Obama supporters only: Do any of you believe that it will be that much different...

[Bread and Circus]

under Clinton as opposed to Bush?

I've read quite a bit about Clinton's past, especially as it pertains to Foreign Policy. I know on paper, Clinton's policy proposals are similar to Barack's (although to be honest she doesn't detail them very well on her site - which should cause alarm in and of itself) but that doesn't mean she will have the political capital to carry many of them out. In terms of healthcare, she is more likely to backfire and push real reform another decade or two back (just like she did in 1993). And when it comes to foreign policy, you would be amazed at how her political playbook seems to be written by AIPAC (the IWR is just the tip of the iceberg). It's not going to take much for her to cave in and keep us longer in Iraq than we should be and it wouldn't take much more for her to march into Iran (albeit on a more limited level than McCain's zeal for war). When it comes to economic issues, I just don't see how Clinton is addressing the fundamental issues at play, shell games are not going to solve problems like peak oil and an ascendant China/Russia/India.

It seems the longer this goes on, the more Clinton and her advisors have shown their true colors. And to me, these colors resemble the same grab bag of tricks and connivances that George Bush employs. Fundamentally, I feel we would be heading toward another autocratic, imperial presidency. We will be trading a boy King for an unrelenting Queen.

From policy changes to the overall national Zeitgeist I can't really see how Clinton would be that much better than Bush except only for the Supreme Court appointments. Am I missing something here?

[TwilightGardener]

1. I don't--not in style, anyway.

[tyne]

2. I've been thinking about just that.

No. In fact, I think it would be worse.

[angie_love]

3. I don't know. I think we could lose congress and senate under her. She will hurt us downticket.

[Growler]

29. I totally agree

[Vinca]

4. No - that's why I'm so passionate about Obama.

She's always been Republican lite. It's really surprising to me she's gotten as far as she has because of that alone.

[NightWatcher]

5. do I see a change if the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Dynasty continues? No

more of the same

[shraby]

6. It will be the same as Bush if Clinton were

to win by some miracle, only Clinton will be poised to be reigning Queen with all the things Bush has done to the constitution, the justice department and all other government agencies not to mention the signing statements and executive orders.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. Notice how Barack has come out proactively to restore the Constitution while she hasn't?

I think you are right about her wanting to be Queen. She'd undoubtedly be a more benevolent autocrat than Bush, but I'd prefer democracy, thank you very much.

[death to the DLC]

7. no, she's a DLC neo-dem,

need I say more?

[Debi]

8. Nope - except we'll see more Democratic losses

like we did under Bill Clinton.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. No.

She reminds me of Pelosi. Vague promises to "turn the corner" with obvious intentions of doing no such thing.

[Tropics_Dude83]

10. No way she's

a Bush/Mccain policy clone and her tactics and feeling like a victim make her potentially as dangerous politically as Nixon.

[Big Blue Marble]

12. Nothing of importance will change.

That is why the Bushies signaled late last year that Hillary would continue their policies. Remember one thing and one
thing alone, power. Hillary is about getting power, keeping power, and using power. She would browbeat the media.
She would maintain secrecy in her government. She would be slow in getting out of Iraq if at all. She would be likely to attack Iran.
And the main goal of her four term in office would be about getting the second four year term in office.

It would be a very difficult four years. And it is very likely that the Republicans would win back at least one
house of Congress in two years. Yes very painful indeed.

[rucky]

13. Not nearly different enough.

But much better than the alternative. I don't know why we can't commit to the fundamental change we need for our political system. Probably because the people abusing the system are making the rules.

But why do we keep electing them?

[bowens43]

14. I believe that if Hillary by some miracle becomes president

she will continue to expand presidential powers and secrecy as well as continuing the trend of decreasing oversight of the executive branch. I also believe that the animosity felt by republicans toward Hillary and all things Clinton will mean that everything that she proposes will be blocked whether or not they agree with it.

[rucky]

17. Yep. Their beef w/ Bush is not with the power, but who's wielding it. n/t

[pbca]

15. No, there is only one Dem left in this race.

If Obama doesn't get the nomination it will be an R vs R race for the white house.

[anonymous171]

16. She would be a kind of Liberal Bush.

Secrecy and executive privilege FTW!

[housewolf]

18. Agree 100% with you

I think her foriegn policy policies are VERY much like Bush's, although there are remarked differences in their domestic policies.

What I deeply, deeply fear is turning over Bush's implementation of the "unitary executive" to Hillary. Many of the pieces of secrecy were incubated during Bill Clinton's administration and expanded upon during GWB's administration. I dread giving the expanded powers of secrecy, surveillance and non-compliance with Congress over to the Clintons.

[Emillereid]

19. On domestic issues she would be better, but foreign policy (warmongering) will be the same.

[Not the Only One]

20. Not really

Hillary supported the war because it was politically expedient. She didn't want to swim upstream, like a true leader does sometimes when it is necessary.

Hillary isn't a leader. Bush isn't. They both do what other interests tell them to do.

Obama is a leader. Obama is change. That's what this country needs. Not more of the same Bush-Clinton garbage that has brought us to the edge of this cliff.

[City Lights]

21. BushClintonBushClinton...more of the same.

As some in the corporate media have pointed out, she's basically running as the incumbent. Swapping body parts isn't the change I'm looking for.

The one difference seems to be the USSC, however, it doesn't seem all that important to her since she seems to be doing all she can to help get McCain elected.

What's been an eye-opener for me during this primary is the similarities in personality between George and Hillary. :scared:

[Exilednight]

22. Hillary = dubya and penn = rove

[housewolf]

23. The "Unitary Executive" is my biggest problem with her/them

I 100% agree with you. I think her foriegn policy policies are VERY much like Bush's, although there are remarked differences in their domestic policies.

What I deeply, deeply fear is turning over Bush's implementation of the "unitary executive" to Hillary. Many of the pieces of secrecy were incubated during Bill Clinton's administration and expanded upon during GWB's administration. I dread giving the expanded powers of secrecy, surveillance and non-compliance with Congress over to the Clintons.

[peace13]

24. Her campaign ethics prove that nothing is will be different. n/t

[Window]

25. No. I see no difference at all policy wise.

[ieoeja]

26. You lost me at "AIPAC".

I take PNAC at their word.

They said they want to dominate the world for the next century.
They said the first step necessary in doing so is to establish a military presence in the Middle East.
They said this presence would guarantee their access to oil.
They said this presence would let the United States military strike at any target in Europe, Asia or Africa.
They said the troubles with Iraq gave us the opportunity to implement this plan.

I don't think PNAC gives a flying fuck what Israel wants.

[Bread and Circus]

27. My AIPAC reference is from my readings at fpif.org and I'm not quite sure what you are driving at.

[ieoeja]

30. What I'm driving at.

Theorem 1

Given: PNAC had conquering Iraq as an immediate public goal (they put it on their website in the 90s).

Given: the people who started that war in the administration and led the propaganda fight in favor of it outside the administration are all members of PNAC - Project for a New American Century. This included Rumsfeld and Cheney in the admin and Wolfowitz and Pearle outside the admin.

Then: I conclude we went to war with Iraq for the reasons stated by PNAC.


Theorem 2

Given: you wrote "her political playbook seems to be written by AIPAC (the IWR is just the tip of the iceberg)."

Given: AIPAC is the American Israeli Political Action Committee

Then: I concluded you thought we went to war with Iraq on behalf of Israel.

[Exilednight]

28. Yes.