HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Policy-wise, would Presid...

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:16 AM

 

Policy-wise, would President Hillary Clinton actually be a significant difference from Obama?

for all the sturm and drang about Hillary, wouldn't she basically be status quo to what we have now?

Or do a lot of people feel she is worse than Obama?

I'm honestly curious.

46 replies, 1559 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Policy-wise, would President Hillary Clinton actually be a significant difference from Obama? (Original post)
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 OP
merrily May 2016 #1
FreakinDJ May 2016 #7
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #22
merrily May 2016 #24
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #37
merrily May 2016 #40
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #41
gordianot May 2016 #2
Else You Are Mad May 2016 #3
pdsimdars May 2016 #20
JoePhilly May 2016 #4
FreakinDJ May 2016 #9
LineLineLineReply .
BootinUp May 2016 #13
JoePhilly May 2016 #29
Cali_Democrat May 2016 #34
SamKnause May 2016 #5
w4rma May 2016 #6
pdsimdars May 2016 #21
cali May 2016 #8
Nye Bevan May 2016 #10
JoePhilly May 2016 #30
apnu May 2016 #31
beachbum bob May 2016 #11
lostnfound May 2016 #12
apnu May 2016 #32
Recursion May 2016 #14
merrily May 2016 #26
TheKentuckian May 2016 #15
BillZBubb May 2016 #16
David__77 May 2016 #17
Orsino May 2016 #18
pdsimdars May 2016 #19
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #23
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #25
samsingh May 2016 #27
Hiraeth May 2016 #28
Garrett78 May 2016 #33
EndElectoral May 2016 #35
uponit7771 May 2016 #38
uponit7771 May 2016 #36
Hell Hath No Fury May 2016 #39
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #42
Hell Hath No Fury May 2016 #45
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #46
baldguy May 2016 #43
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #44

Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:21 AM

1. No. She ran to his right in 2008. And, say what you will, Obama knew in 2001 thatIraq was a mistake

and he is no necon. So he is much safer at the helm that she would be.

"Honestly curious" Anyone who asks a question is curious, duh, but they usually have some reason to be curious. However, based on your post, your OP has nothing to do with curiosity. Your mind was made up before you post. You were not sincerely seeking information with an open mind. You are not alone. I can't remember the last time I saw an OP with words to the effect of "honest question" that was actually an honest question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #1)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:59 AM

7. Definitely worse for the Working Class

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #1)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:50 AM

22. Huh? My mind was made up? Seriously, it wasn't.

 

I had some thoughts that she is more of a war hawk than Obama, but I wasn't convinced. I was curious what other people would say.

I also think it's possible that she had to act like hawk to get to where she is, and maybe she'll be more of a peacemaker as president. I certainly hope so. OTOH, Obama campaigned as more of an antiwar candidate and his presidency has been one fucking long war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #22)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:54 AM

24. She had to help Bushco sell the Iraq War to Americans, especially Democrats, to gratify her personal

ambition to be President? Do you really think that is an acceptable reason to advocate for a war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #24)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:13 PM

37. No, I don't think it is acceptable. There are very few acceptable reasons for war.

 

I don't think she did it because she wanted to be president though. I think it was a matter of who she was listening to, and her general American exceptionalism mindset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #37)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:37 PM

40. Then what did you mean by this:


"I also think it's possible that she had to act like hawk to get to where she is, and maybe she'll be more of a peacemaker as president."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #40)

Tue May 24, 2016, 07:05 AM

41. Isn't it fairly clear what that means?

 

Though I suppose you could say:
"I also think it's possible that she thought she had to act like hawk to get to where she is".

With the general idea being that acting like a warhawk in Washington is a way to succeed. Certainly, warhawks in Washington never seem to suffer for their views.

OTOH, maybe she really just like war. I don't know.

At minimum, Obama seems awfully blase about all the killing he's promoted as president. Does he secretly enjoy it? Who knows.

I do know that being in the White House fucks with people's heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:22 AM

2. Obama is much more disciplined and focused than Hillary.

Compared to Hillary Obama is non profit. Reckless is not in the Obama vocabulary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:23 AM

3. Depending on which debate/interview you watch...

She will either be the next Obama or to his right or to his left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Else You Are Mad (Reply #3)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:39 AM

20. Good point. . . Chameleon

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:23 AM

4. Their positions were almost identical.

I'd take a 3rd Obama term in an instant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:00 AM

9. Including cuts to Social Security

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #9)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:14 AM

13. .

