Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
Mon May 23, 2016, 07:16 AM May 2016

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Policy-wise, would President Hillary Clinton actually be a significant difference from Obama? (Original Post) Fast Walker 52 May 2016 OP
No. She ran to his right in 2008. And, say what you will, Obama knew in 2001 thatIraq was a mistake merrily May 2016 #1
Definitely worse for the Working Class FreakinDJ May 2016 #7
Huh? My mind was made up? Seriously, it wasn't. Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #22
She had to help Bushco sell the Iraq War to Americans, especially Democrats, to gratify her personal merrily May 2016 #24
No, I don't think it is acceptable. There are very few acceptable reasons for war. Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #37
Then what did you mean by this: merrily May 2016 #40
Isn't it fairly clear what that means? Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #41
Obama is much more disciplined and focused than Hillary. gordianot May 2016 #2
Depending on which debate/interview you watch... Else You Are Mad May 2016 #3
Good point. . . Chameleon pdsimdars May 2016 #20
Their positions were almost identical. JoePhilly May 2016 #4
Including cuts to Social Security FreakinDJ May 2016 #9
. BootinUp May 2016 #13
When was SS cut exactly? JoePhilly May 2016 #29
Link to where Hillary said she wanted to cut social security? Cali_Democrat May 2016 #34
She is to the right of president Obama. SamKnause May 2016 #5
She would triangulate her way to becoming the least popular president in American history. w4rma May 2016 #6
Off to a grand start . . . . . pdsimdars May 2016 #21
On foreign policy, undoubtedly. cali May 2016 #8
She's basically going to continue Obama's policies, domestic and foreign. Nye Bevan May 2016 #10
That's been easy to spot for months. JoePhilly May 2016 #30
Aye. Hillary is basically running for Obama's 3rd term. apnu May 2016 #31
obama's course would mostly continue with Hillary in charge...and blown up with Trump beachbum bob May 2016 #11
Cheney thinks so. lostnfound May 2016 #12
Oh Gawd, Cheney apnu May 2016 #32
Well, I mean, in terms of actual implemented policies any Democrat will be the same as any other Recursion May 2016 #14
Good grief. This is untrue. merrily May 2016 #26
More hawkish, more cozy with big business, more secretive, more ideologically Turd Way, TheKentuckian May 2016 #15
Worse. BillZBubb May 2016 #16
I have concern that she would pursue a more anti-Iran, anti-Syria, pro-Saudi foreign policy. David__77 May 2016 #17
Little more hawkish and Wall Streetish. n/t Orsino May 2016 #18
But she's more of a war hawk than Obama. Remember she had to talk him into it and now pdsimdars May 2016 #19
I agree economically they are very similar. Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #23
Thanks for all the substantive responses! Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #25
I think she will be better than Obama. samsingh May 2016 #27
She is to his right, so, if that is the direction you want to go, by all means. Hiraeth May 2016 #28
No, you can expect a Clinton Admin to operate in pretty much the same fashion. Garrett78 May 2016 #33
In foreign policy she's much more interventionist. Opposed Iran deal which Obama was strongly for... EndElectoral May 2016 #35
She's more hawkish but she's has posted critical mass type EOs that she would implement like BHO but uponit7771 May 2016 #38
No, that's a good thing... she's going to concentrate on the off years though and that's even better uponit7771 May 2016 #36
On the Middle East -- especially Israel... Hell Hath No Fury May 2016 #39
the Israel aspect is scary, though I really don't know even what Obama's policy is on Israel Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #42
He has refused to be Bibi's bitch. Hell Hath No Fury May 2016 #45
yeah, but I don't know how much of that is Kabuki theater. We're increasing overall aid to Israel in Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #46
You forget: a lot of "progressives" hate Obama. baldguy May 2016 #43
I don't know about "hate" but that was basically my point Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #44

merrily

(45,251 posts)
1. No. She ran to his right in 2008. And, say what you will, Obama knew in 2001 thatIraq was a mistake
Mon May 23, 2016, 07:21 AM
May 2016

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.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
22. Huh? My mind was made up? Seriously, it wasn't.
Mon May 23, 2016, 10:50 AM
May 2016

