness that regan implemented. it was all finally trickling down when clinton was in office.

    also, hi mike! isn't my sissy cool? thanks for reading my blog, but why can't i read your blog? i think you should invite me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. i just puked in my mouth. did you just say that the 90's were great because of reagan? next time we run into each other remind me to make it rain some knowledge on you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. cubby i seriously love you. you can make it rain knowledge on me anytime!

    hysterical.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course you can call me ballz. And no one can read my blog. It's way too dangerous! Actually, it's totally just a bunch of stupid stuff and I don't write it anymore. :(

    The Reagan-implementing-greatness thing was priceless, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alexa for President 2008!!!

    Believe it - it's really me on your blog!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Minister of cultureJanuary 22, 2008 at 11:20 PM

    Alexa,no truer words have ever been written!The Gipper was responsible for everything good that happened from 1981-2000!Supply side economics works'those that followed did not stick to the program.We should dig him up and run him again.He probably would not require a salary,and we would save a fortune on secret service protection.

    ReplyDelete

comments are cool. this is a fact.