If Hillary Clinton had been President for the last two years

[Canuckistanian]

What would be different? Health Care? Foreign Policy? The Economy? Gay Rights? Labor relations?

Is there anything we knew about her then that would be different from President Obama now?

[GreenArrow]

1. We'd have had the first woman President

as opposed to the first black President. Other than that, not much.

[Canuckistanian]

2. I tend to agree

There was very little light between Obama's policy promises and Clinton's.

[xchrom]

5. It looks like the sauce reduced brings us to the same result.

Really sad.

[leftstreet]

28. She'd probably have made a show of opposing Republicans

while not actually doing it, policy wise

People expected her to "fight" the right
Whereas Obama takes the public position of "working with" them


Other than posturing such as that, I agree - not much difference

[ClarkUSA]

31. That'd be a first. She never did so when she was a Senator.

[leftstreet]

34. Nonsense. She postured all the time. "Vast rightwing conspiracy!"

blah, blah, blah

[ClarkUSA]

36. When she was a Senator voting for a blank check for Bush?

That was earlier. When she was Senator, she never raised any doubts about the Bush administration, ever. Quite the opposite.

[leftstreet]

43. Did you have a point?

I suggested she probably would have made a show of "fighting" the right because that's what people expected from her

Speaking of expectations....wasn't Obama a "community organizer" or something?

How's that workin out?

:popcorn:

[ClarkUSA]

46. I disagree. I guess I saw too much of her as my BushCo suck-up Senator.

Who knows? I mean, she couldn't praise McCain CIC qualities enough in 2008. They were drinking buddies as Senators, fercripessakes. :puke:

<< Speaking of expectations....wasn't Obama a "community organizer" or something?

How's that workin out?>>

Fine, thanks. The Teabagger House leadership are looking for a budget deal w/Pres. Obama now because they don't want a gov't. shutdown:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x640730

Also, see Pulitzer-Prize-winning Politifact.com for his 134 promises kept so far. :D

[leftstreet]

48. 135. Took Michelle on a date, 136. Got his kids a dog

[ClarkUSA]

49. There's a reason Politifact.com got a Pulitzer and you never will.

;)

[leftstreet]

50. I'll never win a Nobel Peace Prize either. I'm antiwar

:-)

[ClarkUSA]

51. While Pres. Obama is just against "dumb wars". That's why he ended the Iraq war last year.

And President Obama will start ending the Afghanistan war on schedule, too, despite what his generals want:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/03/31/u-s-military-balks-at-promised-afghan-drawdown/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

[leftstreet]

53. If you use a "smart bomb" in a "dumb war" does it end faster?

:beer:

[ClarkUSA]

57. *groan*

:+

[sendero]

74. EINO...

...Ended In Name Only.

When the last troop leaves Iraq, then and only then has it "ended".

[pintobean]

3. I think we would at least be

a hell of a lot more informed.

[Canuckistanian]

7. You think so?

Would Hillary have accepted an award for transparency in a private meeting?

[RevStPatrick]

4. I think things would be pretty much the same.

Maybe a wee bit better. But not much. We'd be dealing with Clinton Derangement Syndrome rather than Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[Canuckistanian]

8. There's a point

The public would be tired of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome by now.

[pipi_k]

6. Things would be much the same as now...

no matter which Democrat was president, IMO.

That's politics.

People always tend to think they know what CAN be done even though they have no idea of what goes on behind the scenes.

Yeah, we know what should be done.

But what can be done...that's a whole different story because of politics.

[Canuckistanian]

9. You may be right

But I wonder if maybe ANYBODY would have the strength of character to buck the system.

You read about past presidents and they mention nothing about overwhelming forces compelling their actions.

OK, the Democratic presidents.

[Solomon]

76. Are you young?

Andrew Jackson was shot at for ending the central bank. Go back and read Kennedy's speech about geting rid of secret government a couple of months before he was killed. Lincoln bucked the system big time.

