Would Hillary have made a better president?

[primavera]

Okay, so this is kind of a pointless line of thought, I know, but I often wonder whether Hillary would have been a better choice than Obama. At the time, I reasoned that Hillary was a DLC founding member, she was in bed with just about every big corporation; while Obama was an unknown quantity, at least there was a chance of him being progressive, whereas Hillary seemed to have a well established track record of fealty to corporations. Given what a spectacular disappointment Obama has been, though, preemptively capitulating time and time and time again to the looney tunes right, I can't help but wonder whether those of us who supported Obama made a catastrophic error. What do other DUers think? If Hillary had won, would things be any better?

[CakeGrrl]

1. You should have quit after your first sentence.

[primavera]

3. You never have second thoughts about your past decisions?

I envy you your confidence.

[movonne]

16. I have a second thoughts but hillery is not one of them..I think

both hillery and obama are both being run by the same gang of DLCers..it was evident when one of obama first picks was rahm..

[Beacool]

121. Her name is Hillary with an "a", not an "e".

;)

[ronnykmarshall]

145. I Liza w/ a z.

I had to drop in and see how the storm was going.

[CakeGrrl]

33. Not about this. I'm not a fan of useless daydreaming on this topic.

It serves no useful purpose when people should think about the damage the GOP is doing and is trying to do. This is a distraction.

[primavera]

37. Well, that was part of my question

I.e., are there any meaningful lessons to be learned from our past decisions and the reasoning that led us to make those choices at the time? Sounds like I can put you down as a definite "No" to that question. Fair enough, thank you for your input.

[Vanje]

83. I am in total agreement with Cakegrrl on this one!

Thats rare. Like some kind of total eclipse or something.
Maybe we should buy lottery tickets or something.

[primavera]

92. Yes, so you keep saying over and over

I got it the first time, you can stop now.

[Vanje]

94. No. REally

Its just this once.
Cakegrrl will no doubt agree with me on this as well.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

149. Well said. The last thing we need is "Bush lite" as President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Things Would Be Essentially The Same

We are an empire in decline.

[primavera]

5. I'm very afraid that you're right

It seems like our institutions constrain what any individual can do, no matter how talented. Unfortunately, that conclusion leaves so very little room for hope. Sigh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Voted For HRC In The Primaries But I'm Glad She Lost

Because this economy would such regardless of who was living in the White House and she would have got the blame.

[marmar]

4. Dios mio.....Will this sh*t never end?

nt

[GoCubsGo]

6. +1

n/t

[chrisa]

79. Nope

:rofl:

[Skittles]

125. no, we are fucking STUCK with him

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[OHdem10]

7. I thought the meme was Vote for Obama because HRC would be

DLC.

Obama would be different. DLC Third Way Rules.
Does it matter who the candidate is??

[Supersedeas]

141. hindsight

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Absolutely not. She is even having trouble with, and getting bored with her present position.

Also, Clinton promoted a huge number of right wing ideas, including free trade out the wazoo, and guess who would be her #1 advisor?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. If You Could Make A Mythical Time Machine To Go Back To The 90s

I'd bet the people who wouldn't get on couldn't even fill a telephone booth.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. You're right. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Said I Up Thread The Economy Would Suck Regardless Of Who Was In The White House

I'm kind of afraid and disappointed that historians will look back at the 90's as the last period when Americans enjoyed relative peace and prosperity.

By every metric, cost of living, unemployment, the number of people living below the poverty line, America was in much, much, much, much... better condition.

I feel bad that Bartack Obama inherited this mess. He inherited the worst economy in U.S. history, save F.D.R.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. I'd say that Raygun was the beginning of the end.

It was the beginning of the end, not because Repukes liked him, but because Democrats LIKED the F asshole. Democrats got on the bandwagon of right wing and extreme capitalistic ideas. It hasn't stopped since.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Agree With Deng Xiaoping

"I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat as long as it catches mice."

Things were working really good in the 90s.

Are you down in South Florida?

I was living in Fort Lauderdale. I never saw so many homeless people in my life.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. I moved from South Florida to North Florida to bring my parents closer to my sister

(My sister lives in N. Florida).

Up here, it's pure destitution.

We turned this country into shit by allowing the Repugnicans to destroy our country, and I BLAME CHURCHES IN THIS COUNTRY FOR DOING THIS.

[Armstead]

20. I think historians will look at the 1990's as setting up this mess

A bipartisan consensus of Centrist Democrats and GOP Corporatists in the 90's (led by Bill C.) pushed through policies and "messages" that knocked the slats out from under America as a productive economy with a large middle class and true competitive free enterprise economy.

It took Bush to finish it off, but everything we are stuck with can be traced to the avoidance and destructive policies and behavior of the 90's.

The "great economy" was just the amphetamine rush of an economic narcotic stimulant that pushed the system into frenzied overdrive before the inevitable crash.

Problem now is instead of actually fixing the problems we are repeating the same shit in a worse economic situation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Incomes For All Economic Groups Had Risen During The Clinton Administration

Unemployment and poverty levels were at lows that I would bet my liver none of us reading this post will ever see again.

