PDA

View Full Version : Obama Would Hillary have done better?


Chocolate Hog
03-22-2011, 09:37 PM
We all know how closely contested the 2008 primary was but after nearly 3 years I think the question needs to be asked would Hillary Clinton have been a better president? Look at the presidents achievements Health Care & Watered down financial reform Clinton could have achieved both of those with a majority too. Infact i'd argue she would have been able to pass healthcare much easier with her pass backround. Now lets look at 2 recent events: The president is off on the budget by 2.3 trillion dollars and there seems to be no real direction with Libya. This is very telling of the presidents ability to lead something I think Clinton would do much better. Discuss.

CoMoChief
03-22-2011, 10:02 PM
Clinton and BO both work for the same people.....so, No.

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2011, 10:03 PM
Nope.

LiveSteam
03-22-2011, 10:19 PM
Is this a trick question ?

BucEyedPea
03-22-2011, 10:31 PM
Well Clinton said "all options" were on the table regarding Libya. So that would have to mean nukes. So no imo, she wouldn't be better.
Depends on what your values are to opine what would be good, bad or better.

WV
03-22-2011, 10:36 PM
How could she do worse and or less is a better question IMO.

alnorth
03-22-2011, 10:46 PM
We all know how closely contested the 2008 primary was but after nearly 3 years I think the question needs to be asked would Hillary Clinton have been a better president? Look at the presidents achievements Health Care & Watered down financial reform Clinton could have achieved both of those with a majority too. Infact i'd argue she would have been able to pass healthcare much easier with her pass backround. Now lets look at 2 recent events: The president is off on the budget by 2.3 trillion dollars and there seems to be no real direction with Libya. This is very telling of the presidents ability to lead something I think Clinton would do much better. Discuss.

This seems a bit silly, given we have no reason at all to believe that Hillary's budget would be any better, and it was hillary who apparently talked Obama into this Libya war over the objections of his own sec. of defense.

We wouldn't be better or worse off with Hillary.

chiefsnorth
03-22-2011, 10:48 PM
Oh, certainly she would have. If you look back to the Clinton years, despite my overall disapproval, at least you see foreign policy that was competent on some basic level. You see economic policy that, after the 1994 reprimand, was mostly moderate and worked, in the end, at least at preserving the (good) status quo.

Regarding the 1994 rebuke, this is a key difference - Clinton learned from his mistakes. Obama doubles down on them.

If you offered me the chance to boot Obama and install Hillary, with the cost being that Hillary gets a second term, I think even with Obama's depressed chances at re-election, I might still take it.

Taco John
03-22-2011, 10:55 PM
Which will get my windshield cleaner: a dog turd or a cat turd?

Chocolate Hog
03-22-2011, 11:01 PM
Oh, certainly she would have. If you look back to the Clinton years, despite my overall disapproval, at least you see foreign policy that was competent on some basic level. You see economic policy that, after the 1994 reprimand, was mostly moderate and worked, in the end, at least at preserving the (good) status quo.

Regarding the 1994 rebuke, this is a key difference - Clinton learned from his mistakes. Obama doubles down on them.

If you offered me the chance to boot Obama and install Hillary, with the cost being that Hillary gets a second term, I think even with Obama's depressed chances at re-election, I might still take it.

This is a well put together post rep. I'm not Clinton supporter by any means but the organization after 94' was far superior to the last 3 administrations.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2011, 11:25 PM
Oh, certainly she would have. If you look back to the Clinton years, despite my overall disapproval, at least you see foreign policy that was competent on some basic level. You see economic policy that, after the 1994 reprimand, was mostly moderate and worked, in the end, at least at preserving the (good) status quo.

Regarding the 1994 rebuke, this is a key difference - Clinton learned from his mistakes. Obama doubles down on them.

If you offered me the chance to boot Obama and install Hillary, with the cost being that Hillary gets a second term, I think even with Obama's depressed chances at re-election, I might still take it.

That was her husband that learned from his lessons. She is more to the left of her husband. On FP she's a NeoCon—so of course you'd approve because she's aggressive.
Imo they're the biggest incompetents: still in Iraq which now has suicide bombers, still in Afghanistan and that was to fight them over there so we wouldn't have to over here. YET, they're over here now and it's not getting better.