Have you read any presidential biographies or are you just talking out of your ass? "You read about past presdients and they mention nothing about overwhelming forces compelling their actions".

[Canuckistanian]

83. Well, maybe I phrased it wrong

And no, I'm not young. I remember Kennedy's assassination in great detail.

Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist. but I like someone's description of every president's first new secret meeting. All that happens is a movie being shown to the new president that shows the JFK assassination from an angle that's never been seen before. Then the president is asked "Any questions?"

Now of course, this is bunk. But still, I wonder if something SIMILAR faces every new POTUS. Somebody approaches the president and says "Look, we like things the way they ARE. Mess with them and <unspecified> will happen."

[pipi_k]

77. Well that's the thing...

I'm not so sure it's a lack of character or that there are overwhelming forces.

No doubt most people go into the job hoping to do their best, and really make a difference.

Kind of like law enforcement, maybe. How many rookie cops think they're going to "change the world" and after a few years get all cynical and only put in their time and hope they survive to retirement. Nothing overwhelming...just a bunch of smaller day-to-day things that make it impossible for them to make a radical difference in the world. They'll never "put away all the bad guys" like they hoped in the beginning.

Anyway, that's how I see politics. Death by a thousand cuts...

[UTUSN]

10. She would have been SAVIGED, envicerated, SKINNED. n/t

[Renew Deal]

13. So DU would be no different than it is now?

:shrug:

[Historic NY]

56. ruled by PUMAS.

[Little Star]

73. Yeah, instead of ruled by cheerleaders.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Right

So unlike Obama...
:hi:

[joshcryer]

11. If she had the house and senate like Obama did?

Things would look dramatically different than they do now.

[Canuckistanian]

16. That's the answer I was looking for

How would it be different?

[joshcryer]

19. There would at the bare minimum be a public option.

The spending on the publics works projects during the recession would've been much larger.

[ClarkUSA]

29. How do you figure that, given the opposition to it by Joe Lieberman which killed PO?

Plus, her first miserable failure of a go-around showed a ham handed and secretive approach that alienated the entire Democratic Congress. I think she would have failed again.

[joshcryer]

32. Obama had a choice, Public Option or Mandate (which he argued against initially).

Hillary ran on both Public Option and Mandate. The mandate is more effective at lowering costs but the public option makes it easier to pave the way toward a single-payer like system (and arguably long term lowers costs even more). For Hillary a public option is the least controversial of the two, since she argued for a mandate. Obama knew he couldn't get a public option because he argued against a mandate, but knew that a mandate would lower costs, and forwent the public option to get it. For Obama it was a win win with the insurance companies, they get mandated insurance, and don't have to worry about a public option screwing up their profits.

[ClarkUSA]

37. "Obama Puts Public Option and Single Payer Back On The Table" (2/28/11)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=641323&mesg_id=641747

You're wrong. Pres. Obama is a very good legislative chess player. Just ask Bernie Sanders, who's quite delighted at this turn of events.

[joshcryer]

40. I'm well aware of that, but where does that put the public option and single payer?

No earlier than 2013 that's where. :(

[ClarkUSA]

45. That makes it a reality very soon, depending on the state.

In the meantime, we have stories like this:

"Health Plans For Those With Pre-Existing Conditions":
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/health/19patient.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

I have close family members who would never have had a chance to get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions who are now covered.

I know people whose kids' lives have been saved by HCR, so there's no need for :( Quite the opposite. :)

[joshcryer]

61. Fair enough, I had ignored or forgotten about the state-based single payer option.

I think ultimately that is the best way to approach it, indeed, once that was announced I had no problems with Obama's health care (because by itself it is very toxic, but with the states option it makes people go "oh shit who wants the federal option when I can have the state option!).

But I do stand by my original statement.

[Renew Deal]

12. Nothing would have been done on health care, DADT, DOMA, Labor, and for workers.

She said that health care was a priority for her second term. I think she would have spent 4 years trying to get reelected.

[joshcryer]

20. Cite?

They both ran on health care.