[Armstead]

28. Income gaps were widening and....

the basis of those jobs was being destroyed even as they were being created.

As I said it was a destructive and artificial amphetamine rush that laid the seeds of its own destruction. The illusions and bubbles of the 90's for example is one reason individuals and the economy are so weighted down with debt today.

[golfguru]

86. I found better jobs during Clinton Admin

than at any other time. And country was largely at peace.

[Beacool]

122. She's not having trouble with her current position.

She's mostly receiving positive reviews across the board and has been the most popular politician in the country for some time now.

;-)

[Auntie Bush]

143. Agreed 1000%

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. How is this not a "rehash" of the primaries, which used to be a rule violation?

Besides, you don't speak for me, nor do you speak for 83% of us.

[primavera]

19. You guys are a little touchy, aren't you?

I don't recall ever saying that I spoke for you, although I do find it interesting that you seem to feel comfortable presuming to speak for "83% of us."

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. Take it up with Gallup. Not every progressive inhabits the negative leftosphere.

Newsflash: DU is not the real world. ;)

August 1, 2011

Obama Weekly Approval at 42%; Liberal Support Remains High
Liberal Democrats give Obama 83% approval rating

"Obama's support among Americans who identify themselves as both liberal and Democratic was 83% last week, little changed from previous weeks and slightly higher relative to Obama's overall approval rating than it has been historically".


http://www.gallup.com/poll/148760/obama-weekly-approval...

[primavera]

39. Maybe someone should

My inbox is flooded with emails from progressive groups like MoveOn, PDA, CAP, BoldProgressives, PFAW, etc., etc., every single one of which is filled with outrage over the compromises Obama has been willing to make. Maybe they're just a very vocal minority, but it sure seems like there are an awful lot of people who are disappointed with Obama. :shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. "Vocal Minority" who have overreached. Many of us unsubscribed long ago,

myself included. It's possible they will all soon go the way of Cindy Sheehan & Joe the Plumber, and that's just sad. Political junkies and self described "activists" move from one site to another, but most people, Dems especially don't know, and don't give a shit who or what MoveOn, PDA, CAP, etc. etc. etc. even are.

I fear that all those sites, including this one, will go the way of the aardvark if Obama loses in 2012. The Obama haters will have no further use for them, because Obama will have been defeated, and their work will be done. The Obama supporters will lay blame squarely at the feet of the leftosphere, much like we did with Ralph Nader after Gore's loss. It's a risky business for them, but they do run the risk of becoming completely irrelevant, not to mention bankrupt. Despite their best efforts, as evidenced by the poll I cited, they can't seem to move the needle with Dems who truly like and approve of this president.

Ask yourself, of the more than 60 million people who voted for this president, how many visit sites like this, or even know they exist? I think that'll put things into their proper perspective. ;)

:edited for missing word

[primavera]

50. Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line?

One hears so often that progressives are overreaching in their expectations, that they don't live in the "real world," and so on. Could be, certainly the "real world" in this country is not representing progressive values very much these days. So what is the "responsible" response? To just go with the flow because that's just how it is in the "real world"? At what point do you decide that you aren't comfortable endorsing what the "real world" practices? What if we practiced torture? Oh, wait, bad example... we already do that. Okay, how about if we set up concentrations camps and detained people indefinitely without trial! Oh, shit, nope, we're doing that one too. Umm, okay, how about suppressing unions? Denying health care? Geez, I'm having a tough time here thinking of scenarios that one would expect to outrage a Democrat that we aren't already doing, yet my fellow Dems keep telling me that I need to go along with it and follow the leader for the sake of unity. But surely, there must be something that is too heinous and egregious for even "real world" Dems to endure. Wait, I've got it! Government wants to limit your access to guns, gas guzzlers, and energy inefficient appliances! What would you do then?

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. "Go along to get along"? You'll never hear that from me. But you also

won't hear me ripping this president to shreds publicly, because I know the alternative is too scary for words. If you haven't recognized that since the midterms, then I don't know what to tell you.

I can tell you this, America is not going to elect a Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich. There just aren't enough of us willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In an ideal world, either of those guys might make a decent CIC, but both are hyperpartisan ideologues which doesn't bode well for modern day politics. I don't want the left's version of the Tea Party, we've seen how harmful that can be.

"Disillusioned" folks who stayed home last Nov are now regretting that choice. And the professional left, who spent the president's first two years telling us how awful he was, now expect him to work miracles with Tea Party crazies? Afterall, they were elected to oppose everything Obama. The PL should have been instructing their followers to draft more progressive legislators to run for office. Instead, some even told their followers not to bother...."to send a message". How crazy is that? That may have crippled Obama politically, and made for more juicy internet chatter for the PL, but it also crippled the nation in every way imaginable. As a result, we have unmitigated union busting; States are firing government workers left & right; redrawing districts to oust progressive legislators, thereby giving the GOP a decade's political advantage; new voter laws that will make it much more difficult for traditionally Democratic voters to exercise that right.

