I'm a little late, but oh well.
You have it completely backwards. The American Constitution is dynamic, which is the very reason that it's been in place for so long, whereas during the same time period, many countries had a habit of completely throwing out their constitution and instilling an entirely new one everytime they found a flaw in its writing, or one of the mentioned ideals became outdated.Originally Posted by Denmark
The U.S. constitution has the ability to be amended (which is effectively a fancy word for "changed"), to counter these problems. If the ideals of the country changed, its leaders could go back and change the specific part in question. It's not wrong to change the Constitution. On the contrary, it was designed to be changed, and that ability allows it to keep up with the times, which is why it is so successful.
To be subjective for a moment, I would not vote for Arnold if he were allowed to run. It has nothing to do with the fact that he was born outside of the U.S. - he has lived here for half of his 50-some years, and he ideally should have a good grasp on what the U.S. is all about. I will vote for who I think is the best candidate to run the country, and just as race and gender are irrelevant to me, if the most suited candidate happened to be born outside the U.S., but happened to live here the majority of his/her life, I would vote for him/her.
I don't know anything about Hilary's platform, but I'll surely keep my eye on her. If she shares a good number of her views with her husband, I'll be happy. I have to admit, the fact that she's Bill's wife causes me to have a bias for her, and a positive one (believe it or not). Bill Clinton was a womanizer and a horrible husband, but I think many people let that fact cloud their thoughts before they actually attempt to evaluate how effective he was as a President. I personally think he was a good one.
Finally, I don't receive any of these "bad vibes" from anyone (except Bush).