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

We must preserve, protect, and strengthen these lifelines.

Hillary will:

Fight any effort to privatize or weaken Medicare and Social Security, and expand Social Security for today’s beneficiaries and generations to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more.

Reform our health care system to incentivize and reward quality care.

Demand lower prices for prescription drugs for seniors receiving Medicare.

Expand Social Security benefits for widows and those who took time out of the paid workforce to care for a child or sick family member.

“I won't cut Social Security. ... I'll defend it, and I'll expand it.”

Hillary Clinton, February 5, 2016

Throughout her career, Hillary has spoken out for seniors and stood up for Medicare and Social Security, and she is committed to preserving, protecting and strengthening these lifelines for today's seniors and for future generations. Seniors have paid into these programs for a lifetime, and they've earned those benefits when they retire.

“Now, I will also defend Social Security and Medicare from the efforts of the Republicans to privatize both of them. When I was in the Senate, George Bush came up with a privatization plan. Some of you might remember that. It would have been a disaster. And we defeated it. As your president, I will defend it. I will not let anybody think that they can privatize it. But we're going to have to make sure that we shore it up so that it is there not just for those who are currently recipients but for generations to come.”

HILLARY CLINTON, october 28, 2015

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #9)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:12 PM

29. When was SS cut exactly?

I recall lots of hyperventilating by folks predicting such cuts, but I don't recall them actually happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #9)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:50 PM

34. Link to where Hillary said she wanted to cut social security?

 

Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:24 AM

5. She is to the right of president Obama.

President Obama is too far to the right for my taste.

The Republican party was over taken by the Tea Party.

The Democratic party swerved to the right in the name of

bipartisanship.

The U.S. at the present time has no party that represents

the left, or the needs of the citizenry.

The U.S. government has failed the citizenry of this country.

Global corporations, Wall Street, and The Military Industrial

Complex have all the representation that money can buy.

The 99% have zero representation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:41 AM

6. She would triangulate her way to becoming the least popular president in American history.

 

Less popular than Bush, at Bush's low points. And she's already off to a grand start, in that direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #6)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:40 AM

21. Off to a grand start . . . . .

 









,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:00 AM

8. On foreign policy, undoubtedly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:00 AM

10. She's basically going to continue Obama's policies, domestic and foreign.

Those who hated the Obama presidency will hate the Hillary presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #10)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:14 PM

30. That's been easy to spot for months.

Bernie's most vocal DU support comes from folks who spent the entire Obama presidency with their hair on fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #30)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:19 PM

31. Aye. Hillary is basically running for Obama's 3rd term.

Biden didn't run after being a bit of a flirt, so Hillary is trying to run like she's Veep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:04 AM

11. obama's course would mostly continue with Hillary in charge...and blown up with Trump

 

as trump would destroy the last 60 years of gains especially with a conservative congress and a supreme court he can pack with mini-scalia's


if sanders supporters want that for their future we should truly pray for their souls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:12 AM

12. Cheney thinks so.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8741148/Dick-Cheney-heaps-praise-on-Hillary-Clinton.html

While he wouldn't say that Mrs Clinton would have made a better president than Mr Obama, [Cheney] said: "Perhaps she might have been easier for some of us who are critics of the president to work with."

"I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president," he said.

He said Mr Obama "has been not very effective, frankly, especially in the economic arena."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #12)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:22 PM

32. Oh Gawd, Cheney

He's a criminal and an asshole who should be in jail.

He's also an idiot. Obama is very easy to work with, ask anybody who isn't a racist "party of 'NO'". He's always tried to be a coalition builder and has always saved a spot at the negotiation table for the Republicans because that's what the friggin' President is supposed to do.

Cheney is a moron talking like that. But what else is new? He's always had his head up his ass and made up bullshit to fit his warped world view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:20 AM

14. Well, I mean, in terms of actual implemented policies any Democrat will be the same as any other

Obviously what policies a candidate wants matters, for some value of "matters", but just in terms of actual outcomes you're going to see pretty much the same thing no matter what Democrat is in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:56 AM

26. Good grief. This is untrue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:29 AM

15. More hawkish, more cozy with big business, more secretive, more ideologically Turd Way,

far inferior in temperament, quicker and easier to lie, and more bellicose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:51 AM

16. Worse.

She's a neocon, Obama is not. So, American military involvement in the middle east and elsewhere would increase.