So you stick by your rigid ideology & unflinching "principles". In the end, it may be all you have left. :hi:

[primavera]

56. Remember the White Rose?

They are revered in history because they resisted, despite the odds against them. Resistance isn't meaningless. It records for posterity, if nothing else, that there were some people who knew the difference between right and wrong and had the courage to stand up for the principles you mock.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. "mock"? Is that how you interpreted my statement? To each his own.

I take it you also admire the teabaggers, afterall they stick by their principles too. This discussion started out with me objecting to your rehashing of the primaries. I registered that objection. As another poster pointed out, only PUMA's, trolls, and other shit stirrers are still posing this question at this late date. Have a great day. :hi:

[primavera]

62. Actually, to some extent, I do

I think the teabaggers are misguided and mistaken, but I admire their passion.

I still don't see how trying to decide whether past choices sheds light on upcoming choices constitutes "rehashing the primaries," but, as you say, to each his own. As I replied to the other poster, I'm neither PUMA nor troll, so your assertion that only such persons reflect upon past primary decisions as a new primary season approaches is clearly incorrect. Nonetheless, you have a good day too.

[shellgame26]

118. AMEN

I actually used to think progressives in general were a lot smarter and could figure things out. I now realize that emotional and illogical thinking is not exclusive to the right.
Take for instance this debt ceiling fiasco. Boehner came out and said he got 98% of what he wanted. But when you closely you realize he's just saying that to save face. The t-party repubs WANTED TO SEE A COLLAPSE and they didn't get it. They wanted to "reform entitlement" and it didn't happen. And as far as revenues go, the Bush tax cuts are due to expire 2013. And with the supercommittee, if they can't come with an agreement an automatic trigger is pulled that slashes defence. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT PROGRESSIVES WANTED. It is obvious the president check mated them.

[JNinWB]

156. Excellent summary

When the FundyRepublicans encounter an obstacle, they regroup and re-double their efforts to prevail; when the PLs encounters a setback, they whine, pick up their marbles and go home.

No wonder the TP is cleaning our clocks. They will NEVER give up, because Jesus is on their side.

[jefferson_dem]

14. OFFS.

Let it go.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Different, although not necessarily "better".

Would Hillary have yielded to the voices of the progressives?
Would Hillary have refused money donated by Wall Street?
Would Hillary have been defiant of the DLC and its wishes?
Would Hillary have privately told John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to shove it, that they could instigate a default and nothing would happen to her?
Would Hillary have persuaded any republicans to vote for her policies? Or at least persuaded some democrats not to vote for republican policies?

[susanr516]

41. I think the only difference

would have been that Hillary was in favor of bringing back the HOLC (Home Owners Loan Corp,) used by FDR to directly assist home owners who found themselves underwater with their mortgages. I was in favor of that at the time, and I think it would have helped mitigate a lot of later repossessions. Of course, we'll never know.

[boxman15]

18. It's impossible to say.

I voted no because I always thought Barack Obama was a more progressive and more rational leader than Hillary Clinton (not that I dislike her, necessarily). I still feel that way, but it's impossible to know what it would be like under President Hillary.

[primavera]

23. Yeah, you're probably right

I guess I'm just struggling to decide whether there are any lessons that can be learned from the past - you know, the whole "those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" thing? Apparently, many here find that offensive for some reason, I'm honestly not sure why.

[boxman15]

27. Neither do I.

Nothing wrong with what you asked. It's a fair question.

[DURHAM D]

21. I supported Hillary in the primary but good grief -

everyone should just move on and stop this useless speculation. Its divisive.

Part of the moving on must include that the Obama supporters stop using every opportunity (and non-opportunity because for some its an obsession) to bash both Clintons as cover for their disappointment in Obama. It opens old wounds and its very divisive.

We need every vote to win re-election.

[primavera]

29. Okay, so when IS it acceptable to express differing viewpoints?

I understand that there is a time and place for unity. I do believe though that, if there is not a time and place for deliberation over the decisions we've made, assessment of the impact (if any) they've made, and thoughtful evaluation of whether or not we wish to continue to endorse those past decisions, then we do not live in a democracy anymore.

[DURHAM D]

31. I don't believe we any longer have a democracy but

rehashing the last primary doesn't address that problem.

This is as effective as a two year old and a one year old trying to fix what is wrong with Mom and Dad and their grandparents.

[primavera]

34. Fair enough

So upon what do you propose to base your future voting behavior, if an assessment of what has transpired before has no meaningful lessons to offer?

[DURHAM D]

52. I will decide as I always have.

I will base my decision on policy, not personality.

Unfortunately, many don't know the difference or even if they do know that difference it is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[primavera]

128. So, you're comparing...

... discussion of the traits of different Democrats serving in public office to revision of established historical fact? That's an interesting hypothesis you have there, I must say.

[treestar]

26. Clearly you did this to repeat the capitulating and caving crap

no, Hillary would have dealt with the same thing.

The Presidency's power does not increase or decrease depending on the personality of the person elected.

Looking for a savior in a President is pathetic. If only it were all powerful! Then if your guy gets elected, everything just happens with no effort on our part.