[Renew Deal]

22. Here it is

And this was one of the big problems I had with her. There was no guarantee that she would get a second term. It was too long to wait.

Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term
Q: Many experts project that it would cost between $90 billion and $120 billion to actually achieve universal health care for everyone in America. Is comprehensive reform achievable financially?
A: We already spend more money than anybody else in the world, by about $800 billion, and we have 47 million uninsured. We’re also at a competitive disadvantage because other countries either provide health care or don’t, and our companies are trying to be competing in a global economy. So I want to figure out how we provide universal health care without putting billions more into the system. Let’s get prescription drug prices down by negotiating with the drug companies, for example. I am going around the country, and I’m asking people’s advice, then I’m going to be proposing a specific plan. You know, President Kennedy said in his inauguration that he wanted to have a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/hillary_clinton_health_care.htm

[joshcryer]

30. Yes, that is why I supported her health care plan over Obama's.

She had a public option and a mandate. What does that mean? If Obama's health care had a public option (he argued against a mandate but has it anyway, because anyone knows that's the only way to make it work), you will build a public insurance agency within a few years, that would be very big and powerful. It would automatically pave the way for universal health care.

Your cite doesn't really back your claim, imo.

[Renew Deal]

35. "Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term."

She said it. Not me.

[joshcryer]

41. Yes, and my original post did not state that we'd have "universal health care."

I said we'd have had a public option. :shrug:

edit: I don't think it is possibly for either of them to have had "universal health care" in their first term. But your quote does not say that she wasn't going to even begin to work on health care until her second term, indeed, it makes little sense since universal health care takes many years to bring in to fruition.

[undeterred]

14. Barack Obama would be SOS and we'd have the same shit going on.

[Beacool]

27. No, he wouldn't.

She would have offered him the VP position, but not SOS.

[blondeatlast]

17. Oh, so the guy won, eh? In the booth, my hand hovered over the choices and just

slapped a mark on one of them.

(I kid, of course... well, kinda, anyway!)

[catenary]

18. No military intervention in Libya by a Nobel Peace Prize winning president...

purty sure...

[MadBadger]

52. The only difference would the Nobel Peace Prize. There certainly would be intervention in Libya

[catenary]

84. Yes, that was precisely my point. :-)

:D

[The Magistrate]

21. Tea-Bagger Rallies, Sir, Would Feature So Much Dominatrix Porn A Generation Would Be Warped

[MilesColtrane]

63. That sir, deserves a Bazinga.

[Shiver]

66. Before I comment..

...would the dominatrix porn involve the teabaggers, or would it be actually attractive people? I don't ask this for me, see, I just have this friend...

:hide:

[The Magistrate]

69. The Posters They Held Aloft, Sir: It Would Resemble A Convention Of Stanton Fans....

[rug]

23. The word bipartisanship would be unknown. Hence, a lot of real change would have occurred.

[H2O Man]

24. A more aggressive

military policy in Afghanistan .... as if President Obama's isn't bad enough.

[Liquorice]

25. It's impossible to know, but I do think

health care would have been handled better. I also think she would have been better at dealing with the economy.

[Starry Messenger]

26. I don't know about different.

I think she might have had better messaging on things, especially on gay rights. She has more of the personal touch there. (And before anyone leaps on me, I was an Obama primary supporter).

[unkachuck]

33. "What would be different?"

....we'd be in five wars instead of three....

[TheKentuckian]

38. No full frontal assault on teachers and even putridly less effort to regulate.

A slight re-shuffling of the deck.

[ZombieHorde]

39. I could not tell the difference between the two during the primary.

I read the policy arguments by my fellow DUers, but I suspected race and gender were the main attractions. They seemed so similar, the arguments here were ridiculous. I had, and have, a hard time believing their policy differences is what inspired the heated fights here.

The "sniper-gate" incident made slightly favor candidate Obama, because I thought candidate Hillary had hurt her election chances with that blunder.

