Would Hillary have been the better choice in retrospect ?

Watching President Obama continue his attempts at bipartisanship and working with the Republicans
in passing his legislative agenda while the Republicans have plainly said they have no intentions
of working with him, do you think Hillary would have stood firm and taken a "We'll do this
without you" approach as opposed to the lame attempts Obama is making ?

Her political philosophy is to the right of Obama.

To those who amazingly believe that Hillary Clinton is the paragon of liberalism, think again.

No, thanks.

I'm unhappy with Obama, but not that much.

Get over the primaries!

We KNEW that Clinton was a corporate-owned war hawk!
Obama was the sleight-of-hand trick candidate that
appeared to offer an alternative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18

:puke:

there is reason to doubt that she is even a democrat.

I said that he would be a mainstream centrist long before he was elected.

Few believed me.

This is not a criticism of President Obama. I thought Bill Clinton was a great President and Obama is following in his footsteps in much the same way.

I knew that there would be no flaming sword.

Obama is this flaming liberal.

He's not. And he never was.

It's unbelievable that they are mad NOW and didn't do their homework on the truth about his political philosophy.

Nothing in his books, his voting record in the IL State Senate, nor in the U.S. Senate, would lead anyone to believe that Obama is an unabashed liberal. It's just not true.

I'm with you.

The Hill/Bill combo could have lasted 16 years and life would still be beautiful.

Bill gave us repeal of the Glass-Stegall act so banks could invest in real estate, stock market etc. Essentially the bill that led to our total broke assnes today.3 strikes and you are out. We have the highest number of prisoners in the world. Welfare reform with no place for poor mothers to find a job after NAFTA wiped them all out.Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Instead of welfare moms receiving hundreds a month, we have welfare dads receiving millions .

What do you miss about the Clinton years? He paved the way for our present day debacle.

IBTL

and other anti-working-American legislation? A Hobson's choice, I think.

as well as creating immunization programs for kids, S-CHIP, mammograms, funding for medical research, the DOJ's Violence Against Women office, and so much more.

The issue of the Iraq war was created by the other side -- the bad guys. As long as we continue using Iraq as a primary litmus for our candidates, we're allowing the other side to dictate the terms of our debate.

Hillary tried to make it sound like it was her own baby,(like she brought peace to Ireland) but turns out that it was Kerry and Kennedy's, not hers.
Another example of shameless lieing by her and an example that she is way out of the loop how things can be found out easily on the intertubes.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html

Indeed: how easily things can be found on the intertubes.

And how easily we on the left fall for right-wing lies, again and again.

I got one as well.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

==
from your link:
The Globe said he wouldn't criticize Clinton "directly" but said: "Facts are stubborn things ... I think we ought to stay with the facts."

==
Hillary tends to exaggerate or out and out lie.
Tuzla. Goddess of Peacing Ireland... etc

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."

Kennedy's health care adviser on S-CHiP: "we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."

You've been lied to. The Boston Globe lied to you. Factcheck told you they were lying, and yet you use their lies as evidence.

Stop believing right-wing swill. Start using your brain.

When campaigning that is what she was leading everyone to believe, that SCHIP was her baby and that is what I am taking large exception to. Yes, she helped with SCHIP, that can't be denied, but she wasn't in charge or took the football all alone over the line like she implied on the campaign trail. It was only after some questioning on her honesty in this that she finally let that drop, but she was willing to use it if no one called her on it.

There are a lot of people swallowing right wing swill here - those that think Obama is some kind of bigger monster than Bush but yet at the same time all weak and tepid and useless and only Hillary can come in and save the day.

Got to laugh at the silly PUMAs

It would embarrass most people.

Well, not the mountain lions.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, and I never was. I was for Edwards, then I caucused for Obama.

The question here is, was Hillary to the left or right of Obama? And the answer is, it depends on the weight you give the Iraq War Resolution.

If you think her idiotic vote outbalances all she did for health care in America, then she's to his right. I don't think it outbalances that; I think her work on healthcare improved millions of lives, and a nay on IWR would have been no more than symbolic.

What I'm saying is that the disproportionate weight we give to a Republican-created issue keeps us dancing to the tune Rove plays. He's calling "Dance, monkeys, dance," and we keep doing it. We ignore real, significant work toward important liberal goals, and pay too much attention to the yay-or-nay of situations the bad guys crafted.

Turning on Hillary because of her Iraq vote is what the right-wingers wanted. It's what they still want. Don't let them control our debate. Don't let them shake our convictions to the point where we no longer know what's right.

Hillary was a significant mover in a great deal of liberal legislation, and when we choose to ignore it because Rove slapped a hunk of red meat branded IWR in front of us, we've lost. We've lost in a way we may never recover from. Iraq brings so much frustration and rage that we're blinded to everything else, and that means we will never have a clarity of vision to see what else needs to be done.

and I'm not only basing that on her Iraq war vote. ( she hasn't apologized for that when others have. Not that that makes things right when you are so wrong that thousands of lives hang in the balance and die for your mistake - a simple sorry just doesn't cut it either but at least it's an attempt, whether a fake one or not.)

Hillary tries too hard to prove she can be just as 'tough as a man'. The world has had enough of that kind of toughness. I prefer the kind that Obama has, where he stands straight and takes the slings and arrows with dignity and keeps on moving on.

I lost respect for her for many reasons on my own and Rove had nothing to do with it. Her weaknesses and flub ups are hers alone.

I voted for Obama. I agree with you that the world has had enough of American Imperialism, I feel let down for the reason that I wanted him to be tough against the other party. They are more or less, almost deliberately, making a fool of him with racist undertones and defiance which I felt he would bring that "gospel preaching sermon" energy and intelligence he showed while campaigning, to them and the nation, forcing the other side to acquiesce or compromise with him as opposed to his hope that they will compromise in a bipartisan manner. Even while they mock his position as if they are in charge and he is just a figurehead, he still believes they will compromise.
And he and they will with any legislation that makes their lives richer.

unions, worker rights, LGBT issues, gay adoption rights, abortion-related issues, women's rights across the world, and all of that, where she is to his left.

But none of that matters, right? -- because when the Iraq bell rings, we all start to salivate.

First Ladies do not move legislation. Kennedy and Hatch moved the bill through the Senate.

So, public opinion has no effect on the workings of the legislature?

Kids say the darnedest things.

The fact is that it is the interpersonal relationships of the legislators that is the bigger force.

Not to mention, how did HRC do moving her own legislation on healthcare in 1993?