[primavera]

30. Ummm... what?

You seem to know rather more about my motivations than I do.

As for the power of the presidency, I can say only that I disagree. If the personality of the president had no impact upon the power exercised by the office, then there would be no such thing as a great president; all presidents would perform equally, shaped by their office rather than using their personality to shape their office, and there would be no point in voting for one candidate over any other candidate, because they would all be equally constrained by their office. That's obviously an absurd supposition.

[treestar]

43. Hopefully the law does constrain their actions

It is meant to.

As to performing equally there is no real fair way to judge that because there are so many variables. Make up of two to four Congresses (and their personalities, if you insist); makeup of the Court, what happens (911 or a boom or a depression).

This kind of thing is just looking for the right charismatic personality and thinking it would make some huge difference. A cult of personality. Oh if only Obama had a different personality. No, in the long run, whoever gets themselves elected will have a personality that is pretty charismatic. Has to be these days.

Again this is giving in to Republican manipulation. They want you to think like this. Suppose the R candidate has this great personality?

We could as easily say Obama had this great leadership to save us from default under a Republican House. But negative people always have more energy.

[Dad Infinitum]

32. Doubtful she would have gone down the 'compromise' track

This is purely Obama territory.

[treestar]

45. Doubtful she would have allowed us to default

And if Obama had done that, you'd be complaining he got nothing done.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[primavera]

38. Then how do you explain my asking it...

... when I am neither PUMA nor troll?

[mkultra]

124. if the shoe fits

[polichick]

40. Which corporate tool would be better? Who cares - time to toss all their sorry asses overboard...

...or go down with the Democratic ship.

[primavera]

42. Lol! Now there's true eloquence!

:applause:

[primavera]

44. Thank you all for your feedback!

Sorry if I distressed anyone with my question.

[bigwillq]

46. None of us know

We don't know how Gore would've really done, either. All speculation.

[rury]

47. NO!!!

only PUMAS would argue otherwise!

[slackmaster]

48. Anyone who answers Yes is a racist, anyone who answers No is a sexist

:nuke:

[rug]

51. No, she would have escalated the war in Aghanistan and bombed Libya, Yemen and Pakistan.

[Fire1]

53. NO! n/t

[JoePhilly]

55. They held almost the EXACT SAME positions ... this idea that

Obama was some sort of wild eyed liberal is silly.

What I find ironic is that during the elections the only people who saw Obama as liberal, were Fox News viewers. Fox portrayed him as the "most liberal" person to ever run for the Presidency.

Apparently there were lots of folks on the left who were watching Fox News back then and believed that framing.

[primavera]

57. That's true up to a point

And I don't criticize Obama for not being a liberal's dream come true. An idealist I may be, but I'm also enough of a realist to recognize that Kucunich wasn't ever going to win the presidency in this country and I was... well, maybe "happy" isn't quite the right word, but certainly ready, willing, and able to compromise. But he did make some fairly explicit campaign promises, such as shutting down Gitmo, remember that one? And I do think it's fair to criticize him where he's reversed himself and reneged on his promises. Campaign promises one takes with a grain of salt, to be sure, but they are, nonetheless, much of what goes into a voter's decision as to whether or not to vote for that candidate.

[JoePhilly]

60. Actually, he's governing almost exactly as he said he would.

If you listened.

As for GITMO, he tried to close it, and the Dems in congress won't take it up. They are all terrified of bringing the detainees into their home states. Or is your point that Obama never had any intention of trying to close GITMO. If you think that, then you missed the fight between the DOJ and the State of New York when we tried to move some detainees there for trial.

I listened to every promise, and I honestly don't get all worked up about the "broken promises" because I took civics, and I know that legislation has to pass the House and the Senate. And so every promise that every candidate makes (regardless of the ideology or party) is conditional on the make up of the Congress.

But regardless ... Obama and Hillary had the same basic positions across the board. And she'd have had pretty much the same congress. Its very unlikely that she would be doing much different.

If you are thinking that she would have been more like Kucunich, I don't see that.

[Enrique]

106. were you at DU during the primaries?

plenty of people saw the Obama vs. Hillary fight as between the DLC-slayer Obama and the DLCer Clinton. I agree with you thats a silly framing but it was far from limited to Fox News.

And the "most liberal" thing was from a stupid National Journal article, and it was often cited at DU in Obamas favor. By the way in 2004, John Kerry happened to win that distinction from that magazine. What a coincidence!

[LiberalFighter]

58. We will never know.

She might have done the same on some things. Better on other things and worse on others.

Regardless, she would had been better than any Republican. The question is to what degree.

[FrenchieCat]

61. I wonder if Obama couldn't be a better President if

we the people actually got off our ass and demonstrated against the Teaparty and the media, and supported him instead of getting pissed at everything he's done or said just because it wasn't exactly what we wanted?

Wish I could go back into time and see.

[primavera]

63. Hard to say

I've done a lot of protesting of wingnuts over the past couple years. Can't say I've noticed that it made much of a difference.