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 11:42 PM
All told, it'd probably be the exact same administration.

Chocolate Hog
03-22-2011, 11:48 PM
All told, it'd probably be the exact same administration.

Why's that? The same type of appointments in the cabinet? Clinton seemed like a women who had connections with all the establishment candidates Obama seems to lack a little bit when it comes to leadership.

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 11:55 PM
Why's that? The same type of appointments in the cabinet? Clinton seemed like a women who had connections with all the establishment candidates Obama seems to lack a little bit when it comes to leadership.

Yeah, their cabinets would probably be nearly identical. Obama would probably even have been SecState.

Obama's adapted more and more of Hillary's policy ideas from the primaries. Individual mandate being one of them.

I'm betting Clinton wouldn't keep Gates on as SecDef, but I'd mark that as Advantage Obama.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2011, 01:08 AM
Yeah, their cabinets would probably be nearly identical. Obama would probably even have been SecState.

Obama's adapted more and more of Hillary's policy ideas from the primaries. Individual mandate being one of them.

I'm betting Clinton wouldn't keep Gates on as SecDef, but I'd mark that as Advantage Obama.

What about being 2 trillion off? I can't believe this hasn't been talked about that much. Also lets expand this conversation a little further I think if it were Clinton up for re-election in 12' the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance. From an electoral standpoint Clinton reaches places Obama won't touch, He won't win Carolina, Indiana again, Clinton could compete in those and challenge in states like Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. Depending on who the Republicans run.

Direckshun
03-23-2011, 01:10 AM
What about being 2 trillion off? I can't believe this hasn't been talked about that much. Also lets expand this conversation a little further I think if it were Clinton up for re-election in 12' the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance. From an electoral standpoint Clinton reaches places Obama won't touch, He won't win Carolina, Indiana again, Clinton could compete in those and challenge in states like Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. Depending on who the Republicans run.

Hard to say. I think either President Hillary or President Obama will stand an extremely good chance of winning reelection in 2012, simply because the Republican options are so incredibly weak.

King_Chief_Fan
03-23-2011, 07:45 AM
Hard to say. I think either President Hillary or President Obama will stand an extremely good chance of winning reelection in 2012, simply because the Republican options are so incredibly weak.

how do you get any more weak than Obama?
There are several on this board who could do a better job.

durtyrute
03-23-2011, 07:49 AM
Clinton and BO both work for the same people.....so, No.

This

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2011, 08:02 AM
How could she do worse

Exactly.

We could have randomly picked a name out of a phone book and the country would be in better shape.

Obama is a fool.

FishingRod
03-23-2011, 08:07 AM
I’ve never been a Hillary fan but she certainly had a better understanding of how Washington worked and a built in supply of allies and advisors from being
Bill’s wife. I have no doubt she would have been more affective. Now if that would have been better or worse for the country is a different debate.

Likewise, something I have pondered at length is had McCain been elected would the left actually gotten more of what they wanted than with the current administration? I see JM as a RINO with some fairly left leaning tendency and a history or at least a perceived history of Bipartisanship. So as mind boggling as the idea is, would he have actually pushed and or allowed even more new programs and spending than the current administration?

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2011, 08:14 AM
Barry is a manchild who was fast-tracked up the political pyramid, who has never won an election that wasn't rigged in his favor (he got his ass handed to him by Bobby Rush), and has never had to run as an incumbent.

That's the only thing I'm hanging any hope on this horrible mistake getting corrected in 2012.

RedNeckRaider
03-23-2011, 08:27 AM
I am reasonably certain whoever is driving the next car that comes down the street would do a better job~

Chief Faithful
03-23-2011, 08:29 AM
I have no doubt she would have been more effective with budgets, spending and international relations. While she would have been a better President I doubt she will ever have the star appeal of Obama and would never have been mistaken for a Messiah. I've never witnessed a less prepared or effective President in my lifetime, but he will always be liked and posses star appeal.

Chief Faithful
03-23-2011, 08:41 AM
Why's that? The same type of appointments in the cabinet? Clinton seemed like a women who had connections with all the establishment candidates Obama seems to lack a little bit when it comes to leadership.

