1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The most popular politician in America!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by MisterCreosote, Sep 16, 2011.

  1. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Hard to say. Her husband didn't get nearly as much done as Obama did with Democratic majorities. The ongoing recession/depression would've dominated her administration as much as it has the actual incumbent, and since the Obama economic team were all former members of the Clinton administration economic team, I think it's a good bet things would be pretty close to where we are now.
    I think nostalgia has a lot to do with this. People remember the '90s (not strictly accurately, but close enough)as a time of peace and prosperity. Ergo, the name Clinton stirs good feelings.
     
  2. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Every time I read something like this it makes me wonder if she would run against him. I know she almost certainly will not and I'm guessing she'll be considered too old in 2016 to run against Perry or Romney as they go for their second term. :D
     
  3. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    Why? Would Hillary have been able to give Harry Reid a pair of balls? Would she have bent Joe Lieberman's wrist back to the point where he whimpered and decided not to kill a public option out of spite?

    The president does not rule by fiat. These gigantic sweeping proposals actually need senators to sack up and get them out of committee, you know. There is not a single Republican who would have crossed the aisle to support anything Madam President might have proposed. So we'd be right back where we started, with a bunch of weak-kneed Democratic senators looking around the room, hoping someone else will have the stones to step up.

    I think you're saying this because you think Obama is a pussy, and you may be right about that, but there is nothing to suggest Hillary Clinton would have been able to bend more thumbs than he could have.
     
  4. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    It's more what she "wouldn't" have done that people wonder about. After enduring years battling "the vast right wing conspiracy", the impeachment process and all that related ugly crap during the Clinton presidency, she wouldn't have been as naive about who she was up against. She wouldn't have been as willing to bend. And she wouldn't have been nearly as concerned about public perception of how she was getting along with the other side of the aisle.

    His first two years Obama had all the cards stacked to his advantage-Ds controlled both houses of congress, the country had unprecedented disgust for the Rs, and there was a clear popular mandate to change the way shit's been done. Yet during that period it often seemed like he thought he was the one that needed to ingratiate and appease the other guy. Nearly three years later he does now seem to understand that these are people that can't be won over and see compromise only as a sign of weakness--well guess what, a little fucking late, you don't hold the advantages anymore.

    I think Hillary would've realized that from Day 1, she would've better understood that a situation where you controlled both houses and public opinion was a rare window of opportunity, and you need to full court press that advantage for all it's worth, for it might be gone after the next mid-terms (especially since that's exactly what happened to Bill in 94). if that means beginning your presidency with all out political warfare, so be it.

    It'll be such an indictment on the Obama presidency if it ends with those Bush upper income tax cuts still in place. That was such a core issue upon which he campaigned and was elected. And the evidence is overwhelming that they were abject failures: had absolutely none of the economic stimulating benefits that were promised and have had an utterly disastrous impact on our national debt. And we've never in our history been more desperately in need of that revenue than right now. So how the fuck do they remain untouched three years in? Well, in good part because, more than once, Obama ended up flat out caving on the issue in the end. When it comes to those "my way or we shut down" showdowns, he ends up blinking first. Would Hillary? I kinda doubt it.

    I do agree that the "demonization" and ugly combative political environment would've been even worse with Hillary. But I also suspect that more of the stuff her voters wanted done would've gotten done in the end.
     
  5. Greenhorn

    Greenhorn Active Member

    Yet vast swaths of the demonization playbook used against the president couldn't have been used against Hillary Clinton: ie, birtherism, the "not Christian" nonsense.
     
  6. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    They would, however, have suggested she hails from the Isle of Lesbos.
     
  7. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Does anyone really think the GOP would have caved in to Hillary? They'd use it as fuel to ramp up the outrage and partisanship.
     
  8. printdust

    printdust New Member

  9. Greenhorn

    Greenhorn Active Member

    I wonder if the notion that the right-wingers non-stop assault on the Clintons influenced Democratic primary voters to vote for Obama instead. (But of course we should all predicted the formation of the Tea-Party at the stroke of midnight Jan. 20, 2009).
     
  10. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Clinton has repeatedly said that Secretary of State will be her last public office. She'll also be 68 in 2016. Taking a pol at his/her word is dangerous, I know, but she's been emphatic about it.
    And should Obama lose next year, hardly a wild assumption, my prediction is the 2016 Democratic nominee will be far to the left of the current party establishment -- therefore, likely to be someone off our radar in 2011.
     
  11. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Hillary would not have had the honeymoon period that Obama had. Granted, he had democratic majorities in both the house and the senate and he used up most of that goodwill very quickly when he crammed healthcare through.

    I think Hillary would have been more intelligent about how she tried to pass what she wanted, because she would not have underestimated the republicans.

    I absolutely think the republicans would have gone after her, but I think they respect her a lot more than they respect Obama.

    I think if Hillary had been elected, the Bush tax cuts would not have been extended and the jobs bill would have been passed in 2009, instead of 2011. I'm guessing she would have been more definitive about ending the war as well, which I know would seem strange, because she voted for the war and Obama did not, which is all the more stunning that he's done so little to end it.

    I'm not an Obama fan on any level, but I get no joy out of watching him fail. I know everything isn't his fault, but I just look at him and I shake my head, because I don't have any faith that he knows what he's doing.
     
  12. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    You're right that the President does not rule by Fiat.

    But Obama could have done far better in some of these negotiations than he did. A big part of Obama's problem was that he violated the number-one rule of negotiation: you start at your extreme position, your ideal position, and THEN negotiate towards the center. Obama too often came to the center right off the bat and then kept negotiating to the right. Republicans knew they could be patient with Obama because he'd give in to their demands eventually.

    And Obama could have twisted arms in Congress the way LBJ did to get the Civil Rights Act and his Great Society programs passed. Say what you want about those programs, but give LBJ this - he wanted something specific and he did what it took to get it done. He LED THE WAY. When has Obama ever done that? He wants to be "the grownup in the room" when in reality that means very little to voters, especially when the bottom line still sucks at the end of the day.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page