Is Hillary more right-wing or left-wing than Obama?
Should we expect a substantially different presidency, or would she just be Obama 2.0?
For domestic programs it would be about the same (assuming continuing Republican control of Congress). Foreign policy wise she is a strong neocon and will get along very well with the Republicans, unlike Obama.
I think Clinton will be willing to work with Republicans in Congress (she had a good reputation for bipartisanship when she was in the Senate). But I think she’ll have a different approach than Obama. Clinton will offer the carrot but she’ll make it clear there’s also a stick.
Barely concealed racism will be replaced by barely concealed sexism.
Close, instead of every criticism of the president being labeled as racist, every criticism will be labeled as sexist !!!
Everyone’s right so far!
But seriously, she’ll work better with Republicans. She built far more relationships during her time in the Senate than Obama did. Obama talked a bipartisan game but he tended to stay within his party much, much more than Democrats we would regard as bipartisan. Clinton has a much better record in that regard.
She will also be more hawkish. According to every book I’ve read, plus media accounts of OBama’s first term, she was always the most hawkish voice in the room. The Libya war was hers more than anyone else in that administration. Her language on Iran has also been the most unyielding, although she’s trying hard not to undermine the President. But I am certain that she’ll be a lot less likely to tolerate cheating than Obama will.
I think there will be more competence, fewer executive department failures. Not so much because she has executive experience, she doesn’t, but she spent eight years inside an administration that actually made government efficiency and performance a priority and I can’t imagine that she’d ignore that now. Plus, like her husband, she wants activist government to actually work. Poor government performance undermines public support for activist government.
So that’s all the good stuff. HOw about the bad stuff? We’ll get more spin, less honesty, about as much empathy as Bush 41 could muster up if not less when the country is hurting, and transparency is going to take another few steps back.
All in all though, I think she’ll be the best President since her husband. Which is a very low bar to clear, given that the last two Presidents have not enjoyed much public confidence. I also see a similar trajectory for her approval ratings throughout her Presidency. She’ll probably enjoy low favorables but high job performance ratings, pretty much the opposite of GWB and Obama. She’ll be respected but not liked.
Wow - I count 11 Obama jabs in a post ostensibly about Hillary. You just can’t help yourself, can you adaher?
I agree with this assessment.
Notice Obama’s name in the title. We are actually supposed to compare the two. And don’t be lazy. You counted his name 11 times. There was actually only four jabs, otherwise known as criticisms if you aren’t a thin-skinned Obama fanboy.
Much will be the same. Republicans will meet on Jan 20, 2017 and vow to oppose her on everything she wants to do. McConnell will announce that the party’s number one goal is to make her a one-term president. Every item on her agenda will be seen as The End Times by the right wing.
I think her time as Secretary of State has toned down her hawkishness, which I think was overstated in the past. She wanted to appear tough in her first run, hence the hawk veneer. She won’t need to do that anymore.
Hillary won’t suffer under the illusion of being a post-partisan president. She will be more effective in using the bully pulpit in the face of intransigent opposition. She will not repeat Obama’s mistake of starting negotiations from what she perceives as the middle ground.
In domestic policy, I don’t see a lot of daylight between them. She, like Obama, will be too cozy with Wall Street. Her Supreme Court nominations will be cut from the same cloth as Obama’s. In short, I think her administration will be a blend between Bill’s third term and Obama’s.
I think that’s a little unfair. I found Adaher’s analysis well thought out and plausible. You may not agree with it, but it’s not an off-topic Obama bash.
True, it’s not off-topic. Of course, it includes a number of unsupported assertions and insinuations.
As a Senator? Maybe. As a President? He spent years trying to work with the same GOP who agreed on Day 1 not to give an inch on anything.
This I agree with, although I think she’s less hawkish than she was in 2008.
Cite that Obama will “tolerate cheating”?
We’re well aware that you find Obama incompetent, ineffective, prone to failure, and disliked. We’re also well aware that most of your evidence for this is not actually evidence.
Obama’s ratings are not that different from Reagan’s. He’s polled very low amongst Republicans, but that’s hardly surprising considering the number of Republicans who genuinely think he’s a foreign-born terrorist-supporting Muslim Communist who any day now will be rounding up his opponents into internment camps.