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.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
24. She had to help Bushco sell the Iraq War to Americans, especially Democrats, to gratify her personal
Mon May 23, 2016, 10:54 AM
May 2016

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

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
37. No, I don't think it is acceptable. There are very few acceptable reasons for war.
Mon May 23, 2016, 12:13 PM
May 2016

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.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
40. Then what did you mean by this:
Mon May 23, 2016, 12:37 PM
May 2016

"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."
 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
41. Isn't it fairly clear what that means?
Tue May 24, 2016, 06:05 AM
May 2016

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.

gordianot

(15,220 posts)
2. Obama is much more disciplined and focused than Hillary.
Mon May 23, 2016, 07:22 AM
May 2016

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

Else You Are Mad

(3,040 posts)
3. Depending on which debate/interview you watch...
Mon May 23, 2016, 07:23 AM
May 2016

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

BootinUp

(46,549 posts)
13. .
Mon May 23, 2016, 08:14 AM
May 2016
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

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
29. When was SS cut exactly?
Mon May 23, 2016, 11:12 AM
May 2016

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

SamKnause

(12,968 posts)
5. She is to the right of president Obama.
Mon May 23, 2016, 07:24 AM
May 2016

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.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
6. She would triangulate her way to becoming the least popular president in American history.
Mon May 23, 2016, 07:41 AM
May 2016

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

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
10. She's basically going to continue Obama's policies, domestic and foreign.
Mon May 23, 2016, 08:00 AM
May 2016

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

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
30. That's been easy to spot for months.
Mon May 23, 2016, 11:14 AM
May 2016

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

apnu

(8,707 posts)
31. Aye. Hillary is basically running for Obama's 3rd term.
Mon May 23, 2016, 11:19 AM
May 2016

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

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
11. obama's course would mostly continue with Hillary in charge...and blown up with Trump
Mon May 23, 2016, 08:04 AM
May 2016

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

lostnfound

(16,108 posts)
12. Cheney thinks so.
Mon May 23, 2016, 08:12 AM
May 2016

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."

apnu

(8,707 posts)
32. Oh Gawd, Cheney
Mon May 23, 2016, 11:22 AM
May 2016

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.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
14. Well, I mean, in terms of actual implemented policies any Democrat will be the same as any other
Mon May 23, 2016, 08:20 AM
May 2016

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.

TheKentuckian

(24,783 posts)
15. More hawkish, more cozy with big business, more secretive, more ideologically Turd Way,
Mon May 23, 2016, 08:29 AM
May 2016

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

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
16. Worse.
Mon May 23, 2016, 08:51 AM
May 2016

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.

David__77

(23,051 posts)
17. I have concern that she would pursue a more anti-Iran, anti-Syria, pro-Saudi foreign policy.
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:14 AM
May 2016

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

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
19. But she's more of a war hawk than Obama. Remember she had to talk him into it and now
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:38 AM
May 2016

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

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
23. I agree economically they are very similar.
Mon May 23, 2016, 10:53 AM
May 2016

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.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
33. No, you can expect a Clinton Admin to operate in pretty much the same fashion.
Mon May 23, 2016, 11:49 AM
May 2016

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.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
35. In foreign policy she's much more interventionist. Opposed Iran deal which Obama was strongly for...
Mon May 23, 2016, 12:10 PM
May 2016

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.

uponit7771

(90,152 posts)
38. She's more hawkish but she's has posted critical mass type EOs that she would implement like BHO but
Mon May 23, 2016, 12:15 PM
May 2016

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

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
39. On the Middle East -- especially Israel...
Mon May 23, 2016, 12:19 PM
May 2016

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.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
42. the Israel aspect is scary, though I really don't know even what Obama's policy is on Israel
Tue May 24, 2016, 06:08 AM
May 2016

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.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
45. He has refused to be Bibi's bitch.
Tue May 24, 2016, 10:58 AM
May 2016

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.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
46. yeah, but I don't know how much of that is Kabuki theater. We're increasing overall aid to Israel in
Tue May 24, 2016, 01:15 PM
May 2016

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

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Policy-wise, would Presid...