Wikileaks has shown that we helped overthrow the democratically elected president of Honduras. Know what he did wrong? Wanted a decent wage for the people. Hillary was Sec of State and approved the overthrow of that govt. No wonder we are hated around the world.

who spoke of this constantly in 2008, could not find anything in Senator Kerry's Senate resume to applaud - even though Kennedy DID credit Kerry with having played a major role in this.

As two of the few Democrats on TV, they were singularly useless in 2004 - simply attacking Bush and whining that Kerry was not like Bill Clinton.

got Begala and Carville doing the dirty work for you?

I herd Begala yesterday, whining that Obama's freezing federal pay was just like things he mocked Clinton for during the campaign - like pushing for school uniforms - except that wasn't symbolic, but encouraged better discipline.

Carville did kind of lose his mind in both 2008 and after Katrina. He was incredibly awful, but I think his SUBTLE opposition to Kerry might have hurt more because it insidiously undermined him. It bothered me enormously that they pushed the "ABB" line constantly - though the norm was this was PRIMARY terminology. In the general election, the norm is that a large percent of people do break by party. In 1992, Bill Clinton was about my fifth choice due to his environmental record and the times he was caught lying in the primaries, yet it never occurred to me to say I was just ABB. I got behind the nominee, because the choice then was Bush or Clinton (or Perot) I read Clinton's book and advocated for the good parts that he was for - and I was just a working mother raising 3 kids - they were Democratic, professional voices on TV. Given that the entire party spent two years defending Clinton after he lied to the country, his wife and the cabinet, it really did not seem a hardship defending a genuine war hero, who had the courage to speak out against Nixon and who had a clean enough record in the Senate that after more than 30 years in the public eye, the Republicans had to make up stuff to attack him and his wonderful wife.

In 2004, in early April when Kerry was already very close to having the number of delegates needed to win because he had won 14 out of the first 16 contests (not SC and OK) and was ahead by double digits in the big states coming soon (MA, CA, NY etc), Carville spoke of how it was still possible that they could have a deadlocked convention and spoke of Hillary as the compromise candidate.

Meanwhile, I was reading about Kerry. I had always done this to learn more about our candidate - and most years, the more I read (outside the puff campaign biographies) I had always been less excited about the candidate. The surface was always way more shiny than the details. With Kerry, the opposite happened, the more I dug, the more I saw a principled person who did things because he thought they were right - even if they could destroy his future prospects. (Think about it, would Clinton in Arkansas have investigated the illegal gun (and drug) running out of Mena - knowing that all the Republicans and at least half the Democrats favored helping (legally) the Contras and were willing to turn their heads? This was not the way an eloquent, young Senator could win support of the party, but Kerry did it - and continued despite death threats and ridicule from Newsweek and elsewhere.)

and how they took time to think about public policy and how it ought to be pursued. Obama's biggest failing may be that he's too pragmatic and too intellectual with how he goes about making decisions. That has led to the charge that he is aloof and "doesn't feel your pain" like Bill Clinton does. In fact, I see many similarities between Obama and Kerry on this. And it makes one wonder: could they have gotten more support from the Democratic Party and less ridicule.

Begala and Carville aren't doing us any favors by constantly bashing Obama in the press. Methinks that some of the behavior is deliberate, and the fact that they sometimes show up on shows like Joe Scarborough and the O'Reilly show is not by accident. I trust neither of them.

I think our media takes as "authentic", people whose responses are calculated and scripted - often very well scripted. Consider that the media has called Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Scott Brown "authentic". Yet what they mean is that they are very good keeping to their scripted image. Kerry in particular is exactly who he said he was per people I have met who really know him well. (This is why I am not surprised that his comments in Wikileak reports are very much the same as things he has said in speeches and in the SFRC.)

The odd thing about "feel your pain" is that I would bet that if people who know much about both Kerry and Clinton were asked who would be more likely to genuinely care about people in pain, it is very likely that significantly more would pick Kerry. After all, Clinton returned to Arkansas in 1992 to be there for the execution of a criminal who at that point was so mentally deficient he saved his dessert for later. In 2004, one of Kerry's swiftboat guys spoke of calling Kerry's office when he was totally down and out - and had burned all his bridges - suffering from PTSD and suicidal. Kerry spent the day on the phone with him, except when voting, found a place at a VA facility in IL, where he was, that could take him immediately, and flew out when the Senate week was over to see him. His comment was Kerry saved his life then -- as well as in Vietnam.

I think all three have a very high level of intellect. I think Clinton is the most likely to act pragmatically to maximize his own good. I think Kerry is more likely to follow his conscience. Obama is likely between them. Obviously, there are times where Clinton has followed his conscience over doing what works best for him - and Kerry has made compromises to do what is best for him. But, I do see them at different points of the spectrum between those two extremes. I also see that following conscience will make someone a better person, but it is not clear what the optimal place on the spectrum for a President should be. Given that what is best for a President is very highly correlated with what is better for the country, it could be that someone whose intellect has always functioned that way might not be bad. But, on moral issues, I am positive that Kerry would not approve torture - and he would define it as international organizations have.

Thoughtful post. I have noticed how all the clinton people put down democrats and praise hill and bill. And want her to be president .When they aren't showing how well they get along with the bushes.

And do you think that Obama wanted those people around him in his administration? We did not vote for them , they were forced on us.

It seemed like Michelle Obama quit smiling when she was planting her organic garden and found out the clintons had sprayed it with sludge. human manure. She did not find out from the clintons either.Obama and family were not invited to Chelsea's wedding.

And hillary is sec. of state and supposed to have diplomatic skills. They are some sick twisted people.They do not have the personality trait of kindness.

What he is crediting her for in those sentences is because she pushed her DINO husband to accept it into the budget - as there was concern that he would refuse to sign it. Note that NEITHER says what she did. The fact is she did not initiate it or design it - and those claims were what Kennedy disputed.

Here is the NYT of the 1997. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFDC113CF932A2575BC0A961958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1

As to RW, your source is calling Kennedy a liar - rather than looking more carefully to find out what HRC's part was.

They took an excerpt out of context, bowdlerized the middle, and situated it to suggest he meant something he didn't say.

He made no criticism, and only a dishonest reporter would have tried to dupe people into thinking he had.

What they do is point to the fact that Kennedy had in the past thanked Hillary for her part. She went too far in saying that she "initiated" it, when the fact is that she didn't. She also was not involved in designing it or writing the legislation. It started as Kerry/Kennedy which was a bill for a national system that would provide insurance for Kids from families with income above the Medicaid level up to some threshold - the amount paid, started at nearly all slightly above the Medicaid level to zero when the threshold was hit - paid for by a tobacco tax. After the 1996 election, this could not pass a Senate with 55 Republicans. Hatch joined Kennedy to significantly change the idea to allow each state to build their own system, with the money coming from the same source and the amount of subsidy done in a similar way.