[blue_onyx]

67. He was elected to lead

He shouldn't need people to hold his hand in order for him to stand up for the principles he was elected on.

[AngkorWot]

64. lol, no.

She couldn't even run a decent campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

146. +

[blue_onyx]

65. The policies probably would be the same

I think Hillary, however, would be less concerned about being "bi-partisan." Why Obama is so concerned with playing nice with people who have no interest in working with him is beyond me.

[primavera]

66. May I ask another question?

First of all, let me thank everyone for their great feedback, I really appreciate it.

What I'm seeing on this thread is that the majority opinion amongst my enlightened fellow Dems seems to be that it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference who won the primary: we'd still have Gitmo, we'd still have torture, we'd still be responsible for the deaths of countless innocent civilians in distant countries, we wouldn't have universal healthcare, we'd still have weekly oil spills causing catastrophic environmental damage, we'd still be exacerbating global climate change, unions would continue to be undermined, the rich would continue to get richer, the poor would continue to get poorer, and no president could have improved upon that. Okay, could well be that's true and no one could have done any better than Obama has done under the circumstances, fair enough.

My question then is, as we approach a new election year and primary season, in what, if anything, do my fellow Dems place their hope? We're all out there, busting our butts trying to do our part, writing to our representatives, signing petitions, writing to our local newspapers, attending protests and demonstrations, voting, recycling, using more fuel efficient forms of transportation, boycotting irresponsible corporations, clearly we're trying to be responsible citizens. But it doesn't appear to be working: things are continuing to go from bad to worse. A tiny minority of teabagger wackos have successfully taken over Congress, despite being a tiny minority. Teabaggers have already moved onto their next hostage crisis - refusing to fund the FAA unless we attack the unions for Delta. Republican leaders are already talking about how their brinksmanship over the debt ceiling was so politically profitable, it should become the new template for their strategy every time we need to address the budget. Call me a pessimist, but I'm not seeing this improving anytime soon. If the majority view here is correct and no president can alter this state of affairs, then what are we going to do? Lose gracefully and go down with the ship? In other words, is there any hope, or do liberals simply need to emigrate to Europe now?

[primavera]

98. I so wish someone had responded to this

But I guess this is too volatile a topic to bear discussion. My bad.

[Union Scribe]

152. Volatile, yes, but also painful.

It's painful for me to say that I don't see any leader, an electable one as the 'pragmatic' 'liberals' say here, who is going to rock the boat enough to shake the corrupt maniacs out. They're the ones with the oars, too. It's hard to admit I think we're screwed for the foreseeable future. Hell, if I was speaking this I'd be whispering it.

[LaydeeBug]

68. This isn't cool...and you know it. nt

[primavera]

73. You all sure are quick to ascribe sinister motives to me

I really don't mean to be obtuse, but I honestly do not know why it's so uncool to attempt to assess our past primary choices as we enter into a new election year and primary season. Sorry, I guess I'm just incredibly dense or something, it sure seemed innocent enough to me at the time.

[LaydeeBug]

101. it dredges up a very contentious primary where we did not adequately peruse the issues

and if you "didn't mean anything by it" I apologize.

[marlakay]

69. Republicans hate the clintons as much or more

than Obama...medical anything no matter how weak wouldn't have passed....and most of the clinton people who have advised Obama about the war would have told her same thing so who knows?

[Vattel]

70. damn, why post this divisive crap?

[primavera]

74. Umm, perhaps so that we can address it now...

... and be united by the time November 2012 rolls around? Just a crazy thought...

[dionysus]

71. yay, todays version of this thread!

:woohoo:

[primavera]

75. Okay, I get it

Apparently this is a common thread in this forum. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I rarely browse this forum and stick mostly to LBN, so I wasn't aware that this thread had been so thoroughly addressed as to preclude any further discussion potential. Crucify me. Oh wait, you already did, nevermind.

[saras]

72. The main difference is that the DLC would be blaming sexism instead of racism..

...for opposition to approximately the same policies.

I think that would have been a much uglier battle, and worse for the country. Racism is simply inexcusable, and forcing right-wingers into owning it mostly harms them. Sexism, on the other hand, is quite popular in America these days, and is much easier to defend than racism.

[Balbus]

76. Would it be possible for her to do worse?

[backscatter712]

77. She was DLC - a member of the Koch-whore wing of the Democratic party.

She would have given even more ground.

[MrMickeysMom]

78. Oh, yeah, like THAT'S gonna have a point!

Pleeeze... Nothing can be good about "shoulda/coulda/woulda" chatter.

Let's face it, VERY, VERY, VERY few of the house and senate are NOT in bed with big business. She was just one of them.... and who the FUCK knows whether she'd realize what was more important to the planet after the events unfolding... One thing is for sure.... it's a man's world out there, and you'll not get a chance to see how a woman's world will be...

Unless you vote for Roseanne Barr, maybe, eh? :-)

[primavera]

80. So no lessons to be learned from the past, okay

Then how are you going to decide upon whom to support next year? How will you know whether to support a primary challenger? Remember, it's a clean slate, no history exists to learn from.