Whereas I bet the minute she even comes near being elected she’ll be portrayed as the Worst President Ever, bent on Destroying America. Possibly even by you, considering your current refrain of “freefall”.
And I’m not thin-skinned about criticism of Obama. I’ve criticized him many times - for things he’s actually done (or not done). I’m thin-skinned about endless repetitions of unsupported bullshit.
Politics is complex and there are a lot of players. Yes, Republicans will want to beat her from the first day she’s President. Yes, many will see anything she supports as the Worst Policy Ever. And there will be many attempts to bring her down with investigations, given what a target rich environment it is(Obama was not as vulnerable to such things). But where there is room for agreement, there will be legislation.
Geez, even her supporters assume she’s faking it.
No, this is one of the few things where I think she stands on principle. She’s just been too consistent and has too long a record. It’s possible that her Iraq war vote was political calculation, but her instincts have always been to kick ass, if not necessarily by committing ground troops. She will likely continue the Obama/BIll Clinton policy of limited war, done frequently, only with tougher rhetoric and less reticence.
That is so cute! C’mon, do it again!
THis is a speculation thread. You may not agree with my analysis of Obama’s Presidency, but this isn’t really the thread to get deep in the woods on his record.
-
Obama has made it clear he really, really doesn’t want to fight Iran. He’s pledged that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. If they cheat right away, then them getting one before he leaves office is fairly likely. He will have to take military action or look like a blowhard bluffer.
-
He’s put a lot of political capital behind this. If Iran starts cheating soon and he calls them on it and reimposes sanctions, then all of this was a waste of time. He needs this to work or at least muddle along enough to look like it’s better than any alternatives.
Clinton, by contrast, doesn’t need the Iran agreement to work. She’s put no political capital behind it. She doesn’t own it. and she takes it personally when people f*(!k with her.
So okay, if all of these executive agency failures are not his fault, and if Americans’ faith in the executive branch being at its lowest point since the Nixon administration isn’t his fault, then you are conceding that Clinton can’t make it better. I think she can, and will. Take it as praise of Clinton if you don’t like it as criticism of Obama.
Reagan left office with a 60% approval rating.
I maintain that Clinton’s poor performance as a campaigner and her honesty issues will keep her from being President barring a Republican nominee that is unacceptable. But it is unlikely that I’ll consider her the worst President ever. GWB and Obama, for different reasons, have been incredibly awful. If I was just about the politics, I’d already be shifting into portraying Clinton as the worst ever. It undermines my message to say that she will be better than the current President.
Ostensibly? You mean this thread is not about how a Hillary presidency would be different from Obama’s?
I expect a Hillary presidency would set a new record for the number of times a President uses Executive Privilege to hide her actions from the voters.
Compare that to our faith in the *legislative *branch, and tell us who’s at fault for that. Hint: Single digits.
And so did Bill Clinton. Despite the character flaws you’re now projecting onto his wife. 
You’re arguing against the data, you know.
Key point there, wouldn’t you say?
Sounds like you’ll be making the same proud predictions in 2024. Maybe you’ll even live long enough to see another Republican President, maybe not.
So you accept that she will be the next President? That the Republican nominee will be, as you say, “unacceptable”?
Which doesn’t change the fact that the executive branch is also at its lowest point.
Bubba was effective and bipartisan. Which I acknowledged HIllary could be as well. Obama is neither.
Which data? Has a President ever been elected for the first time with such poor personal ratings?
In practice, the Republicans haven’t nominated someone unelectable since 1964. They are unlikely to do that in 2016.
I can say with absolute confidence that whoever wins the Presidency will be better than the last two. Even if the unthinkable happens and it’s Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.
Which does make your point irrelevant sniping.
Nothing he can do about being black, is there? Or Democratic, at this point.
The poll data that shows here comfortably ahead of anybody *you *have, and with your “free fall” still not happening. But that’s just more of your denying that uncomfortable facts even exist, like the last Presidential election for instance.
Yet they haven’t won legitimately since 1988. At some point you have to recognize a pattern.
More predictions! Keep 'em coming!