I could post both the Hatch floor speech (which greatly helped me find the differences between it and Kerry/Kennedy because that was the main topic of the speech and Kennedy's speech. The fact is that neither mention Hillary Clinton, which would have been unlikely had she "initiated" it. (If you insist - I will get them from the Senate record.

But, here is the NYT article of the time which was written in 1997, when the bill passed. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFDC113CF932A2575BC0A961958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1 The fact check people obviously should have been able to find this - because I did. Here, in 1997, Hillary's role was that she lobbied her husband to allow it into the budget. This is consistent with what Kennedy and Hatch said in 2008.

Incidentally, I did find this article on the internet - and it is better than factcheck, as it was written at a point when no one had a vested interest in claiming anything. By the way, the NYT has been a fan of Hillary since 1992.

RW lies??? This was Ted Kennedy - not a right winger saying so. He, incidentally, spoke of Kerry's real contributions to this in 2004 in various speeches. Kerry simply mentioned that he wrote the precursor bill with Kennedy - which was an honest claim.

says H. Clinton was involved from before Kerry was involved, from before the legislation even started getting written; it says that she was pushing it significantly in "a nationwide radio and newspaper advertising campaign."

You said, "RW lies??? This was Ted Kennedy - not a right winger saying so." No, it wasn't Ted Kennedy saying it; he didn't say anything. He said "Facts are stubborn things ... I think we ought to stay with the facts." It was a smear article Boston Globe that poised that nonstatement to look like a criticism. It was the right-wing liar writing the article who chose to make it sound like he'd said things he hadn't said and probably didn't intend; it was the right-wing author who chose to cut words out (the "...") and deliberately mislead people into thinking Kennedy said things he didn't say.

Adam Clymer -- the reporter whom Bush and Cheney called a "major league asshole" -- wrote Kennedy's biography in 1999, and found that H. Clinton worked closely with Kennedy in crafting the legislation that became S-CHiP; Clymer's biography was authorized, and he had access to Kennedy correspondence that has never been made publicly available.

Beyond crafting the legislation, as you can see in the factcheck page -- which has demonstrated a great deal more respect for the truth than the scum at the Boston Globe -- H. Clinton worked hard to spread support for the legislation, in the public eye, through the media, by making important speeches, and working to convince legislators to get onboard.

You are really working overtime twisting things when you suggest that the First Lady initiated an advertising campaign before any legislation was written. In addition, they enlisted a few previous First Ladies in the advertising campaign which was done before it was included in the budget.

Kennedy DID say that Hillary overstated her role - while he credited her for what she did. The Boston Globe article was NOT right wing. The facts are it is based on a MA program already in place and it was written into a bill in 1996 by Kerry and Kennedy. You can find that in the Senate record - with Kerry and Kennedy introducing it. Kennedy called it the precursor bill to SCHIP in 2004 and in 2007 or 2006, Prosense actually compared the two bills here.

I have not read the Clymer biography and I would not be surprised if Kennedy kept Hillary in the loop. But, from many books on Hillary, it was said that after the failure of her plan, she retreated from the issue. The fact is that the three main characteristics of SCHIP are:
1) It creates a tapered subsidy that starts at point Medicaid ends and decreases gradually until it phases out - this is in Kerry/Kennedy
2) It is paid for by the tobacco tax - again this was in the MA program and Kerry/Kennedy
3) It allows states to design how it is implemented - this was a compromise demanded by Hatch - that Kennedy agreed to because Republican votes were needed and Hatch had enough Republicans with him if this were done. It was Kennedy and Hatch who got the votes in the Senate. (Remember HRC got not one vote from the Finance committee for her healthcare bill. She had no experience as to getting things through the Senate.)

The NYT article does credit Hillary with SUPPORTING the bill both with Bill Clinton, who was not a given, and "a nationwide radio and newspaper advertising campaign."

What angered Kennedy in 2008 was that HRC said she INITIATED it and in other comments, it was said she created it. Kennedy is the one who initiated it - starting in 1996 or before with Kerry. Kennedy, Hatch and Kerry and their staffs were the ones that did the hard work of crafting the bill.

There is no doubt that Hillary had a role - and an important one. If Clinton would have opposed its funding in the budget, it would have failed.

What is clear is that in 2008, Hillary wanted to use "executive" words like - initiate, create, etc, rather than words like "lobby for", adovcated for, support, or publicize. Yet, the truth is that she made major contributions in these functions using her prominence as First Lady well. She could have made the point that she used her position as First Lady well.

It also seemed in 2008, that HRC wanted to use SCHIP as a way of saying that she learned after her own bill failed. She could have made the same point without usurping the credit for initiating or creating from Kennedy. My guess is that when she first did that, as the inevitable nominee, she knew that no one - not Kennedy, not Kerry and likely not even Hatch would ever challenge it.

It was also needed as she did not have any major legislation in the Senate for which she could be seen as the driving force. (As a very junior Senator it is not surprising that little would bear her name, but, in addition, there are not many things that can be pointed to where she was the person on the committee that fought to insert them. Therefore, she counted SCHIP as her greatest accomplishment.

I know nothing about this topic. I do know that hillary has a reputation with playing fast and loose with facts , the same as her husband.

nevertheless. I think Obama reasoned that the country wasn't ready for single payer. His mistake was not allowing proponents to make their case. A bad one in my view.

But again, don't make excuses for Hillary Clinton. She is far more hawkish than Obama was. And I don't care what you or anyone says, when Bob Graham and Russ Feingold literally BEGGED her and the Democrats to read the National Intelligence Estimate, she refused. She never apologized for her vote, even to this day. Kerry, Edwards, and other Democrats did.

As far as immunization for kids, S-CHIP, and those other items that you mentioned, the Obama administration passed these measures, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

Apart from her support of single payer, there is absolutely no evidence that she is to the "far left" of Obama. Certainly not as a member of the Democratic Leadership Council and a self-professed "Goldwater Gal."

No, thanks!

Unless Obama was president in the 1990s.

The Obama administration didn't pass ANY of the measures mentioned.

When you have your facts so very wrong -- as you do -- it's time to ask yourself if, in trying to believe a falsehood, you're convincing yourself to believe small falsehoods.

It's time for you to do some soul-searching. Ask yourself why you think the things you think. When you're lying to yourself, something's wrong with your perspective.

Every time we argue over which of our people supported the Iraq war, Karl Rove smiles.