[MrMickeysMom]

84. No, there are plenty of lessons to be learned from the past...

For instance, getting behind a progressive for the Democratic ticket is just as hard NOW as it was THEN. The same DLCC is in place, and someone like a Howard Dean or Dennis Kuchinich has JUST as little support as a primary challenger in 2012 as they did in 2008. Does the "party" listen to us? No.... No, they do not.

We no more have influence over the money fueling candidates (in fact, LESS) now than in 2008. The SCOTUS has just about nailed shut an even playing field. WE need to strengthen unions and get 100% of the Democratic vote out.

But, the real lesson is what we also forgot in 1992 when Paul Tsongas ran... He was right. Now, ask yourself how are we going to demand campaign finance reform from the current Congress?

We'll never have a say unless we do that. They're pretty much all owned, and the progressive ones are not taken seriously, or die trying to be taken seriously.

[primavera]

91. Glad there are some things we agree upon

I was beginning to wonder.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. Would Ronald Reagan have been better as Rick in Casablanca than Bogart?

(Which you know, almost actually happened.) Or what if the Washington Senators had signed Fidel Castro as a pitcher? (Which also almost happened.)

That ship has sailed, in the end Hillary isn't President and won't be. Asking "but what if!" is nothing more than pointless wanking.

[Vanje]

87. +1

[Vanje]

82. Does'nt matter

Water over the bridge.

[Vanje]

85. Would Joe Biden be a more effective Vice President if he could fly?

If he had x-ray vision?
If he had been the Fifth Beatle?

[primavera]

90. You're going to have a chance to consider that next year

Although it sounds like you won't need to trouble yourself with any of that painful, potentially divisive thinking; you've already decided on your candidate, and that's great. It would be nice if you weren't so contemptuous of others who have doubts about your candidate, but apparently tolerance is in short supply on DU these days.

[Vanje]

93. Actually

WTF!??!

Who do you think "My candidate" is?
I do not think you know what you think you know.

[primavera]

95. Well, since you appear to have no interest...

... in discussing, or even allowing others to discuss, whether Obama was and/or remains the best choice for the Democratic Party, your conduct certainly supports a strong inference that you do not wish to see Obama challenged in any way.

[Vanje]

96. Wrong guess

Why dont you just say what you think instead of posting a bunch of "What if" and "Lets pretend".

[primavera]

97. Because, incredibly, I was foolish enough to seek constructive input

I wasn't looking to pontificate.

[Phx_Dem]

88. You're right. That was pointless.

[primavera]

89. So it would seem

Not sure why, but it's clearly not a topic many DUers feel the need to evaluate.

[demhistorian]

99. Hillary wasn't a founding member of the DLC

I know that isn't really relevant to you poll, but I'm a stickler for facts.

[primavera]

103. Quite right

Al From founded the DLC. My apologies, I spoke carelessly. I think you would agree, though, that she has been a DLC member for most of her political career, embraces the "New Democrat" philosophy of the DLC, regularly gives addresses/speeches at DLC functions, and has often been held up as a poster child for the DLC.

[karynnj]

126. She couldn't have been - she was not an elected official - but Bill was and she agreed

with that position.

[Fearless]

100. In the least she wouldn't have been condescending to progressives.

As for policy, I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not.

[craigmatic]

102. Maybe but it depends. On HCR she might've done more or dodged it completely.

She might've been bolder in terms of messaging and fighting the repub talking points but in terms of economic policy it would've been the same thing.

[primavera]

105. That's kind of what I've wondered as well

I frequently disagreed with HRC's pro-business policies, but, I have to hand it to her, she was never one to shy from the bully pulpit. She can be a hell of a messaging force. And I guess that's where I'm often disappointed with Obama. I don't fault him for not winning every round given the disaster that Bush left him with and the insane asylum that Congress has become since the Teabagger minority somehow managed to take it over. But his style of leadership is so understated and nonconfrontational, I often feel like he lets valuable opportunities go by to use the bully pulpit to inform and educate the public as to why they should not support lunatics like the Teabaggers.

This line of thought leads me to wonder: is it more important for a president to be savvy administrator, or an effective advocate and spokesperson? In other words, to what extent should the presidency be a PR position, focused on messaging?

[craigmatic]

110. Really a good president has to do both. Being a good administrator alone isn't enough.

Carter and the first bush were good administrators. They lost because they weren't good spokespeople for their party. Harry Truman said that the real job of the president was to be a good PR man and to cajole, threaten, and bribe people into doing what they were supposed to do anyway. He also understood the value of fighting when his back was against the wall. Obama and Clinton for their battle in 2008 were more alike than different which is why the campain devolved into idendity politics.

[joshcryer]

104. Only difference is she would not have been middle of the road, trying to cross the isle.

I think the 49 days we had the Senate and House together would've been epic, there would've been no "negotiating," no "bipartisanship."

[Retrograde]

107. Maybe, maybe not

The big advantage she would have had over Obama, IMHO, is that in a way she's dealt with the Neocons dirty tricks before and may not have been as tempted to try to deal with them as if they were rational human beings. They would have gone after her just as hard, but I think she's thicker-skinned (or has more scars) than Obama. As for actual policies, I don't know.

