Because (hopefully) she would not have proposed health care reform when the economy is in the toilet. A sense of appropriate timing is part of what makes for an effective President.
Obama proceeded with Obamacare mostly on momentum - he proposed the idea of health care reform long before the economy tanked. Once he was elected, he used up much of his political capital getting it past Congress. That’s not being an effective President, because health care reform (especially not a bastardized version like Obamacare) is not what the country needed. Hopefully HRC would have known better.
But look at Social Security. I was enacted in 1935 not 1925 or 1950. Sometimes people are only willing to embrace a fundamental new program when times are desperate. When times are good, people just want to maintain the status quo.
That’s part of the problem with Obamacare - it is not a fundamental change in health care delivery in the US. Rather like Social Security was in its first incarnation - for the first few years, SS paid only lump sums (the first check sent was for 17 cents). Monthly payments didn’t start until 1940, and survivor’s benefits started in 1939. Disability payments started in 1965, under Guess Who. (Cite.)
Although you have a point - Hilarycare failed too, and that was after the recession was over (and Bill’s attempts to increase the deficit failed). So health care is a tough sell even in relatively good times.
Hillary would have threatened to get support. In my opinion. Also, in my opinion, Obama has failed to threaten to get support. Obama is all carrot and no stick. He is the ideal Democrat to be elected, if you happen to be a Republican or waffling Democrat.
With what? I understand there’s a perception that she’s tougher than Obama is, and that may even be accurate. But that doesn’t mean that if the issues and incentives are the same, you can get what you want if you use threats instead of bargaining. Let’s not forget here that Obama’s first chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, who was supposed to have been a real hardass. I think the comments that Clinton might’ve used the Bush tax cuts as more of a bargaining chip and that she wouldn’t have tackled health care reform in the first place are more valid.
That steady decline gave Franklin Roosevelt credibility on the economy that Barack Obama has not earned yet. If unemployment had continued to grow after Roosevelt’s inauguration, like it did after the inauguration of Obama, the Republicans would have done well in the Congressional election of 1934, like they did in 2010, and they would have stopped Social Security.
President Obama’s chief mistake was to force through a health care plan most Americans do not seem to like when he should have addressed the jobs situation. I do not think Hillary Clinton would have made that mistake.
I like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I voted for Obama in the primary because he was slightly ahead in the polls, and I wanted someone who could defeat John McCain. Good intentions are not good enough. Leaders need to be effective. I think Hillary would have been more effective than Barack.
What’s the threat, exactly? What punishment can the President impose on Congresspeople who don’t agree to the agenda? Especially Congresspeople of the opposition party?
It’s one thing to threaten to “get tough”, it’s another thing to figure out exactly what “getting tough” means.
I think Bill would have called in all his friends and owed favors for her. I think the guy was a great President, but I imagine that he has pictures of most Congressmen with girlfriends, little boys or ducks.
Same here. She has been under no illusions about the opposition party’s oppositionism, or its willingness to go to any depths to oppose, for quite a long time now. Obama has wasted a lot of time and a lot of capital, and thereby failed to move us forward as much as he might have, based on his own misapprehensions about how he’s able to magically get Republican cooperation through his own power of coolness, or whatever words to that effect we got regularly regaled with here during the primaries. He does seem to be learning that point, but not clearly.
I’m a bit taken aback by all the people insisting that Hillary wouldn’t have pushed for healthcare reform.
It’s something she was genuinely passionate about and in fact she pushed far harder for it than Obama ever did.
Anyway, I think anyone who thinks that Hillary could have gotten a bigger stimulus package, universal healthcare or other progressive dream are guilty of wishful thinking and an underestimation of the country’s mood and the limitations of what a President can do.
Moreover, they’re ignoring that there’s little reason to believe that the economy under Hillary would be in better shape and considering her negatives and the fact that she isn’t as likable as Obama she’d be less likely to be re-elected.
But Obama didn’t force anything through. Congress passed a health care bill and Obama signed it. Congress didn’t even use Obama’s health care proposal; they crafted their own plan. They spent months debating and amending it. Obama had little to do with its details.
The jobs situation was supposed to be addressed with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was in fact passed well before the health care bill, near the start of his term (Feb 2009). Of course, that bill didn’t do nearly enough. I’m sure Obama knew that even at the time. But the political will to pass a larger stimulus just wasn’t there.
No one has more power to shape the political will than the President. Obama’s team proposed what they thought would be an acceptable amount. We can’t really know whether Obama thought that would be enough or not. What we do know is that he asked for a low figure (as compared to the loss in GDP) and (predictably) he got even less. As Obama was proposing the initative he got to set the parameters. If he had asked for twice as much, or even more, then THAT amount would have been the upper boundry and the final figure (predictably) would have been higher. By setting the anchor so low he doomed the chances for economic recovery.
We also can’t know how Hillary would have responded in that situation. Perhaps she would have been satisfied with the lower stimulus figure. But to say that there was nothing any POTUS could have done to increase the stimulus is off base. The numbers are huge. People understand them relative to the other proposals. Start higher, end higher.
One thing I’m confident of is that Ms Clinton would have avoided this debt ceiling mess. Remember that it came about because Obama massively misjudged the GOP. He should have included raising it in the earlier deal on tax cuts but figured the Republicans would do the right thing when the time came. Hillary would not have been that dumb.
I voted for Clinton in the primary because I thought Obama didn’t fit the times. His time in office has failed to changed that perception. We don’t need a conciliator. We need a strong leader to stand up for regular Americans. I was never sure Hillary would be that president but figured the odds were better.
I agree that it’s an issue she would have pushed. Either out of personal conviction or personal vindication.
And I think she would have gotten a more comprehensive health care plan enacted. Obama’s goal was to try to get a health care everyone could agree on. Clinton would have pushed for a health care plan that 51% of Congress would have vote yes for.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the House with 50.8% of those present voting in favor (219 to 212). Of course it passed in the Senate with 60.6% (60 to 39)–I don’t know if President Hillary Clinton would have been able to do something about this stupid notion that ordinary legislation has to get a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate in order to pass, but I fear she would not have.