She was wrong, and it's a major, legitimate criticism of her stances.

Unlike the appalling lies that some idiots keep pushing.

No one is saying that HRC had NO role in SCHIP. I am saying she overstated it, trying to define her role using commanding verbs - like "initiate".

The fact is that HRC ALWAYS got the credit that she deserved on what she did. She had a segment of the press pushing her for President from 1992 onward. The NYT had many NYT magazine articles - even cover stories on her over the years. All positive. They had long puff pieces as she ran for Senate. Then when elected, long puff pieces of her taking a humble position as a junior Senator. They had articles holding out hope she would run in 2004 and they were among those defining her as inevitable. The down side of her prominence is that she also was attacked by the right. (and that does NOT include the BG article)

Anyone who watches the House and the Senate is well aware that there are people who really do deserve praise when a major bill passes. One group is the staff, who spend long hours actually doing the detailed work of taking a Congressman's or Senator's provision and creating the precise, detailed language that a law needs. In addition, there are other staff who do the complicated budget simulations needed. In addition, there are many "work horse" legislators who quietly add provisions to bill to correct problems they see - rather than grandstand and introduce it as a stand alone bill under their name. These are people who often don't get the credit they are due.

Hillary was never in that situation from 1992 on. Now, she will get credit as SoS for any foreign policy accomplishment - even though in many cases, there will be others who made the deal or whose ideas form the basis for a change in policy. The same will be true for Obama. He, like Clinton or Bush for that matter, will be given credit or blame for what happens under him. (You can make the same argument that any Senator or Congressman gets credit for the work of their staff.

You're wrong:

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=56811

As for those other measures, the president hand no had in originally passing them--which is NOT what I stated--but there is no evidence that he doesn't support them, as the Clintons do. The original legislation, I believe, was written by Ted Kennedy...(who endorsed Barack Obama, by the way).

Lastly, you know it amazes me. Hillary Clinton ran on her husband's 8-year platform, not her own. It's baffling because she claims to be a feminist, but yet she runs on her husband's record. Why not her own? Well, she can't run on health care. Why? Because it bombed! She couldn't really run on anything that distinguished herself from Barack Obama. Why? Because they really aren't that far apart in terms of governing philosophy or on issues. Instead, she ran a scorched earth campaign, borderlining on desperation and racism.

You need to learn how to read. I never stated that Obama was responsible for the *original* ideas or legislation. I stated that he (rather, Congress passed) signed the extension of the legislation. (See link above.)

S-CHIP was passed by the Clinton administration.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=56811

As for those other measures, the president had no had in originally passing them--which is NOT what I stated--but there is no evidence that he doesn't support them, as the Clintons do.

Instead, you contradicted a posters claim that S-CHIP was originally passed under the Clinton administration by saying "Obama passed those measures". Perhaps in the future you should be a little more careful when phrasing what you're trying to say, just a friendly suggestion :toast:

His congress passed the extension. He signed the extension. We're parsing words, but don't feign ignorance. You know what I meant.

And if that's the case, then you're wrong, because President Clinton didn't *pass* anything. The legislation was drafted by Ted Kennedy, PASSED in both chambers of Congress, then signed by President Bill Clinton into law.

So, if we're going to be hung up on words, then at least get yours right.

suggestion :toast:

to not fight it being funded in the budget. Your list of Hillary's accomplishments is nonsense. She led the effort on healthcare - that failed to get one supporter on the Finance committee. On the other bills, she may have advocated for them, but only the immunization program was something that she had much to do with.

Schip had its roots in a similar MA program. Kerry and Kennedy wrote a precursor bill in 1996 - In 1997, Kennedy got Hatch on board by agreeing to allow states more control in designing their programs, but much of the bill was the Kerry/Kennedy bill. Kennedy and Hatch got the bill through a Senate with 55 Republicans - Kerry remained as the only other co-sponsor. A parallel bill passed the House. In 2008, both Kennedy and Hatch called Hillary on the fact that she overstated her role. The DOJ's violence against women was a Biden bill. Medical research is funded each and every year - and it is done by Kennedy's committee.


There was very little difference in the healthcare plans - and either would have come out pretty much the same because you would have still needed 60 votes.

it was a list of stances, legislation she supported or lobbied for. Your notion that it doesn't count because she didn't hold an elected office is absurd -- and offensive.

The question is, does her record show someone more liberal than Obama?

If one were to remove Iraq from the equation, only liars and fools would say no. (An argument could be made for "maybe.")

But the Clintonistas have such blinders on that they are confusing Bill Clinton's accomplishments with Hillary's record. She only has the record that came from her serving in the Senate. She has Bill Clinton's accomplishments that she ran on.

And yet the oft-repeated story during the primaries and to this day was that she has more legislative experience than Barack Obama. She had two more years of Senate experience than Obama, yes. But Obama spent nearly 11 years in the Illinois State Senate, no?

As far as her First Lady experience, I'm not demeaning that, but that was a different role than when she served in the Senate.

Hillary's foreign policy votes, even excluding the IWR vote, were more hawkish than his. One example was Kyl/Lieberman, which was against Iran that she voted for, he was campaigning, but Reid entered into the record that Obama was a "NO" at the time of the vote.

One index created three scores - foreign policy, social issues, and economic issues. Hillary scored VERY liberal on the social issues, and was one of the most conservative Democrats on the foreign policy index. She was in the middle on economic issues - she did vote for the 2001 bankruptcy bill (but not the 2005 one). Obama had a liberal record on both the economic issues (he wrote with others Illinois version of SCHIP, which is one of the most liberal in the country). On foreign policy, Obama was not as liberal as Durbin or Kennedy (or Kerry for that matter), but his votes placed him to the left of Hillary. The Clintons were correct that he was relatively close to her on these votes. He ran closer to Kerry's positions - though here, his votes might have been a truer measure than his words and likely why he picked the more conservative Hillary as SoS. (Here, we know at least two times where that could have made a difference - on the Afghan surge, Clinton supported Gates and McChrystal, where Kerry cautioned that there was not enough "good governance" for the Afghans to fill in as we won ares as that plan suggested and Clinton tacitly supported the Honduras coup, while Kerry spoke against it. Note Obama ultimately sided with Clinton each time.)

If it were simply a list of legislation she supported or lobbied for, her claims and those of her staff would not have included words like "initiated" or "created".