She's an out and out corporatist, Obama is not (so much). Economic policy would swing even farther to the right, granting big businesses more and more power. Deregulation would accelerate. She'd work hard to please her big money sponsors.

Hillary would be far worse than Obama in foreign policy and economic policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:14 AM

17. I have concern that she would pursue a more anti-Iran, anti-Syria, pro-Saudi foreign policy.

Advocacy of such things as "no fly zone" against the Syrian government is troubling to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:18 AM

18. Little more hawkish and Wall Streetish. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:38 AM

19. But she's more of a war hawk than Obama. Remember she had to talk him into it and now

 

he regrets it. But economically, I don't think there's much difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #19)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:53 AM

23. I agree economically they are very similar.

 

So far, she has been more of a war hawk than Obama, who campaigned as more anti-war. I just wonder if it's possible she'll be somewhat less pro-war in office or possibly even worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:54 AM

25. Thanks for all the substantive responses!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:06 PM

27. I think she will be better than Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:06 PM

28. She is to his right, so, if that is the direction you want to go, by all means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:49 PM

33. No, you can expect a Clinton Admin to operate in pretty much the same fashion.

The US is extremely individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality, which leads to many folks greatly overestimating the power and influence of individual actors.

The POTUS doesn't create systems so much as operate within them. It takes mass movements to alter systems.

While unforeseen events (and some Congressional changes) will take place, a Clinton Administration would likely be an extension of the Obama Administration. Those who are pro-Obama but anti-Clinton really don't make much sense. People seem to confuse style (and personality) with substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:10 PM

35. In foreign policy she's much more interventionist. Opposed Iran deal which Obama was strongly for...

Her one sided approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian situation is vastly different than Obama.

There's a reason Obama ran against her - two very different visions of America.

Obama- was Hope and Change which became Executive Orders to get around an intransigent congress

HRC - Begins with, "No, we can't, except incrementally". Hawkish foreign policy

I see Obama as a moderate and neoliberal on trade. HRC is also a neoliberal in terms of trade, but a neoconservative in foreign policy, and that's where I draw the line. I will NEVER vote for a neoconservative in foreign policy. I hate voting for a neoliberal trade policy but would vote the lesser of two evils in that regard. The foreign policy is the deal breaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EndElectoral (Reply #35)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:15 PM

38. She's more hawkish but she's has posted critical mass type EOs that she would implement like BHO but

... your response is close to what I think I expect her to be more Hawkish than Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:11 PM

36. No, that's a good thing... she's going to concentrate on the off years though and that's even better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:19 PM

39. On the Middle East -- especially Israel...

 

she would be WORSE, no doubt. The Iran agreement (and all advances we have made on that front) would go by-by if Clinton had her druthers. Clinton's love affair with Bibi would be even MORE dangerous now that he has a new, crazy-ass defense minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #39)

Tue May 24, 2016, 07:08 AM

42. the Israel aspect is scary, though I really don't know even what Obama's policy is on Israel

 

he acts like he doesn't like what Netanyahu is doing but then does nothing about it and supports them as much as possible in what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #42)

Tue May 24, 2016, 11:58 AM

45. He has refused to be Bibi's bitch.

 

That, in and of itself, is MAJOR. The change of our stance on Iran would have never happened without Obama. Same with Cuba. He also refused to go all-in with taking out Assad like Bibi wanted. He has not been perfect by FAR, but he has been far better than most recent Presidents in my memory on Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #45)

Tue May 24, 2016, 02:15 PM

46. yeah, but I don't know how much of that is Kabuki theater. We're increasing overall aid to Israel in

 

the end, and the Iran hysteria was clearly over-blown from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Original post)

Tue May 24, 2016, 07:11 AM

43. You forget: a lot of "progressives" hate Obama.

 

Same ones who hate Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #43)

Tue May 24, 2016, 07:13 AM

44. I don't know about "hate" but that was basically my point

 

Obama is not that different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread