Obama then went on to explain that while a President might get credit for bringing about the end of days, he wouldn’t have been able to do it without the infrastructure - schools, roads, courts, demons - that the government supplied.
I think people’s fears that Clinton will start a war are exaggerated. The current national mood is anti-war after the Iraq debacle. Clinton’s not an ideologue who’s going to try to defy that mood by seeking out a new war.
Its also benefited Russia. The world has seen that Russia invaded Crimea, and the west did nothing. And they’ve seen that Russia saved it’s ally (Syria) while the US has a reputation for making big promises but not coming to the rescue (Kurds in Iraq, Ukraine etc). You can bet that many middle eastern and african countries have taken note and Russia’s geopolitical influence has increased, while the US has waned.
She’ll get to shape the court…that’s the sort of long term legacy she’ll have and be very good at.
I also expect you will see some important bureaucratic changes - I think she’ll have a good cabinet and good appointees. I would be shocked if anyone on Hillary’s staff would be a case of “Heckofajob Brownie”
Some people may feel that way but the reality is, Russia doesn’t have the funds to prop up friendly dictatorships but the U.S. does and people actually in charge know it. People who know anything know that the Kurds are way down on the totem pole no matter what gets said at the press conference. You think Russia’s actions in Syria is going to convince any Middle Eastern countries to give up billions in aid and start courting Russia?
She will have a harder fight of it than President Obama. And that’s saying something.
And she will tie their hands and keep them from making progressive policy changes because she lacks conviction and political capital to push them through congress.
But that is going to be true of anyone we elect. We are too polarized right now. If Trump becomes President and the GOP retains the House and Senate, they’ll be so pissed at him and he is so likely to overreach that he won’t get anything done either.
Sanders would not get anything done either - he’s likely to overreach. Its unlikely he’ll have a Democratic House. Most of what he wants is to the left of the sitting Democrats - they won’t fall in line behind him - the reality of “who is going to pay for it” will come home.
There are peaceniks who think she’s too belligerent toward Russia (probably fair) & would risk a nuclear war (probably wildly unfair). Diana Johnstone, who peddles an alleged book called “The Queen of Chaos,” seems to encourage them.
I don’t think HRC will start a war with Russia. That said, she might very well get into adventures & filibusters in North Africa. Maybe she’ll bomb Venezuela. She does seem more hawkish than her husband, and oddly similar to both GWB and Dr. Kissinger on foreign policy generally.
At this point I expect (hope) Hillary to win and I look forward to the heads of right-wing entertainers (e.g. Limbaugh) exploding. They will fall all over themselves trying to trump (heh) each other in predicting apocalypse.
Don’t look down on them too much, though. Some Dopers have predicted that, if elected, Trump will likely introduce a “Final Solution” against Muslims. We like to predict disaster when our opponents succeed.
I think alot might depend on circumstances beyond control of the president. 9-11 was this. In some ways the real estate meltdown was also.
Some petty dictator or radical terror group decides to do some crap - that also.
Now how will the presdient handle them.
Answer: We dont know. Neither has had experience in such matters.
Dislike HRC for any of the list of reasons that people dislike her, but you cannot seriously assert that she lacks experience. She is, by far, the most qualified person in this presidential race.
Against Triump, sure, but against a longtime Congressman (Sanders) and a state governor (Kasich) that’s a dubious claim.
I think she might be a more impactful president than people give her credit for. She has, in essence, experience at the position. Bill has repeatedly stated that he ran much of his presidential decision past Hillary for her input and I would presume she would do the same. Bill Clinton was a successful president and I believe she would be, too.
Unlike Obama, the Clintons are skilled politicos. They have years and years of deep connections on both sides of the aisle and can work them to their advantage as needed. Whether Hillary can bridge the gap that has developed in the last 8 years, we don’t know. But she has a better chance of doing so than Obama did. The GOP is reeling right now and may not have the strength they did a year or so ago to stand united against the Clintons.
Being a woman, I would like to see her succeed, if elected.
Definitely a kick line.
Sanders was elected to the House two years before Clinton began her stint as First Lady, in which she was heavily involved in Washington power politics, gaining experience and learning lessons. She then spent 8 years as a Senator and 4 years as Secretary of State. I think that beats Sanders. Of course, he will not win the nomination.
Kasich is more arguable. In addition to his six years as Governor of Ohio, he spent 6 years as chairman of the House Budget Committee while Bill Clinton was President. Of course, he dropped out of the race Wednesday.
I’m not sure why you’re comparing her experience to Sanders or Kasich.
Just recently I heard a right-wing hate-radio talk-show host claim that her leaked e-mails caused the Benghazi attack.
I mention this to a friend, and he immediately said, “Because of Vince Foster!”
And to think: The thing that got the Benghazi attackers the angriest was all that land in Arkansas Hillary personally stole from those Blind Orphaned Nuns so they couldn’t build their shooting range.
Once their leader, Durka-Durka Mohammed Jihad, got wind of the news, he personally made sure to turn the whole of Benghazi into a no-go zone. With a nuke. The police can’t even set foot there anymore, what with the ghouls and rock-throwing sharia supporters.
Kenneth Starr will have his revenge on Little Rock, Arkansas!
The status quo under Obama is vastly preferable to the status quo under George W Bush.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
Now you’re getting foolishly optimistic. I did that with Obama. Big mistake.
I didn’t know Kasich had dropped out. I assumed that he was the last bearer of the Anyone But Trump mantle.
Well, then. Since Hillary’s negatives & reputation mean she “can’t” win a general election, I guess we have three choices: Sanders gets an implausible push now; an independent or third party swoops in; or we get the “Trump Presidency of Classy, Classy Doom.”
I’m not counting Trump taking a dive as a choice, because if he’s really been her stalking horse all along that’s not a choice we get to make.
Yeah. And this leads me to say: I’ve never been clear on the basis for the “Hillary’s a hawk” meme, other than that it’s a comfortably-familiar smear. But what justifies the smear?
It’s true that along with 297 US Representatives and 76 other US Senators (58% of the Democrats, by the way), she voted for the 2002 Iraq Resolution. If that’s it, one would expect to hear all 373 of those other people being called hawks–yet that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I don’t recalls incidents from her time as Secretary of State, or any other period in her public life, in which she was advocating for troops to be sent somewhere, either. Were there a lot of such incidents that I’ve simply missed? If so, what were the particulars?
In short: what justifies the “hawk” label?