PS It is pretty arrogant to claim that if someone disagrees on a SUBJECTIVE measure that they are liars or fools. I suggest that you are reconciling a huge admiration for Hillary and a self definition as a liberal. The fact is the Clintons were not liberal and never claimed to be - Bill Clinton was the first DLC president.

an easier time in general because all the racist right wing douchebags would have needed a different excuse to dislike her. I think a lot of the people who supported her in rural areas would have stuck with her longer even if the economy was still shitty. But it's all speculation at this point.

and instead of birth certificates, we'd hear non-stop stories about the shady dealings of the Clinton Global Initiative, and how it's a secret plot towards a one world government.

Matt Taibbi was interviewing an elderly woman as to the reason she was voting for hillary. Big smirk on Matt's face..."And you like her because she wants to bring back jobs to America?"

now it looks like Obama is one...so no difference...I never thought that he would take over where clinton and bush's left off...

Neither one is worth a plug-nickel in my book.

I voted for her. She lost. Now I'm just worried about what Obama does from here on out. When they write the history books after Obama leaves office, maybe they'll dedicate a footnote to what Hillary Clinton could have done differently.

What exactly could she have accompished differently with the same votes in the Senate?

UNREC.

.

us back to the primaries?

for a bill that would have given the banks retroactive immunity for all their criminal activity leading up to the foreclosure crisis?

Obama vetoed that bill. hillary would not have.

Not much faith in anyone else anymore, sadly.

Hillary would never dare to be black. Never!

I think from being dumped on while Bill was president and they shut his health-care down then,
she might have stood up against the Republicans a bit more while Obama still thinks he can play
nice with them.

"play nice" because Republicans hold a certain amount of power not just legislatively but thanks to previous deregulations,they almost hold a monopoly on the news media in this country. I don't think everything is as easy as some people on this forum seem to believe. Given the state of political discourse, Obama has gotten a lot done. Maybe he could use better messaging but as to actual accomplishments, he's done well. I sometimes think some people would rather see a good fight with nothing accomplished...(not meaning you just some people on this and other forums)

:shrug:

...candidates who really are dedicated to Democratic principles.

I mean, REALLY stands for. That's why I was a Kucinich supporter and will always be.

But if given the choice between her and Obama, I'll take my chances with Obama.

They weren't all primaries. Some were caucuses, and needed a very different approach to win, which Obama's campaign staff understood better then Hillary's.

were a mix of caucuses and primaries then. The fact is that she counted on huge wins in the pile of mostly Clinton friendly states that moved their primaries to SuperTuesday. In fact, without the kerry and Kennedy endorsements - which shifted those states towards Obama, she would have become the defacto nominee on SuperTuesday. (The percent that she was getting in polls would have led her to possibly getting all the MA delegates - and she would have gotten all or nearly all the CA, NJ. and NY delegates.)

I was a Clinton supporter in the primaries and proudly supported Obama when he was elected. In retrospect, I think we made the right choice. Don't know for sure, but I am pleased with the Obama admin so far. My issue was healthcare and that got done. It didn't do me any good, but it did help a lot of people.

I'm glad Obama got a shot at it, and I wouldn't mind seeing Hillary do four years or better, if she still wishes to, which I doubt.

I do know this.......either beats any republican candidate 10-1!

In some ways losing was a blessing for her ; especially if the economy doesn't improve...

She is a doing a job of work at the State Dept and is the best person to hold that role since Madeline Albright.

progressive and cut just as many if not more deals than Obama has. Some of u live in a dream world.

How is it that people look for more in a simple question than what it was meant to be ? I see replies about primaries, right and left, yada, yada.
I know it's difficult in any thread to stay on subject but all this comes down to is I feel as a woman of her stature, (and I didn't vote for her
or Bill) she would have had more chaps to stand up to the other side than Obama with his heart-bent bipartisan hope that makes him look feeble
against the republicans. I don't think she would have stood for that. On the other hand, I feel D or R, they are all just playing us for fools.

How is it that people look for more in a simple question than what it was meant to be ? I see replies about primaries, right and left, yada, yada.
I know it's difficult in any thread to stay on subject but all this comes down to is I feel as a woman of her stature, (and I didn't vote for her
or Bill) she would have had more chaps to stand up to the other side than Obama with his heart-bent bipartisan hope that makes him look feeble
against the republicans. I don't think she would have stood for that. On the other hand, I feel D or R, they are all just playing us for fools.

and primary campaigns are just so much shit. As for whether she would have done a better job of dealing with the pubs, there is no real way to know. I do think she would not have frittered away two years to find out that the republicans cannot be trusted, that they will now put the country ahead of ambition, and that they won't ever cooperate. She had that lesson from Bill's years. Now whether she could have combatted their lying asses, who knows. But I think she wouldn't have kow-towed as much.

:fistbump:

economic and civil rights policy. She is still a hawk though. That made her highly unpopular to the progressive activists.

were many of us that said it at the time that Obama made nice speeches but had no experience. Back in the day if you didn't support Obama on DU you were accused of being a racist.

That doesn't mean she would have been a good choice.

She's out kissing behinds of the allies today.

She would have become President if she tossed Bill Clinton over the cliff with the first White House divorce.

THAT would have shown guts!

:shivers:

There would not have been hand wringing over health care, that's for damn sure.

Blue Dogs to pass a real progressive bill. If anything she probably would have given up sooner instead of risking the political capital. Again, some of u are in a fantasy world.

I know the right wing loves that meme but it's ridiculous.

She got so desperate during the primaries that she allowed herself to be sold out on Faux News, she and her husband. She went on Rush Limbaugh's show. She made subtly racist remarks ("hard working WHITE people").

And yet, people are here acting as if she'd be different than Obama is in dealing with the Republicans. :rolling eyes:

She wouldn't have given up the public option.

and for that she can go scratch.

....and been over for two years now. Time to move on.

Objectively, with all the issues, Hillary would have done better. Obama's strengths are not applicable to the problems today. He would be better if he had run in 2016 after a career as a Senator.

but here on earth he wouldn't have been a better candidate unless you were really jonesing for president mccain and vp palin and a couple of really right wing scotus justices.

He probably would have passed less of his agenda than Obama did. He doesn't have a good track record of getting his bills made into law.

of the the Presidential bully pulpit to rally America in support of his goals. Obama could not do that because his true goals, being far to the right of the average American, wouldn't sell.

the bully pulpit is? I see this talking point that Obama didn't use it all the time. Yet, Obama rallied the public for his goals constantly in speeches to Congress, town halls, endless TV interviews. That's the bully pulpit. He did use it.
Maybe what you're saying is that you think he should have shouted and pounded his first more during those speeches like Dennis does?

Despite my unhappiness with much of what is happening, warmongering is never the answer

Too much to list. Sniper fire is on the top though.

If someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence.

for the 60 billionth time this sentiment has been posted. Hillary would not have done much differently.

I think from being dumped on while Bill was president and they shut his health-care down then,
she might have stood up against the Republicans a bit more with any legislation while Obama still
thinks he can play nice with them and accomplish something, even when they keep telling him no ?

McCain would not have been as desperate for a "Hail Mary" pass in nominating the grifter from Alaska had Hillary been our nominee and may have nominated a VP candidate that actually helped him win votes instead of exposing himself as an out of touch elitist willing to comprimise his principles, and endanger America, in a desperate attempt to secure a political victory.

and then triple it for different reasons....I know Obama gets a lot of hate because he is half black, but I had bumper sticker on my car for Obama and my republican boss came in and said to me two 1/2 years ago back when clinton was still running "the Clintons, they killed people!!"

they actually believe that, and nothing is going to change their mind. at the time I didn't even know what they were talking about and read about it online.

So NO I don't think she would do any better, I think they would have done the same NO NO NO NO they have done to him and I think she instead of trying to be so nice to repubs like him would have been defensive about her and Bill's past.......

We made4 the right choice.

a lot faster.

:headbang:
rocktivity

The only liberal sounding one was Obama. He has shown rare backbone when blasting his base...otherwise not so much.

HRC would have given away the store while she looked like she was fighting on our behalf.

The fact is that there was NO option to pass legislation alone. We needed at least minimal republican support - other than for about 4 months. In addition, the idea that Hillary is tough is mostly myth - for years, we heard only the Clintons can fight back. In fact, the first time the "inevitable" was hit - at the debate where her opinion on the Spritzer Immigration proposal was asked, she was not good at all. First, she went to Wellsley and spoke of it being the guys against the girl - when it was really the normal challenge to the front runner. Then Bill Clinton called it swiftboating.

Hillary became very brittle whenever challenged - and this seems to be her personality. It was true when she was First Lady, when she ran for President and in at least two instances, as SoS - where she replied with anger, when she shouldn't. Not to mention - she was more hawkish and people here would have been even angrier at her.


Is this the followup to the idiotic Edwards question? Our President is Obama and this is a point where he likely needs us to have his back more than usual.

Amazing! And maybe I'm too old, but I remember back then the Clintons got a lot of fire and flack from us progressives because they were spineless against the Republicans. This ultimately led to losing Congress, even though the economy began to turn around. The Republicans played from the same handbook. They all voted against the stimulus bill, then ran on Hillary's failed health care law and WON!!

There is absolutely no evidence that would suggest that the Clintons would have been any better. Bill Clinton had to fight off charges of being a "waffler" and a Republican appeaser.

Now, all of the sudden, the right wing loves the Clintons. Why? Because they want to sow the seeds of division within the Democratic Party. They think that if they heap praise onto Hillary, it'll bring back the bitter days of the Democratic primaries.

This thread is falling for the right wing plan to divide the party. I fell for it in this thread, but it is fun to debate. I do, however, think that it's ultimately a useless argument.

I also agree with you on the right wing's motivation. The fact is that if some of the right wing stories had any connection to reality, and Obama said that he was not running in 2012 and endorsed Clinton, it would be a nanosecond before the right remembered the depth of their hatred.

I admit that I fell for it too - and for the even sillier thread that suggested that if Edwards had not been unfaithful, he would have been better.

In fact, it took me a long time before I finally came around to Obama. I could not support Hillary on any level, but I was still waffling between Edwards and Obama. When Edwards finally dropped out, I was left with Obama. Contrary to what even many here on DU beleive, I was not an Obamabot. I knew from having studied his legislative record in Illinois and the U.S. Senate, he was no liberal. Even though he said that he did not support the Iraq war, he was unclear on many of his policy stances. And to be fair, Hillary wiped the floor with him during most of the debates. She simply is a master at debating, despite her lies and scorched earth approach. At any rate, I ended up moving to Obama, realizing fully that I was supporting yet another corporatist, but believing that since he didn't align himself with the Democratic Leadership Council, he would be a better advocate for working families and not for corporations.

Most Americans--even many DUers--do not realize that we received a tax cut from the stimulus. And yes, the stimulus package should have been much, much larger. Obama admits that now.

The problem that I have with Obama, however, is the SAME problem that I had with Bill Clinton: TRIANGULATION!! So Begala and Carville can talk all they want. The bottom line is that Bill Clinton was the Republicans best friend. (Even today, the Clintons remain close to Barbara and Pappy Bush, as well as John McCain.) To suggest that they'd be any different than what Obama is now is...well...just a disregard of history.

I came at 2008 from a very different perspective than most here. After 2004, I found DU, which I had heard of in 2004, but far preferred the Kerry blog. I was stunned at the anger towards Kerry - not understanding the history of DU. I found the Kerry group and posted for the first time after a few months. (initially I was both too shy and too reserved to post much anywhere - something that radically changed.) Getting to know many of the group personally from various trips we made to see the senator speak, I also learned far more about 2004 as I met some people who were volunteers on the Kerry blog.

There was no question who I wanted in 2008 - John Kerry. After he opted not to run, I looked at the other candidates.

Given the weird lack of support by Clinton allies in 2004 and the completely selfish publishing of Bill Clinton's book - with a long book tour in July 2004 - when we really did not need to relive the Monica saga and finding the reason was "because I could" and Clinton's berating those lefties questioning Bush's handling of the war (which was precisely what our nominee was doing.), there was no way I wanted them rewarded with Hillary getting the Presidency. Added to that, there was Hillary calling Kerry "inappropriate" because he skipped a word in a joke. This was accepting the RW smear that Kerry said something negative about the troops. The troops, that he actually had worked for getting better rights and benefits as veterans since 1970 (before he protested the war.) This moved me from not liking the Clintons to detesting both. (This was especially obnoxious as it was Kerry who defended Clinton in 1992 after he moved from one lie to another on how he was not drafted. Something which Kerry had the credit to do - and which upset some vets who respected him. - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5197294 Kerry's heartfelt eloquent speech is worth reading)

I ruled out Edwards emotionally because of the lies he told about 2004 - and the gratuitous snipes Elizabeth made in her book and interviews to describe Teresa in negative terms and the Kerrys as elite, unlike the regular folks Edwards. (They had been millionaires since at least their early 30s - nowhere near as rich as Teresa though, but far richer than Kerry until he married Teresa.) Intellectually, I ruled him out because he had already reinvented himself twice - from his Senate record to his run in 2004, where he was one of the more conservative Democrats to the liberal 2008 Edwards. I also couldn't buy getting $500,000 for 2 to 3 days work a month for a Hedge Fund, doing whatever he thought useful as "learning about poverty" I also took some clue from Kerry saying nice things about Obama, Dodd, Biden, and Clinton when asked - and never bringing up Edwards. (I admired the Kerrys keeping their silence.)