You are correct, for example, President Elect Obama asked online for applicants for his administration because he didn't even know the power players in DC, while Clinton personnally knew all the players and what was needed for a strong cabinet. Plus, it was often reported that Obama and Clinton organizations did not get along so it leads to a belief a Clinton adminstration would look very different.

patteeu
03-23-2011, 09:35 AM
If Hillary were president, we'd have a president, instead of a back bencher who lives in a fancy house and likes to party.

blaise
03-23-2011, 09:44 AM
Ask orange, he's a huge Hillary fan. I think he even voted for McCain because he was so mad she didn't get the nomination.

Saul Good
03-23-2011, 10:16 AM
Well Clinton said "all options" were on the table regarding Libya. So that would have to mean nukes. So no imo, she wouldn't be better.
Depends on what your values are to opine what would be good, bad or better.

By your logic, it must mean that sending in a battalion of chimps to throw feces at them is also a possibility. I mean, they didn't specifically rule it out, and that's about as likely as us dropping nukes on Tripoli.

durtyrute
03-23-2011, 10:24 AM
Do people really think it matters who is president? Time after time we flood the voting booths hoping that THIS time, THIS one, will be different and time after time we are dissapointed. HELLO, THEY ALL WORK FOR THE SAME PEOPLE. Dem or Rep it doesn't matter. The only thing the labels do is divide the country. Black...White...Dem...Rep...Gimmie a fuckin brake. It's like most Americans have dementia or something.

Chief Faithful
03-23-2011, 10:35 AM
Well Clinton said "all options" were on the table regarding Libya. So that would have to mean nukes. So no imo, she wouldn't be better.
Depends on what your values are to opine what would be good, bad or better.

You can't really believe that "all options" statement included nukes? I think most would interpret that as boots on the ground.

Chief Faithful
03-23-2011, 10:39 AM
QUOTE=durtyrute;7510851]Do people really think it matters who is president? Time after time we flood the voting booths hoping that THIS time, THIS one, will be different and time after time we are dissapointed. HELLO, THEY ALL WORK FOR THE SAME PEOPLE. Dem or Rep it doesn't matter. The only thing the labels do is divide the country. Black...White...Dem...Rep...Gimmie a ****in brake. It's like most Americans have dementia or something.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm:

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:45 AM
QUOTE=durtyrute;7510851]Do people really think it matters who is president? Time after time we flood the voting booths hoping that THIS time, THIS one, will be different and time after time we are dissapointed. HELLO, THEY ALL WORK FOR THE SAME PEOPLE. Dem or Rep it doesn't matter. The only thing the labels do is divide the country. Black...White...Dem...Rep...Gimmie a ****in brake. It's like most Americans have dementia or something.

:facepalm:

He's right. The only differences are minor. For instance, in FP the two sides just argue over "how" they are going to do it: under the gang mentality of the UN ( the Progressive's and the left's preference) or go it alone. ( the Rights preference.) I am not talking about situations where we've been directly attacked of course. I am talking about our promiscuous foreign interventions. They are more than ever now for endless war.

On domestic, it's a matter of how much socialism and how fast they should go.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 10:47 AM
You can't really believe that "all options" statement included nukes? I think most would interpret that as boots on the ground.

No it means "all" options. The same as said for Iran. If not then she should be more careful with her choice of words—especially for someone who is a lawyer.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 11:01 AM
By your logic, it must mean that sending in a battalion of chimps to throw feces at them is also a possibility. I mean, they didn't specifically rule it out, and that's about as likely as us dropping nukes on Tripoli.

I agree it's unlikely but your example is even less likely. The point is she used extreme language. Of course, she is a member of a particular ideology that has considered nukes on Iran. So I wouldn't put anything past her. She is utterly corrupt as a person.

patteeu
03-23-2011, 11:09 AM
I agree it's unlikely but your example is even less likely. The point is she used extreme language. Of course, she is a member of a particular ideology that has considered nukes on Iran. So I wouldn't put anything past her. She is utterly corrupt as a person.

It's not extreme language, it's sensible language. You fail at foreign policy.