Hypothetically assume that one or the other win the general. What happens next? I tend to agree with this from The Economist
with mild exceptions. (I see HRC as more of a hawk and that the partisan politics to transcend are of both the Bush and the Clinton years.)
I’d expect that HRC will run into more opposition and motivate the general public to vote in more Republicans the next Congressional cycle and that Obama with his less partisan approach might be more likely to get things done and less likely to motivate a Congressional backlash.
Hilary will probably take another crack at UHC, albeit incrementally. Obama will sign whatever the Democratic Congress puts in front of him.
Both of them will raise taxes (and spend roughly 110-115% of whatever results from it). If they are lucky, the recession will be over by then and they can claim credit for it. If they aren’t, then the recession will be made worse, and they will have to blame it on Bush and then change the subject.
Al-queda and/or some other terrorist groups or nations will try something early on to test the new President.
There will be a string of scandals going off like firecrackers - some Cabinet nominee caught with his hand in the cookie jar or accepting illegal contributions or something. Hilary would be better at ignoring that - she’s had a lot of practice, and I expect it will be one of the things that will blindside Obama, who has no experience in management, hiring or firing.
If it’s Hilary, Bill will say something stupid or that assumes he is back in charge. Or he will get caught with his pants down again.If it’s Obama, he has no idea what he is in for - the Washington insiders will keep picking at him and try to make him blow up or spend his time denying stuff.
A pity that they can’t learn from the austere frugality of their predecessor. But they would probably never be creative enough to start a ruinously expensive war while cutting taxes. Takes a special kind of mind to come up with something like that…
One that rides the short bus.
If Obama wins (Lord, hear my plea!) there will hopefully be a groundswell of support that will keep some of the jackals at bay for a bit, until he gets his legs. Then I’m hoping one of those jackals sticks his neck out a little too far and gets it chopped off, to the cheers of the crowd. Idealistic, I’m sure, but it’s time we had someone with ideals.
If Hillary wins, it’s total gridlock, chaos and destruction.
I would like to ask all viable candidates for president right now, a simple question:
"Upon assuming the oath as the next President of the United States, will you immediately begin an open and public process to repudiate all of the actions and directions of the former president where they conflict with the oath you have just taken as understood by an average, intelligent American; for example, including but not limited to, repudiate the illegal concept of signing statements, begin the process of returning habeus corpus to its original definition, intent and practice prior to the former president’s term, renounce any support for torture by the American government, restore those civil rights the former president blatantly violated and the former Congress chose to not investigate and pursue for possible persecution, continue a public investigation into the US Attorneys scandal, restore FOIA as an independent and open oversight office of government, restore EEOC as an independent and open oversight office of government, work to repeal the Real ID Act, work to repeal the Patriot Act, immediately begin the process to end the war in Iraq while increasing efforts to find Osama bin Laden, work to bridge the petty and bullshit attitudes of bickering partisanship and divisiveness ‘…where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run,’ and finally, borrowing from the Declaration of Independence, ‘Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed’?
"Now before you answer this question, please understand that there are only two single word answers to it, yes, or no. Also understand that any other response to this question, including expanding upon a single word answer called for, will be seen and understood as answering in the negative.
“And your one word answer is …?”
Hillary will not answer yes.
Obama’s done better against the Clinton machine than your entire party was ever able to do. He has them fighting for their political lives and legacy where the Republican’s best hit jobs rarely registered above a temporary speed bump. You really think he’s some ingenue that will be unable to cope with some low blows and sucker punches? Just because the guy talks about the politics of hope, that doesn’t mean he’s some punk that’s going to go armadillo at the first sign of trouble. Maybe I’m blinded by my own admiration of the man but I think you’re underestimating him.
I think he will push the government to be more progressive and much more transparent, and I think his ability to deliver stirring and inspirational speeches will be an valuable tool in bringing public support to his causes.
I agree with omgzebras - do you really think Obama is a schlep? He’s a very intelligent U.S. Senator who actually has the class the work with the establishment and fend off the jackals. Sure he’ll take the punches like the rest of them - personally I htink when he’s president he’ll be running the show. Tabula Rasa for his opening debut.
How wonderful will it be to have a man like Obama follow a man like Bush.
Reality check, cold splash of water. Whomever will be crippled by the totally fucked up beyond all recognition. We have squandered $1.4 Godzillabucks for diddly squat, that money is pissed away forever. And its all on the credit card.
I don’t think there’s any reason to believe this is true; the timing of 9/11 being in the first year of a new administration was probably just happenstance. That’s when the nineteen terrorists managed to get enough flying lessons in to be confident enough to try it. History does not support the notion that the rivals of the United States become more aggressive or daring when a new President is in office. Islamic extremists don’t really care who the President is anyway. A terrorist attack or foreign aggression is no more likely in 2009 than it is this year.
This, on the other hand, is usually a safe bet.
That bolded word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Actually, I was thinking more of Iran or North Korea starting something to test [list=A][li]the first woman President, or [*]an inexperienced President Obama[/list]Or some major push in Iraq, or even stepped up activity in Pakistan. [/li]
But didn’t the first attacks on the WTC happen within a few weeks of Clinton taking office? Although that, too, may be happenstance.
The example I had in mind was the Cuban Missile Crisis coming after Kennedy had shown with the Bay of Pigs that he was not a terribly decisive leader when it came to foreign policy.
Although no doubt there will be some shit or other going on to test the new President, no matter who it is. There always is.
Frank Rich, in a column in today’s N.Y. Times, says that the outlook for Democrats is shaky no matter who wins the nomination, if the Clinton campaign continues to try to capitalize on racial tensions:
"Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War
The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little…A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils."
