I was in another forum where Habee made an interesting post about it is time for a woman to be President. I agree that it would be cool for a woman to be President, but it got me to wondering.
Do you think the Democrats regret picking Obama instead of Hillary back in 2008? I think Hillary would have done a better job, not that it would have been easier, I just think she would have been better
I am curious. What do you think that Hillary would have done differently from Obama that would constitute doing a better job?
Good question. My answer is only speculation because there is no way we will ever know.
But I think Hillary has stronger convictions the President Obama. I believe she is a much stronger leader than Obama. I did not think she was a good choice for Secretary of State. I believed that she was not strong enough on foreign policy, Bill wasn't. And while she may have stumbled a few times in the beginning, that was just the learning curve for being on a new job. Everybody gets that. But she learned from it, she expanded and got stronger. As she represents our country she is quite stern in getting her point across, she doesn't take the it's my way or the highway attitude as she talks with foreign dignitaries on some very touchy issues. She's been tested with everything that is going on the Middle East. All the civil wars in the Middle East, the war on terror from our country, and several other international crisis that has popped up on her watch. Not one time did she kicked the can down the road on anything. She has met with world leaders and dealt with issue at hand.
If Obama thinks that Republicans in Congress are obstructing, it is a walk in the park compared to the obstructing Hillary deals with everyday with world leaders.
I also believe she would work across the aisles much better than President Obama does. She got to watch firsthand during her husband's administration the work that was accomplished with both sides were willing to work together. They were very strong differences then as there are now, but issues were addressed as they came up. Welfare reform at the time the very difficult piece of legislation, but Republicans and Democrats despite their differences came up with an excellent plan that lowered the welfare ranks, put people back to work, basically lowering the dependence on federal government.
So, in a nutshell, you think she would be tougher, but also would work better across the aisle. You didn't mention anything about how her policies would differ from Obama's.
When they were running in the primaries, their stated policies were quite similar, so I have a hard time imagining that the current crop of Republican legislators would have behaved any differently with Hillary Clinton than they have with Obama. I mean, they claim it is all about policy and not obstructionism, right?
Besides, have you forgotten the constant barrage of criticism Hillary Clinton used to receive from the right? The only reason the right is suddenly enamored of her is because she is Not Obama.
I have no remorse. I would have been okay with Clinton as president, but I still think Obama was the better choice.
I agree. I remember thinking in 2008 that I hoped it wouldn't be Hilary because they wouldn't let her get any work done and would be attacking Bill. No doubt they would have reopened the Whitewater investigation. Things would be exactly the same as they are now in my opinion.
I do not think one could nail it to just she would be tougher or she would work better across the aisle, there is much more to her character than that.
It's true Republicans would've given her a hard time but let's face it matter who the Democratic nominee was they were going to get a hard time, just like the Democrats gave Bush a hard time and were relentless. That's a part of politics and if you're feathers cannot take getting ruffled, then politics is the wrong job for them.
The main difference is that I believe Hillary learns from her mistakes. Like I said in the earlier comment, she made mistakes when she first with Secretary of State, but she learned from them. On several foreign policy issues when she saw a change was needed she would come up with other ideas, which of course led to several instances where she Obama had differences of opinions on foreign policy including the bin Laden raid which she was instantly in favor of but Obama was not.
During the 2008 campaign, they did have many issues in common but they also had a number of issues where they were different. One major difference between the two of them was on the green energy policies. Hillary a much more cautious tone on green energy were Obama was willing to gamble farm, and we know how that's turning out. So the first policy difference is I don't believe Hillary would've lost anywhere near the amount of money that Obama did on all those failed investments.
Next major difference would have been last year when the raising the debt ceiling argument was occurring. For the most part Hillary is pretty silent on the debt ceiling issue because her belief was to not raise it and opposition goes back to when her husband was president. Another part of what occurred last year was if the super committee could not come up with certain cuts, then there was large automatic cuts to the defense budget. That never would've occurred under Hillary, her belief is a strong military, that does not mean she is for war because she is not, but she understands why there needs to be a strong military. Several times while as Senator from New York she has quoted a well regarded man.
"We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." ...... JFK
Further, I believe she would've presented sensible budgets that would have been passed, and even if she received a lot of resistance to her proposals, I would bet anything that Democrats would have backed her and voted for it. Remember the last two budgets that Obama put forward not one Democrat voted for, not one.
And last your question about having a hard time matching that the Republican legislators would have behaved any differently, I can't argue much with that because it's probably true. But I would say this, with my beliefs that she would've reached out looking for solutions leading and giving ideas of her own, I think she would've gotten more respect from the Republicans than this president has gotten. Remember the old saying, you have to give respect to get it. This President just no respect to anyone, just ask those fellow Democrats who disagreed with Obama.
Do I think that if Hillary was president we would be in Rosey Land today? No, there's no doubt that things would not be perfect, and of course is no real way of knowing that she would have made the moves that would make the economy better than it is today. But I truly think she would've made a better effort, I believe when she realized certain moves were not working, she would have adapted, not to say she would have done what the Republicans want her to do, but I do believe she would change course and try something else. To me that is the biggest problem with this President, his inability to recognize or if he does recognize his inability to admit something didn't work quite the way he wanted. The closest he came was his comment "I guess the shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready". But I ask you, what has he done to change that? He keeps coming back with the same failed program or failed policy and blame everybody else why did not work.
Eh, most of what you say is pure speculation, and I take issue with some of it, especially your characterization of Obama as not reaching out for solutions. The Affordable Health Care Act, for example, is almost identical to Republican proposals offered up in previous years, even though Obama himself would have preferred something along the lines of Medicare for all.
Anyway, if we are still here on Hubpages in 2016, we will find out how well Hillary Clinton is received by conservatives as well as whether or not she is perceived to be any better at working with Republicans.
First thing I said was "My answer is only speculation because there is no way we will ever know." You then asked "You didn't mention anything about how her policies would differ from Obama's." I did so and then you say "Eh, most of what you say is pure speculation, and I take issue with some of it" Not sure where you are going with that.
Hillary will not run in 2016, she has missed her window. She will be 69 or 70 then.
Obama reached out for solutions on Obama? Really, a legislation purely 100% all made by Democrats without any input from Republicans becasue they would not allow it. Then Pelosi says "if you want to know whats in it you have to vote for it. Today there are lees people insured then ever, one of the provisions has many on the Medicare program that should not be there and they are draining the system from the elderly. Insurance policy rates are increasing at a faster pace than before Obamacare due to the mandates, taxes and regulations levied on the providers. I know you have heard of the warning in the news about the huge increase coming in January to cover what is about to happen in Obamacare on 1-2013.
I would love to see those Republican proposals that were offered up that were identical to Obamacare.
I do not have a lot of time, but probably the most well-know conservative idea to be included in the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate to buy health insurance, which we all know is now demonized by Republicans.
"The tale begins in the late 1980s, when conservative economists such as Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of business, were searching for ways to counter liberal calls for government-sponsored universal health coverage.
“We wanted to find an alternative that was more consistent with market-oriented economic ideas and would involve less government intervention,” Pauly said.
His solution: a system of tax credits to ensure that all Americans could purchase at least bare-bones “catastrophic” coverage.
Pauly then proposed a mandate requiring everyone to obtain this minimum coverage, thus guarding against free-riders: people who refuse to buy insurance and then, in a crisis, receive care whose costs are absorbed by hospitals, the government and other consumers.
Heath policy analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation, led by Stuart Butler, picked up the idea and began developing it for lawmakers in Congress.
By 1993, when President Bill Clinton was readying his major health-care overhaul bill, the Heritage approach — subsidizing and facilitating the purchase of private health plans, while using the individual mandate to maximize participation — had gelled as the natural Republican alternative.
Then-Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.) formally proposed it in a bill that attracted 20 Republican co-sponsors; the bill foundered once Clinton’s effort unraveled. But the idea of the mandate gained currency in the ensuing years as Democrats chastened by the failure of the Clinton plan began considering new solutions more likely to attract bipartisan support."
http://theweek.com/article/index/226234 … ts-a-guide
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ … story.html
"Stuart Butler, one of the lead health-policy experts at the Heritage Institute, explains why he changed his mind on the individual mandate:
First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn’t needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.
Also, advances in “risk adjustment” tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees’ coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That’s why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.
Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have “invented” has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders."
Now you can say they changed their mind that it was the wrong way to go because of Obama, but they decided it was wrong long before he became President. They even had an alternative plan going back to 2006 that it should be the states be the ones to take care of the insurance issue and the federal government should stay out.
Hillary Clinton will be the first female President. It just wasn't her turn this time. Who in the world could deny Hillary next time. She's more than just the best women for the job; she brings Bill back with her!
When will Hillary stop having her minions campaigning for her? This is infuriating and tiresome. She will never be elected because it takes a majority of voters, not a majority of Hillary fans to elect a president.
I am irritated that the sitting president, who did it despite everything the Democrats could do to stop him, is having to deal with a slick politician who does not stand a chance and who should be supportive, not undermining and acting in cynical, selfish political interest. This is what the majority of us did not like about her.
There is utterly no difference between Hillary and Obama. They are equally agents of the Empire. I watched the media push the Hilary/Obama election towards Obama, the better con-person.
The only reason conservatives think Hillary is a better option is that they're in the "throw everything at Obama, including the kitchen sink" mode.
Had Hillary won the nomination and (somehow) won the Presidency, the very same conservatives would be asking "Do Dems have voter remorse? Obama would have been a much better president than Hillary."
I have no remorse. Voted for Obama in 2008 and will happily vote for him again in November.
That is so true, divide and conquer. We may have to accept that no one, regardless of political party, is free to just go rogue and be the chief executive as we would wish. Any president will have his or her hands tied by one thing or another, including the polls, congress and the supreme court.
The system of checks and balances is now more check, with no balance.
I don't think so. Obama looks better in the Mommy jeans than Hillary does.
The challenges faced by Hillary would have been no different from Obama's. In fact, she would have been cut less slack from the nation as a whole.
Instead, "conservatives" were able to waste political time rabble rousing for their own power grabs through "birtherism", "secret Islam-agent-aphobia", and criticizing every move he's made where an inkling of race might be involved...
The financial crisis would have been handled the exact same way. I guarantee it.
Had lame-brain McCain been president he would have done the same thing.
Also, as I've said many times before, there are many conservative Democrats (and let us not forget how regionalism also shapes political whims as opposed to the "brand name"), there are zero Republicans who are on the other end of the spectrum.
We can play the "name" game....but it is an exercise in time waste...
On a side note, it is interesting to note how Abraham Lincoln, after wholesale Republican party support in his first run for office, was largely abandoned by his supporters along the course of his presidency.
I disagree with most of the posters here. I think Hil has more leadership skills than Obama, and we would have gotten Bill for free. And if you don't think there are a significant number of Dems with "buyers' remorse," read some of the left-wing blogs. You'll see plenty of comments like, "Why didn't we pick Hillary?"
Most of the Dems that I know who have buyer's remorse believe that Obama has governed too close to the middle and wish he would stand harder for progressive principles. Hillary Clinton portrayed herself as more centric than Obama, so I'm not sure that the left would be happier with her.
I agree that Hil is more of a centrist, so moderates and conservatives would be happier!
I think you're assuming most moderates/conservatives are as rational as you are. They'd be throwing everything not nailed down at Hillary if she were in the Oval Office, too.
Let's face it, if McCain would have won, the Democrats would have thrown everything not nailed down at him too.
I doubt they would have made a big deal of his birth or attacked his wife or hung him in effigy.
What is the big deal about McCains birth? BTW, I have stated many times the Birther issue with Obama is a waste of time.
No one would know for sure if his wife would be attacked, some Presidents wives were and some were not.
Talk about hanging LOL
I don't buy that. Do you remember the first year of GWB's presidency? Dems didn't get incensed until he started moving towards war with Iraq, and this was after a highly-contested squeaker where there was widespread vote tabulation fraud in Florida and elsewhere.
Contrast with Republicans' seething ire minutes after Obama won a landslide, which began well before he was even inaugurated. The F.U.D. campaign against him started immediately. The same propaganda machine would've turned against Hillary had she won, too.
Dems were not incensed? What is taking all the Ws off the type pads in the White House. Wasted taxpayers money. " He will be one and done, we will not appoint any of his judges" I know many forget where they first heard those sayings.
Would Hillary got a hard time, I already said she would have, but she would have risen to the occasion and not taken the "I am perfect" attitude. She would adapt to what is going on, not be rigid and recycle failed policies.
You're comparing a prank played by the outgoing administration on the new one to a well-coordinated, millions-strong and billionaire-powered propaganda campaign to demonize Obama?
Obama hasn't said he is perfect; this is yet another strawman borne out of the GOP propaganda machine. More than any other president, he's done what he said he was going to do, whether you like it or not. I, and many other Dems, think Obama has actually been far too giving to the Republicans. The rigid and uncompromising charge is not borne from the facts.
A prank, wonder what would have been said if Bush took all the Hs off the type pads.
Obama has never said he was not perfect, all he does is blame someone or something else.
I am not a GOP machine. I am am true independent and those who know me and listen to my show know that to be true. When I attack the right I bet I will not here from you, I never hear from the left here on HP when I do.
You claim " well-coordinated, millions-strong and billionaire-powered propaganda campaign to demonize Obama" No republican can go to someones house for a party and walk away with over 15 million dollars in campaign funds. The left demonizes the Koch brothers, since 1980 they have donated 100 million dollars to political organizations, George Soros has spent since 1980 8 BILLION dollars on democrat political organizations. In 2004, he gave Kerry $35 million to beat Bush , and that does not count all the super pacs he runs and funds.
Several Months ago Obama stood proud and said he would raise a Billion dollars for his re-election funds, No Republican has ever made such claim. You know if he made 1/4 the effort to fix the economy while he has been in office as he puts into fund raising, we would have balanced budget, paid off the national debt, and 100% employment
You may be an independent, but you are repeating right-wing talking points almost verbatim. Are you aware that you're doing so?
The vast majority of independents lean (and consistently vote) either right or left. Maybe you're a conservative that almost always votes GOP but wants to give himself some latitude to criticize the Republicans?
Fundraising, esp. since Citizens United v FEC, an abysmal SCOTUS ruling by the conservatives on the bench, is absolutely critical to winning an election nowadays. Obama knows he won't be able to do anything if Romney wins the White House.
And then there are those of us who are registered as Rs or Ds who often break party lines. I'm a registered R, but I often vote D. In fact, I voted for Bill Clinton and even attended a fundraiser for him. Had Hillary gotten the nod in 2008, I would have had a tough choice between her and McCain. I'm sure part of the reason I like Hil is that my best friend is a HUGE Hillary fan. It's prolly rubbed off on me. lol
Habee, if you lived in a different part of the country, you'd be a Democrat.
Hell, lots of the Dems here in California would be Republicans if they lived elsewhere, too.
lol. My liberal pals swear I'm a fiscally conservative Dem!
Why would she be a Democrat is she lived somewhere else. I grew up in NY. I belonged to FDNY which is union, did a lot of construction work, again union, and I am not a Democrat. You are who you are no matter where you live.
I think if you look closer you will find I do not use R talking points. I examine the issue without listening to either side and form my opinion based in facts. For example, a Dem talking point is the President has created Jobs for 27 months in a row. Not True. June last year the BLS numbers for new jobs was 0 ( Zero) and the next months was -56,000, in other words it lost jobs. Should I just follow blindly because he said so? Romney healthcare is a disaster, his flat tax plan is a disaster as was Cains 999 and I wrote about that, had a forum on it. I was attacked by the Repulican followers here but not one Dem follower that always can be found here on HP left one comment.
I do not believe one thing said by any of these politicians
I had no idea Dems (who, exactly?) claimed Obama created jobs 27 months in a row. I don't really care. I know the job situation has improved under his administration. Since the government has virtually no control over private sector jobs, I don't really care either way.
About talking points: I see conservatives saying as if they were incontestable facts that Obama doesn't work across the aisle, isn't respectful, pretends to be some sort of saint, and recycles failed policies. You've repeated these same memes in this thread. I agree you repeat GOP talking points a lot less than some of the other Republican partisans here.
About believing politicians: it's good to see what fact checkers have to say. Politifact seems to indicate Romney has more of a habit of lying than Obama.
Hell, I think they all lie 100% of the time, Republicans and Democrats
the 27 months is a major Dem talking point that they all use, even Obama, Jay Carney says it almost everyday.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Sometimes you have to find the facts amidst the lies. Or at least rely on a source that's free of partisan interference.
The closest to the 27 consecutive month thing was in January when it was 22 months. Politifact found that to be accurate:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … best-annu/
"Sometimes you have to find the facts amidst the lies. Or at least rely on a source that's free of partisan interference."
Truer words were never spoken here on the HP forums. So let's do that. Politifact, which I find to be biased but we will pass on that for now.
Okay, the president and those are saying "27 consecutive months". The article you linked Politifact is using the BLS, Bureau of Labor Standards, the same place I get all my information. I wonder why the article does not get the same information that is on the BLS site
Let's look at the calendar. The last BLS report was May 2012. let's just go back 24 months, that takes us to May2010. I will post a link to a chart for you to see. According to the chart which is a BLS chart, in August 2011 new job creation was zero, as I have said before, and that was just 9 months ago. in August 2010, the new jobs report showed a loss of 59,000, and September 2010 the graph does not show the exact number but it's around a loss of 30,000.
So while Politifact claims to have found it to be accurate, the truth actual information shows they were wrong.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/02/news/ec … /index.htm
Here is the link that takes you straight to the BLS site where you can look up any month going back like the last hundred years. This is where I get my information, right from the horses mouth,
No remorse what so ever! The President saved us from the second Great Depression! He has my vote!
by Alternative Prime 2 years ago
A FACT that some Americans might be unaware of is that Ted Cruz’s Father is actually a refugee from Communist Cuba ~ We all know Ted Cruz has other issues shadowing his campaign, but once the majority of conservatives find out his father lived in a RED Country while growing up, how much do you...
by American View 6 years ago
I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will not vote for Obama because he is doing a lousy job. OF course it is Ok for them to...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … party.htmlAs well they should! In spite of that dumb a** Reid saying they are going away, they aren't! They will be a force to be recend with as anyone can see in these budget negotiations and in the republican candidates for president!
by Judy Specht 4 years ago
The IRS can demand seven years of documents from you, put you in jail and take everything you own, but can't find two years of emails. Hard drives were lost. Were are the Democrats? Does it make you comfortable that an agency can destroy you and your reputation, then decide they...
by Thomas Byers 3 years ago
Its really sad that we as Americans let the Democrats and Republicans pull games on us and keep our minds off the really important issues that face us as Americans. How can we not demand real solutions to the problems facing us as Americans. You know I set and listened to the Republican...
by Greensleeves Hubs 22 months ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and freedom of the individual. A party, most of whose members believe in immigration...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|