I eliminated Richardson because of his hanky panky with the 2004 NM vote - where a few Native American reservations registered O votes for Kerry - and very few for Bush. They did vote for all other positions. At least one of them were visited by Ted Kennedy (who they loved) and Kerry's daughter, Vanessa. What was reported was that some state wide determining of Democratic delegates to the state convention was based on how many Democratic Presidential votes were cast in 2004. Kerry was close to Bush, but lost NM. Although it is true that Kerry would still have lost had Native American votes been counted, the fact that Richardson demaned a huge amount of money for a recount - then quickly cleaned the machines made him unacceptable - and that he ran partially on ending election fraud was sheer chutzpah.

I watched both Dodd and Biden on the talk shows - desperately wanting to be impressed. Dodd had a good liberal record (family leave etc and the mortgage stuff was not out yet), but although I really wanted to be impressed - I wasn't. I was unimpressed by Biden's way of chairing the SFRC, but thought he was ok on the talk shows. I knew the many accomplishments he had, but I also remembered how bad he was as a Kerry surrogate (even though it was clear he was close to Kerry - his problem was that he would always speak of himself) I have been very pleasantly surprised with him as VP.

So, I was left with Obama and possibly Biden, with the reservations stated. Biden never picked up any traction. The choice became Clinton/Edwards/Obama - I picked Obama by sheer process of elimination. I was impressed with his convention speech. I also saw that compared to Clinton, he was somewhat to the left.

There were two things that made me not that excited. One, he voted against Kerry/Feingold - then 6 months later adopted a position that was essentially K/F except with a 16 month instead of 12 month timeline - he further shifted it in office. I suspected that he voted out of expediency with the party leadership and some of what he said bought into the lies about what Kerry actually proposed. The other thing - which is very little remembered - is that when Kerry and Kennedy led the filbuster against Alito - and Kerry, in particular was ridiculed and trashed by Democrats as well as Republicans, Obama on a talk show the week was not positive about filibustering. (He and Clinton did ultimately vote for the filibuster, but had they and others, like Schumer who now says HE should have led a filibuster, did some early heavy lifting - instead of talking against it - who knows if it would have gained momentum. )

In the campaign, he was very vague on many things - and I suspect that over 2008, once he had Kerry as a surrogate, I thought his positions more liberal than they were. I suspect that it was because I saw him as closer to Kerry than he really was. MY fault not his.

How is it that people look for more in a simple question than what it was meant to be ? I see replies about primaries, right and left, yada, yada.
I know it's difficult in any thread to stay on subject but all this comes down to is I feel as a woman of her stature, (and I didn't vote for her
or Bill) she would have had more chaps to stand up to the other side than Obama with his heart-bent bipartisan hope that makes him look feeble
against the republicans. I don't think she would have stood for that. On the other hand, I feel D or R, they are all just playing us for fools.

So you think she MIGHT have done things differently.

But she isn't President, so we'll never know. There isn't a do-over here.

I don't need to look for anything or read anything into the question. I see no point in asking it when it has no impact on reality. To me, it just gins up more negativity. People who never wanted Obama in the WH get to sound off on it yet again. Why would you want to foster that atmosphere?

I was purely asking a simple question that was brought up one day. If it was worded wrong or I didn't ask it properly than I can only say it wasn't meant to cause controversy or cause it to go off on tangents.
I live in the present as do most I hope, but I am a tad disappointed that assumptions would be made and name calling, such as "loser" in one instance on a site I thought was accepting and respectful to all.
I'll try to be more clear next time.

Why do people who propose this question always forget that?

On this board the Clintons are mostly persona non grata. Many of them would vote for a rock before they would vote for Hillary. The responses are par for the course.

:shrug:

:eyes:

Sid

Hilary tried her best to reform health care but the senate and congress were controlled by the Republicans.

When Hilary ran with Obama, either one I would be happy with. Obama won and we do not dare criticise him on here. Having said that, Hilary lied and she paid the price for her dishonesty. Both are the same, the DLCers!

tried to get her health care reform package through. She lost. The Republicans ran on her failed attempt and won Congress in 1994.

There's nothing different here. Obama is the president. The Democrats controll both houses of Congerss. His biggest obstacle has been the Blue Dog Democrats joining with Republicans to water down legislation.

The same happened to Bill Clinton. Yes, the Republicans were an issue. But it was the Blue Dog Democrats who made life worse for him.

On that alone, I don't think it would have made a difference had Hillary won. The Democratic Party's biggest obstacle are the Blue Dog Democrats, and thankfully many of them lost their seats in the House.

Arnie Duncan would not be in Washington destroying our educational system. We would have gotten a better health care bill. The list is endless.

Why the Hillary smears now?

We would have had NO healthcare bill, and would like as not have been at war with Iran.
If you think Hillary, who voted FOR the war, and FOR the "no credit card company left behind" bankruptcy bill, would have been ANY better for the left, then you do not live on Earth.

I leaned towards Obama over Clinton only because I thought he was more electable.

Kucinich was my first choice; I don't always agree with him, but I think his values were the closest to my own values.

....that those who voted for Obama during the primaries, which I was not one of them, will never admit HRC would have been better no matter the beating he is taking from his own supporters at the moment. Those who voted for HRC during the primaries are still convinced that she would have brought a gun to the fight instead of a fig leaf. I still believe that, but Obama is our president, and HRC has stood by him to her credit. Anyone who actually believes HRC would not have been a juggernaut through the pathetic Repug party are those who are still walking under the ocean, holding their hands high like footsteps trying to convince people that Obama can walk on water. Obama is our president, but if HRC decides to throw her hat into the ring, I'll be there with my vote. If Obama succedes in another nomination, I'll be there with my vote. Anyone who thinks any alternative on the right might be better should get a brain scan and have that corrected immediately. Thanks.
quickesst

and the world supporting him, Hilary, not so much!

But some people on here feel that if you criticise President Obama, you hate him, and that is not true. Hilary has the same agenda and she would not have got so many policies passed!

no fucking WAY

disappointed in this current President who had all the political gains but squandered it on his bipartisan bullshit!

Then we become pariahs for noticing his falls to work with Republicans! Shit, give me a break, work with the people who elected you and that hope and change thingy that we believed in. Most of us are disappointed!

