= new reply since forum marked as read
By supporting a public option and mandate that made her more to Obama's left on health care. By refusing to put Social Security and Medicare completely on the table that put her to Obama's left on social welfare. On all other issues they were virtually identical, though Clinton eventually voted against Telecom Immunity once the nomination was beyond the horizon (while Obama voted for it), which would've put her to Obama's left on that issue.
She'll continue the leftward shift that the country as a whole is experiencing. But it won't be by her own accord, she'll follow the trends, which Obama helped set in motion. Obama's first year was tumultuous, the core of the health care bill was gutted (public option, the biggest selling point), the tradeoffs for the Bush tax cuts sunsetting were horrible but necessary (and the raise to $350k for the top bracket was an unnecessary "compromise"
.
Actually trying to put everything on the table with regards to Medicare and Social Security, while a campaign promise, was abhorrent and arguably led to some losses in 2010 (some, not all; mostly blue dogs who were afraid to ride the coat tails of the "catfood commission President" due to utter misinformation about Simpson-Bowles, which btw went no where and never left the committee).
All the roadmaps are already well in place and there's no much effort needed to do them, 8 years of a Democratic President allows the real policy work to be enacted. Energy sustainability has been part of the US energy roadmap since a year after Obama took office, instructing NREL to bring us close to energy independence by 2050. Even if Clinton sits on her hands, that happens. And that's left progress. And yes, this roadmap, unfortunately, uses fracked natural gas to provide peaking power for renewable energy in the interim until Vehicle to Grid charging can come online.
She'll push equal pay for equal work and it might pass since it appeals to half the electorate and even the right wingers can't vote against something like that. Though it's unclear whether it will even have an impact given how corporations handle their employment payments, and that will likely result in years of lawsuits, potentially going beyond her time in office. That will be a long protracted fight in the courts.
Speaking of the courts, Ginsburg, the most liberal justice by far, was appointed by Bill Clinton. The other more liberal justices by Obama. Hillary's justices will be liberal on social issues and liberty issues, most likely. But like Obama's appointments, will probably side with corporations on many cases. But she has said that she will have a Citizens United litmus test. Something like Citizens United crosses the corporate line and falls into the social and liberty category, which she is personally familiar with given that the case itself involved a movie about her.
But even some Republicans are against Citizens United, so that's sort of a gimmie, I'm just throwing it out there. Her courts would be at least as liberal as Obama's and probably more so since you want to replace Ginsburg with someone who is at least as liberal as her to maintain status quo (and frankly, knowing her, she'd demand it in any private conversation), but they will be much younger, so they'll probably be more liberal than Ginsburg was when she joined (Ginsburg was pretty moderate in the beginning).
The biggest things Clinton offers to the left is an effect on downticket races. I think that she will be intimately involved in those races, will show up at campaign events, and will make it clear that she can't get anything done without it. This is a virtual shift from the 2008 campaign where a lot of promises were being made, but no one was pointing out how you needed congress to get them done. Granted, at that time, we expected to win back congress, because of the Bush years, we were at the bottom of the barrel. But it needs to be emphasized over and over and over that Presidential powers are very limited when it comes to domestic issues.
I think that if we can run left wing candidates like Feingold or Warren (but not more radical types), we will be able to affect some serious, unbelievable change, and I think that Clinton would embrace a Feingold or Warren, and she'd fight for them hard, and they'd respect her. I also think that Clinton would just shake off whatever vitriol comes her way and support blue dogs, which while on the onset wouldn't necessarily mean progress, would count when the big legislation comes up. Want a sustainable energy bill? Get some blue dogs, they'll vote for it.
That being said, I think that Clinton's presidency will be a continuation of Obama's, and that, in reality, Obama should be credited for calming things down, moving us in the correct policy trajectory, and ultimately making the already left shift that we're experiencing, whether the right likes it or not, a smoother transition.