[primavera]

109. Interesting point

Hillary had more street fighting experience, that's probably right. And I think you're right that could make a big difference in today's political landscape. Clearly the teabagger scum play dirty; they follow no rules and wipe their asses with the rule book. That's a reality we should consider as we evaluate candidates in the years to come.

[Cali_Democrat]

108. We'll never know for sure

nt

[Skittles]

111. YES YES YES YES YES

Hillary would not have compromised with rabid repuke dogs the way Obama insists on doing

[Awsi Dooger]

112. Logically no, but I'll say yes

I supported Hillary and like her better, so why shouldn't I prove myself correct?

Even if no in substance, Hillary darn sure would have put many a memorable one liner out there, condemning the GOP and its emphasis. Obama's chief contribution is opening so many answers with, "Look, ..."

[LWolf]

113. Obama was quite obviously

just as dlc as HRC, even without the official membership. It is maddening, the way people let his non-membership shape their thinking.

For the record, I supported neither of them. I was appalled by the entire disaster, pitting women against people of color.

To answer your question, though...

I think HRC would have been a marginally better choice than Obama. At least she has been willing to fight against Republicans and for Democrats.

[primavera]

114. Yeah, it was wishful thinking

I can't speak for other Obama supporters, but for myself, Obama was at least an unknown quantity. Since he hadn't been a major player in the DC scene prior to that point, my hope had been that the DLC and their corporate overlords wouldn't have sunk their claws into him completely yet. As always, it went without saying that I wasn't allowed to support a good candidate like Kucinich, so the question was which of the compromise candidates was the lesser evil. Obama was at least a roll of the dice with a chance of coming up progressive. Ah well, live and learn, which is why I'm dredging all of this old history up now, trying to decide what to do next year.

[LWolf]

115. I think you speak for quite a few.

Next year?

I'll have to head elsewhere to talk about that.

[primavera]

116. Lol! Indeed, learn from my painful example!

:hi:

[Onlooker]

117. I said, yes, though I supported Obama

Hillary had least had confidence. I think Obama has been so terrified of making a mistake that it's left him as a fairly weak leader. Sad to say, he wasn't ready to be president. He had the braver rhetoric than Hillary, but he simply wasn't courageous enough to proceed the way I expected.

[Flying Dream Blues]

119. Round up the usual suspects. Thanks for the rehash.

And the answer to your question is still no.

[primavera]

129. That's cool

I'm glad that the benefit of hindsight has only served to confirm your confidence in your decisions, that's great. I wish I could say the same.

[Beacool]

120. Of course I think so or I wouldn't have supported her.

But don't expect too many people on this board to agree. They'll support Obama no matter what he does or doesn't do (depending on the circumstances).

:shrug:

[iamthebandfanman]

127. hate this question but

on some things yes, on others... definitely not.

still screwed, either way.


when it was down to them in the primary, we had slim pickin's

[primavera]

130. Yeah, it's the slim pickings part that bothers me

Another poster in another thread remarked recently that Obama was the most moderate Republican we had to choose from. Another observed that Clinton was the best Republican president we'd ever had. It's really kind of starting to feel that way. We haven't really had a president who represented progressive values since Carter and I'm beginning to wonder if we ever will in this country. I don't understand why, though. I mean, progressive values don't seem that radical to me. So we don't want oil spills, who does? I'm worried that polar ice caps are melting, global sea level is rising, and the intensity of our seasons is increasing dramatically. Is it unreasonable to be concerned by such facts? We don't want people to go without healthcare, again, what American does? We prefer peaceful resolution of conflicts to military force. Is that so radical? I dislike seeing our jobs outsourced to third world sweat shops. Do the majority of Americans really like seeing that happen? I don't understand why such seemingly reasonable expectations are considered radical lefty fringe, undeserving of serious consideration, yet my own party seems reluctant to zealously advocate for those causes. Why not? That seems like an important question for us as Democrats to consider. Are we going to just go with the flow and let this apparently inexorable drift father and father to the right continue? What can we do to stop it? What are the qualities we should be looking for in our elected officials if we want to stop it? Yet, if this thread is any indication, we aren't allowed to even discuss those characteristics we should be seeking in our elected officials; we simply need to shut up and do our duty to the party and our president. That reactionism I find kind of worrisome. Isn't democracy supposed to be participatory? I feel sure I read that someplace...

[gkhouston]

131. Who cares? We'll never know, and we couldn't go back and

change the past even if we somehow "knew" that Hillary would have been a better choice. Nothing positive is likely to be accomplished with this sort of speculation.

[primavera]

133. Allow me to rephrase the question

Has the experience of the last three years of Obama's administration given you any insight into the kind of leadership qualities that we as Democrats should be looking for in a president?

[gkhouston]

134. That's not a rephrasing, that's a separate question, and poorly worded.

It implies that the answerer possessed little or no insight into what sort of leadership qualities Democrats should be looking for prior to Obama's election. That may be what you believe or would like others to believe, but it's not a good way to open a productive discussion.