She actively blocked union from forming it Walmart, enough said

Discussions on phony issues such as "death panels" would have never been brought up.

were slightly shorter at the time. As far racial healing though it looks murky now but, it's happening and that is why he become President and should remain so for 2 terms. Anything else is a step back wards and REGRESSIVE!! All other issues are secondary to making that healing that is occurring.

People are way too caught up in these talking points about Obama working with Republicans. Yes, he rhetorically reached out to them. But, he still passed an impressive agenda and fought hard for what he didn't get. Do you want someone who gets shit done or do you want someone who puts on a show about how much they hate Republicans?

If you wanted a President who would have started out proposing more centrist legislation then Hillary was the right choice.

In a hypothetical you'd be a fool to let go of a strong opinion two years removed, with zero chance to be proven wrong.

Slam dunk legislation and a nicer looking White House Christmas tree. That lady had it all.

Well, she won the vast majority of the debates. Clever how that was discounted, when we are so smug at debate outcomes D over R.

I had an Obama supporter insist he won "a few of them." Not bad. Among a sample of what, double dozen?

Economy was concern A-Z. Inevitable. I wanted to roach squash every mention of a different issue. I handicapped a Clinton as heavy favorite over an Obama, or anyone else, in terms of economic foresight. Might not have been correct, might have been Roy Riegels wrong. Maybe we're at 43% unemployment under Hillary and everyone is folding, including Arby's where I ate today. But Hillary over Obama was chalk in the most vital category and she also carried more natural strength in key states like Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, places re-election will be decided. Either would have cruised in 2008.

I also like Manning over Leaf.

when Republicans have no intentions
of working with him? :think:

the only difference is she has a set of balls. On policy, they're nearly identical. Would she have stopped the wars? She was aligned with the generals on the Afghanistan escalation. I don't see anything she's done on foreign policy to make the world better. She's a hawk and still believes in the war on terror. On HCR, she was for mandates. Would she have brought back the jobs? OTOH she wouldn't have ripped unions and teachers (it took a special idiot to do that) and I doubt she would have put SS into play.

So if there was a do over and she was the only alternative, I'd give her a try. We couldn't be worse off.

My dog would have been a better choice.

.

She's another warmongering corporatist, so no, things wouldn't be better under her leadership.

I can't imagine one thing she would have done differently. Hell, she wouldn't have even pushed for the pittance of health care "reform" that Obama got.

Pfft. They are all part of the corporate owned US of A.

administration!

Which I suspect is the case for a lot of the posters of this type of post!

A Democrat was going into the White House and it was going to be historic (which is why the Democratic Primaries were so insane). First black person, first female. Simple as that.

Any Democratic nominee would have won in 2008. The Republicans were not going to win the WH after Bush, the wars and the economic collapse that occurred that September. Furthermore, she may have won by an even bigger margin as exit polls showed that some who voted for McCain would have voted for Hillary instead if she had been the nominee. Either way, in 2008 a Democrat was sured to win.

Have you not taken notice of all his accomplishments?

Un-rec

the difference would be that we wouldn't have people constantly telling us that Hillary is really a progressive. It would be too obviously ridiculous to claim that, just like it is with Obama, but we still hear it all the time.

More jobs would have been created and less Dem seats lost.

to fix the economy.

Bill sure knew how to get NAFTA and DOMA/DADT done.

And we'd be on a fast track to "obliterating" Iran for those who just can't abide by the President "continuing" Bush's wars.

They sure got Healthcare down pat when they took their run at it, didn't they?

If you can't persuade the electorate to go with your so-called "experience" and "know-how" despite all your name recognition, something's up.

And the people who might have been seeking a "messiah" in Obama are not the ones you might think, in my opinion. They're the ones crying for a primary challenger so they can hear what they want to hear from their own Progressive "savior".

;-)

And for the reasons above, I question how much Clintonian centrist magic would or could be woven to clean it all up in this same timeframe by which Obama is being judged.

I daresay Clinton didn't inherit quite the level of structural ugliness that Obama did.

Had they summoned the know-how and experience to win a primary, It would've been the right thing for Hillary to do to right her husband's screw-ups with NAFTA, DOMA and DADT, but she didn't seem too keen on dealing with NAFTA from what I gleaned during the primaries. How many jobs have we LOST because of that?

Continue on with woulda/shoulda/coulda. It doesn't make things happen.

that Obama wasn't equal to the task.They're the one's who benefit most from discussions on "what might have been"?

In all seriousness, I truly hope Obama can turn it around but I've seen nothing recently to indicate that he can.

Not to mention, we got someone who inspired many people, including many around the world. We are now the most respected country in the world thanks to Obama.

The "MOST" respected?

The recent Wikipedia flap has gotta have some effect on the numbers also.

:rofl:

I'm sorry, but this is beyond funny. We must live in parallel worlds.

:eyes:

I live in a world where Obama is president and you live in a world where Hillary should've been president and you can't seem to get beyond that thought. I provided a link in my post above where I answered "yes" in the subject line. Enjoy. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

no,no,no,no,no,no...

It feels like Obama just does not "get it". I feel Clinton would have been a more powerful leader on issues of note. Obama seems to capitulate now more than ever.

His message from the election seems to be that he must now surrender to Repukers who want to destroy him. I don't think Clinton would surrender so easily.

Hillary was an old pro, knew the game, and she was virtually a co-president. The learning curve with her would have been so much shorter. Maybe what we are seeing now that baffle us about Obama, his motives and direction is all a product of his inexperience. More years on the Senate, or having being Vice-President might have done a world of good to him.

But he wanted to run before learning to walk. And so many were blinded by his youth, looks, coolness and pretty speeches.

But it is too late now. Too late

1 - She is a hawk. I figured Obama would be better on those issues. Oops.

2 - Her attempt at health care (sic) reform was a flop, in large part because it was a big mess of a proposal with all sorts of things stuffed in there to satisfy the insurance companies. I figured Obama would do a better job on that. Oops.

Things I did like about Hillary:

1 - She knew about the right wing hate machine and would kick it right back in their faces.

2 - She was not green, knew the game and how it is played at every level.

Well I'm still not sure I would have liked her better, but at least I would have had a better idea of what we were going to get.

not perfect either but more backbone

has been, although when you're actually there as POTUS you probably have to acquiesce a lot more than you'd like. But still, I think she wouldn't have gone this long without kicking some Republican ass.

low-count poster dangles the bait, and the fish practically JUMP in his boat...

:eyes:

I voted for her for Senator twice, and was prepared to work for her election as president.

I hope she becomes president in 2012 or 2016.

I regret voting for Mr. Obama,and I certainly won't do so again.

mark