[Beacool]

42. Obama and Hillary's styles are quite different.

While Obama seems to relish being above the fray, Hillary would have rolled up her sleeves and gotten in the trenches. Hillary is a fighter, she wouldn't have been easily rolled over by Congress. She also had been 8 years in the Senate and had forged many alliances. She knew her way around Congress and would have been more effective in negotiating with the Republicans and reluctant Blue Dogs. During her years in the senate Hillary had built a reputation as a hard worker and one of the most prepared at any meeting. She earned their respect.

I also think that she would have focused on the economy and job creation. As Carville famously said in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid." A lesson I'm sure Hillary hasn't forgotten, and if she did, Bill would have been there to remind her.

[DonCoquixote]

60. a fighter but for what

a fighter for the insurance mandate
a fighter against dadt?
a fighter against nafta?
a fighter against the very polices Obama was elected to abandon by the left?

And what makes you think she would have tamed the Blue Dogs, when she was one herself?

[harun]

44. We'd be at war with Iran as well.

[BlueIris]

54. You think Obama will resist taking us to Iran?

The sole reason I voted for him was because I was convinced the Clintons had already decided to allow that invasion to proceed. I think they thought agreeing to it was the only way to stop Cheney Inc. from getting it the hard way. But based on the pattern of Obama's decision making thus far, I can't believe that if the neocons tell him to push the proverbial button he won't slam his fist on it right then and there.

[harun]

75. Yah, it doesn't look good.

[NBachers]

47. No Eric Holdingpattern

[Angry Dragon]

55. Does not matter

[DonCoquixote]

58. This will pick at scabs

IBTL

[Imagevision]

59. Google "What Hillary Clinton doesn't want you to know" and learn a little...

[Liquorice]

68. That is right-wing propaganda. Do you always believe right-wing smears on democrats,

or do you just make an exception for Hillary Clinton?

[Beacool]

78. Please, take that crap to the Freepers' site.

That's where it belongs.

x(

[dionysus]

80. Bea!! where have you been young lady? gallavanting all around NJ causing trouble?

:hi:

[Beacool]

82. Ohhhh, I love dogs!!!!

New banky all for me!!!!!

:woohoo:

I need one too. I came to work because I had a project due, but I have a bad cold and spring hasn't sprung around here. It has rained and even snowed for most of the day. I can't wait to go home.

:(



:hug:

[MilesColtrane]

62. Clinton would never have been able to shepherd any kind of health care bill through Congress.

She would have made the same gains as Obama on gay rights, but perhaps sooner.

I don't think there would be a discernible difference in foreign policy, the economy, or labor relations.

[madinmaryland]

64. Oh fer fuck sakes, give it a goddam rest.

[I Drink Water]

65. A more hawkish foreign policy.

[Lucian]

67. Ooooh, let's rehash these flamewars again.

:eyes:

It'd be the same, maybe worse. Definitely not better.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. About the only thing Obama had to offer is that he wasn't a Clinton.

Then he joined up with them as a fellow neo-lib, third way, president.

[hfojvt]

71. that's what I thought

and now Obama seems worse. It started right away when he picked a Clinton cabinet, and also took Kansas' only chance to have a Democratic Senator. But I held out hope still, as it was argued on DU, Obama was still President and the President matters more than the Cabinet.

But now it seems like Clinton was more of a fighter. At least Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and wasn't afraid of a Government shut-down.

But he also presided over a much stronger economy.

[deacon]

72. No. n/t

[dionysus]

79. yay! a primary rehash!!11!!

:woohoo:

[OmahaBlueDog]

81. There would have been less "learning curve" the first year

Between her knowledge of the WH and Bill and the people they'd have brought back, there would have been less stumbling around in 2009. I also think thy Clintons would have taken a less universal and more incremental approach to healthcare reform (maybe expanding prescription coverage, and getting universal maternal & prenatal care). Without getting into a laundry list of specifics, I think they'd have made better use of the 60-seat Senate majority.

In terms of foreign policy and the wars -- I don't think there would have been much difference.