You’re exactly right- and Obama’s timing was perfect. He was never going to have more political capital than he did immediately after being elected, regardless of what happened to the economy. Even a war wasn’t going to help.
Obama’s timing was suspect only in the sense that he didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I suppose you could pillory him for not waiting for one, but that seems like a fool’s errand.
I agree, which is why it is possible she would not have tried to reform health care during (to say the least) much less favorable economic times.
Turning to other issues, I wonder how she would have dealt with the recession had she been POTUS. Probably the same as Obama, and with no more success. Foreign policy would have been much the same. Does anyone know if she was in favor of bombing the Libyans?
It’s probably not fair to compare her to her husband, but I wonder if she would have been as likely to act on Pakistani territory and get ObL that way. Slick Willie had him in his sights when he was POTUS, and let him go. One wonders if HRC has more balls than he.
I wonder how much influence Bill would have had. My impression was that they were partners throughout his career, where she earned the money and enabled him to be governor and attorney general (and looked the other way while he fucked his way across AK). Then when he made it to the White House, he gave her her chance to do what she wanted. Turns out it was health care reform, with the results we saw. Once that went down in flames, she sort of retreated until Slick Willie was out of office, and then started her own semi-independent path to the Oval Office. That seems to have peaked at SoS - I wonder if she will change her mind and run in 2016. I bet she does if Obama loses.
Regards,
Shodan
Repubs and Dems said that Healthcare is the problem of out generation, during the campaigns. It is swallowing up a larger and larger part of the budget while providing bad care and leaving millions without . Healthcare would have been job one if Bush didn’t crash the world economy.
But , it is amazing to conceive of, politicians can actually do more than one thing at a time.
Our healthcare system is harmful to American competitiveness and will bankrupt the country if not dealt with. That means it had to be dealt with as soon as possible.
Arkansas is AR. AK is Alaska, and the idea of Clinton screwing his way across that state suggests a possible coupling that I don’t want to think about.
Her ideas were good enough for Obama to accept the idea of everyone having to pay after he became elected after refusing it while a candidate. 
Bill Clinton “fucked his way across” Alaska?
Dang it, Marley!
Rule 34.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - :o
I agree that Obama should have focused on stopping the increasing rate of job loss that was occurring during the first half of his term. We can see what a poor job he’s made of that.
I did vote for her. And she had a better health care plan. And I thought she was better for education.
At least she wasn’t running as The Most Progressive Candidate EVAR. No surprises with her.
Maybe. Maybe not. But a starting point of negotiations is typically laying all you want on the table. And Obama was taking progressive options off before the primaries were over.
An administration can recruit candidates to run for Congress, delay projects in districts and states, replace cronies of Congresscritters in administration posts, etc.
And don’t forget, Bill has pictures of Newt with a duck!
the health care plan obama let the democrats write in concert with the insurance industry is closer to what hillary campaigned on than to his own campaign statements, particularly the mandate to purchase. and o and hrc both have been co-opted by the neocons on foreign policy, i don’t think hrc could pursue the policy of extra judicial killing of criminal suspects any more vigorously than o has. and hillary might have strapped on a big fake one by now and wrecked the world economy by bombing iran, something o is only thinking seriously of. and what kinds of fool are we to think the economy is driven by changes at the top or small % variations in the rate at which the 1% are taxed? and i thought the one per centers were the hell’s angels anyway…
Yes…
I’m not sure what you are talking about there.
A ringing endorsement from the Wall Street Journal editorial page:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
I’m taking this as evidence that Obama’s a much more effective President than many have given him credit for, and that he’s nearly a shoe-in for re-election.
This is the one thing I wonder about. Would Clinton have realized that the Republicans would hold the debt ceiling hostage, and would she have been able to convince the congressional Democrats not to capitulate. That’s the only mistake I see on Obama’s part: misjudging the Republican desire to threaten our nation’s very solvency to get their way.
Other than that, I don’t think Clinton would have been very different.
Speaking as a foreigner I’d say no she wouldn’t make a better president then Obama.
Must be useful having an ex president on tap for advice though.
I’m pretty sure Bill would answer the phone if Obama called.
But Obama might not want to be seen asking a previous president for advice, the right wingers would make a huge incident out of it, ie. Obama not up to the job etc.etc.
Whereas Bill almost certainly volunteers advice to Hilary without being asked.
I never cared much for Hillary and was glad to see her lose in 2008, as I voted for Obama in the primaries and the general election. I have incredible buyer’s remorse now though. Obama has surely been awful in a way that must make Bush happy. As bad as Bush was, I have very little doubt that Obama will be remembered by historians as even worse by many standards. Saying that Clinton would have been better than Obama is not saying much, as nearly anyone in the country selected at random would have been better. Obama is like a Carter 2.0, or even a Hoover 2.0, in many ways. I think you probably get how upset I am with voting for Obama.
Sadly, looks like I’ll have to vote for him again because the republican party is so insane.
There’s no way Clinton or anyone would’ve followed through on a threat to veto the Bush tax cuts at the time. Let them expire, sure, but actively veto them? Even if the rich were disproportionately the biggest recipients of it there’s no way she would have avoided getting politically creamed had she had gone through with it. I can see the ads right now: ‘Clinton raised taxes in the middle of the recession!’
Considering that Cantor and Boehner of all people didn’t want it to go as far as it did, I really do think that if Hillary Clinton ‘acted tough’ we (the U.S.) would have accidentally have defaulted. I see no calculus out there that Clinton could’ve safely taken that would’ve gotten her more out of the deal than Obama managed to get. People don’t seem to realize that it’s just basic game theory that a threat makes you worse off than having not have made it. This happens even if you follow through on it. I prefer Obama’s weaseling and compromises a lot more to the ineffectual flailing and empty tough talk that plagued the Clinton administration.
No one remembers the Roosevelt Recession or the court-packing scheme even though those are perfect examples of the damage tough talk can do to you.