"Has the experience of the last three years of Obama's administration changed your views about the kind of leadership qualities that we as Democrats should be looking for in a president?" is more likely to draw thoughtful responses than flame.

To that, my answer would be "no". My personal standards for what a Democratic leader should be and should espouse have not changed.

[primavera]

137. I respectfully disagree

The new experience of the last three years does not imply that the answerer lacked insight before; only that new experience and information may bring new insight. We are entering uncharted territory here with harder economic times than most of us have known within our lifetimes and with wackos in Congress the likes of which haven't been seen since god only knows when. It's a different political landscape now than it was three years ago. Leadership styles and qualities that may thrive in one setting may be ineffective in a different setting.

[Whisp]

132. actually, she probably knew what was coming...

the whole downgrading, the takeover by the crazies. This is intentional and planned well in advance.

thats why she threw the race. It was all a ruse. And would explain why I kept thinking, wtf is she doing? Why is her management so bloody stupid? I wasn't supporting her but was astounded how careless her campaign was.

Let the new black guy take the heat and Bill and I will be picking up the good sale items along with the rest of the vultures when this thing hits the fan. Meanwhile, I'll act like the innocent world peace saver darling and sit back and watch.

:tinfoilhat:

I've heard crazier things here, like Obama is secretly a super corporate homophobic ageist agent that hates us all and will show videos to his kids of how he starves and kills old people while he cackles and laughs.

[CakeGrrl]

135. Why not? It makes quite a bit MORE practical sense

as the Manchurian Candidate/Trojan Horse/Corporatist Front Man conspiracy theories people love to kick around here.

[Dark]

136. They'd probably be about the same. She'd have had the same centrist policies.

n/t

[CTyankee]

139. Hillary would have invoked the 14th Amendment on the Republicans.

That's all I can say with a a little bit of certainty. Of course, whether she would have won the debt limit raise with the Tea Party earlier in the "crisis" is something else.

[StevieM]

142. I think Hillary would have been a great president and I think Obama is a great president (eom)

[Yavin4]

144. The Teabaggers Would Have Come Hard After Hillary

Oh, the kind of fun they would have had with Bill's international charitable foundation. Never would have heard the end of it.

[JustAmused]

147. ...

At lesat she has a pair

[Exultant Democracy]

148. I don't know if she would have been better but she couldn't have been worse,

and my inclinatoin is that she might have cut similar deals but looked stronger doing it.

[1stlady]

150. This is a sad thread

I'm shaking my head, seriously. When the going is good, we hear Obama is the man, during the whole Osama killing etc, but when polls go down or we don't get that cookie Obama promised from the cookie jar, its ww3 off with his head Hillary should've won.lol Pathetic, if I could think of one reason I admire the rethugs, is because of their unity and fight to band together no matter what. Thats why they always win, dems never learn, its sad really. Obama was handed a hot pile of stinking shyt and is doing the best he can, reformed HC(Clinton couldn't even do that)killed Bin Laden etc etc, but he gets no credit only whining and bashing by fellow so called dems and those who lean left. Obama always had my support from the beginning and always will, he has done more in his 3 1/2yrs as POTUS, than some past POTUS who served 8yrs. Yet he will not receive credit from the haters, who would rather focus on knee-jerk reactions because they didn't get their favorite cookie that was promised.

I have never been a fan of the Clinton's and I'm sure the Clinton enjoy when the going isn't so good for Obama. Because it will put this very thread title into the heads of many dems, that they should've chose her instead. Lets be honest, there would be no tea party is HC were president. The tea party became more of a white nationalist party because of Obama's race. The Clinton's have never faced the type of fury and intense irrational hate that Obama has. And most of the hate the Clinton have faced was brought on by their own merits. Anywho, I just think these types of threads bring out the worse in people and doesn't solve anything, but that just me.

[Exultant Democracy]

155. I don't consider any of my progesssive values a cookie and it is very insulting.

Sorry if I am a informed progressive with values that line up with my policy positions.

Many people on Du myself included have been nothing but consistent despite your claim that our approval of Obama is based on the poll numbers that is absurd.

know what we said when Obama got killed but you apparently don't, we didn't cheer-lead was said so can we get out of Afghanistan now.

I told Rahm to his face what I thought of him an what he had done to the democratic party before Obama hired him, when Obama did hire him I got a bad feeling about what this admin would look like and it turns out I was %100 correct.

Many Obama supported like myself voted for the "progressive" Obama over Clinton, if I had known I was going to get a conservative dem I would have voted for the conservative dem.

[emsimon33]

151. I have been wondering the same thing--at least she has balls!

Hillary would not have lost the House in 2010. She would not have caved. She would know what she was doing--unlike Obama.

I have been apologizing to my friends who were Hillary supporters in 2008.

Obama is the worst president in my life time.

[robcon]

153. I always preferred Hillary Clinton, but I, of course, voted for Obama.

n/t

[Marrah_G]

154. Sadly, I think the results would have been the same. n/t