The Democratic primary in 2008 was contentious and in the end it basically came down to Clinton vs. Obama. There was lots of debate here on the SDMB, and most were pro-Obama by the end. But in the years since, there has also been a lot of disappointment with Obama. Many Democrats perceive that he has given in too much and too easily to Republican demands. Many think he has been too much of a push-over.
So, knowing what we know now, do you think Clinton would have made a better president? Would she have been better able to stand up to the Tea Party and other Republican groups? Could she have improved the economy faster? If you could go back in time, would you have voted in the primaries for Clinton?
I actually voted for her in tha primaries, but didn’t hold particularly strong feelings. I think she probably would have been better. I think she has more of a spine and would be less likely to cave to the Republicans. Also she seems to be better equipped to do the sausage making that goes into politics while Obama want to be the nice guy. Under her we probably would have gotten a stronger health care bill through. I think the economy and foreign policy would be basically in the same place. My main concern against at the time of the Primary was that she was absolutely hated by the right, and so I thought Obama would be less prone to continual knee jerk attack. With 20/20 hindsight it’s clear that this was not the case.
I think the individual differences between their temperaments and styles might make less difference than you would expect. At the start of their terms the makeup of Congress would be the same and the state of the economy would have been the same.
Yea, I think Obama has been more hindered by factionalism in his party, GOP obstructionism and the poor economy then “willingness to compromise”. I don’t think yelling at Lieberman or Boehner would make either more likely to compromise, despite the fantasies some people on this board sometimes entertain where Obama could get stuff passed if he just browbeat the legislature.
I also think Hillary lost the primary for a reason. She isn’t her husband, and was at best a mediocre campaigner. She also has a tendency to chase the news cycle, while one of the things I like about team-Obama is he stays pretty focused on what he wants instead of getting thrown off by every new story of the minute on CNN. I don’t think Hillary would’ve done any better then Obama in getting health care or the Stimulus or Finance Reform passed. But I can see her abandoning those projects when the going got tough, just to get them out of the news.
Plus, just as far as the longterm health of the Democratic party is concerned, I think its wise to show that there’s a “deep bench” of possible candidates, and we don’t need to go running back to the same family everytime we need a Presidential nominee.
So no, I think Obama has done a good job in difficult circumstances, and I think Hillary would’ve done the same or worse.
As someone who has never particularly liked Hillary, I do think she would have made a more effective president. However, I also think she would have had a tougher time getting elected. Now, having Palin to run against would have helped, but you could argue that McCain probably would not have not picked Palin if he was running against Hillary. If he had accidentally picked someone competent and charismatic Hillary would have had a problem.
Maybe, but its not exactly like Bill Clinton, and other people from his Administration, have been shunned by the WH. If they were sitting on any super-know how in avoiding filibusters, I imagine they’ve already shared it.
Any benefits of having the more experienced Hilary as President would be hampered by the nations’ souring mood from having 24-28 years with only two last names in the Presidency.
I have to wonder if HRC, with the baggage from “HillaryCare”, could have gotten the HCRB through Congress. It was not easy for Obama, and I’m guessing it would have been harder for her.
On the plus side:
[ul]
[li]She would have had a better handle on how Washington works, who’s who, what levers to pull, and all that.[/li][li]She appears to be “tougher”.[/li][/ul]
On the minus side:
[ul]
[li]Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Not in my America, thank you very much.[/li][li]An insider in Washington, not always a good thing.[/li][li]Right-wing attack machine fired up and ready to go with years of hitting her under it’s belt.[/li][li]Doesn’t seem to have the “vision” thing that Obama does.[/li][li]Doesn’t seem to have the “charisma” thing that Obama does.[/li][/ul]
So, can’t really say if she would have been better overall. She would have had her own things that we would be complaining about.
Looking back to 2008, I think it’s clear that the Republican party has made opposition to a Democratic presidential administration one of its top goals - not just opposition over issues but opposition as a policy. I’m confident this would have been the case if Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards or Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich) had been elected instead of Barack Obama. But of the likely candidates, I think Clinton would have been the most effective in responding to this opposition. She would not have wasted very much time trying to win over her opponents - she’d have made a token effort at conciliation and then moved on to fighting her opponents.
I think that Obama’s efforts to be bipartisan to the point of laying down during every fight make him a less than ideal President. I was very pleased when Obama was elected, and now I think he is just a stuffed suit. I was for Hillary in the primaries because I felt that she knew what kind of fighting she would be in for and that she was prepared to give better than she got. I still feel that way.
While I don’t like the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing either, in retrospect it seems like Ms. Clinton would have been tougher and less likely to cave in to Republican demands. I think it’s quite likely that should would have made a better president.
What would Clinton have done that would have made for a better health care bill, for example? She still would have needed to get 60 Senators to sign on to prevent a filibuster, which essentially means dealing with the same moderate Senators (Snowe, Lincoln, etc.) who had so much influence in altering the bill that was passed. One of the things Obama did fail to do in early stages of the health care debate was step up and explain what the bill would do and why it was important. Things got out of hand before he presented a message to the public. I’m not sure how a President Hillary Clinton would have done better since communicating with the public is more Obama’s strong suit than hers. I’m trying to think of other options. Would Clinton have campaign on a different theme and de-emphasized bipartisanship? If she did, would the Republicans have been less hell-bent on denying her any success in bipartisanship? I’m not seeing how. You could probably make a better case for differences in foreign policy than on domestic issues.
Hell no. Clinton struck me as someone trying to prove her toughness to the detriment of sound leadership, and I think she would have been far more divisive without actually achieving anything by that divisiveness. I think her personality and experience are much better suited for her current role, and I think she’s doing a good job in it.
Not proposed one while the economy was in the toilet, perhaps. I would have hoped she learned her lesson with the Hilarycare debacle.
Hopefully, she would have done sort of what Slick Willie did - not so much block Republicans as take credit for what they did. When the Dems lost control of Congress two years into Clinton’s first term, he was able to triangulate such that he could get credit for welfare reform and balancing the budget in the short term, even though he fought against both of them.
HRC has more experience than BHO in Washington, to say the least. OTOH she has the charisma of Sonny Liston, especially compared to Obama. The contrast is rather like JFK vs. LBJ - JFK was more glamorous, but LBJ got the Great Society legislation passed.
I don’t understand this. Obama actually got Health-care reform passed (and finance reform, for that matter) and you are proposing that Hillary wouldn’t have. So how can you say that Hillary would have been more effective (like LBJ)?
As to the OP’s question, I think Hillary proved in 1994 that she wouldn’t stand up and fight for health-care reform (although, to be fair, she didn’t really make the calls back then). Also, the large policy difference between them re: HCR was the individual mandate (which Hillary supported and Obama opposed), which ended up being included anyways. So I have to call health-care reform a wash - I don’t see any way in which she gets a more substantive bill passed than Obama was able to.
On foreign policy issues I’m really not sure there are significant missteps that she would have avoided. Hell, from the State Dept she’s been intimately involved in foreign policy anyways.
The one area I think she might have done better is by more strongly backing the deficit commission report and daring the GOP to turn it down. I’m still pretty sure they would have, but at least it might have been a discussion point instead of pushed under the table. She might have played more hard-ball on extending the Bush tax cuts as well, threatening a veto (and perhaps following through) on any that didn’t let the upper two bracket rates lapse.
I don’t think so. Both are really strong and driven, but the economic implosion and Republican intransigence are beyond the president’s control. The one major difference however is that Hillary could never have such an excellent Secretary of State that Obama had.