And went on to win POTUS. What would the last four years have looked like?
What if Hillary had won the Dem. nom in '08
|by Anonymous||reply 65||10/09/2012|
Her policies were not that dissimilar from Obama's, apart from she originally supported the Iraq War. Healthcare would still be an issue and I doubt the economic situation wouild be that different!
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/07/2012|
If Hillary had won the nomination in 2008:
John McCain would be President
Hillary would be defending DOMA , and insisting that it protected gay couples.
Don't Ask Don't Tell would still be law.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/07/2012|
There would have been less obstructionism, because she knows how to play the game, but there would have also been less progress - because she would have sold us out left right and center to make her deals.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/07/2012|
She would still be trying to clean up the mess left by Bush, just like Obama is.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/07/2012|
Hillary would be similar to Obama. But she would not have stood for the Republicans bullshit. Obama's biggest mistake was trying to compromise. We lost two years and the 2010 election because of it.
Hillary wouldn't constantly make the rounds of the talk shows, either. Obama needs to stop with wanting to be a celebrity. He's the President. It's a much more dignified position. There's no reason to be making small talk with Letterman and talking about Snooki on THE VIEW. It's trite and embarassing.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/07/2012|
There would have been a lot of polarization and resentment, and she'd have had a difficult time. She has that effect. She also had baggage and history.
There would be no healthcare reform. Very doubtful she'd have had the courage to do what Barack did with gay rights. And you see how these imbeciles are acting about women's rights? Against equal pay, agains choice, all this garbage about "legitimate rape?" She'd have had a real bad time with Congress.
Bill would have meddled, misspoke, acted out. The media would have been over-examining their personal lives, and we'd have had a tabloid presidency. I honestly do not think she'd have done better.
Hillary and Bill would've been at each other's throats. Too many in the media and the public in general would've viewed it as a "co-presidency" and she would have had to battle that image.
Both Hillary and Bill have been well served by Obama's election. She's had an opportunity to carve out a true, separate identity as SoS, as she couldn't do being one of 100 senators. She has overcomne the defibition assigned to her by the Extreme Right and gained worldwide respect. She is loved everywhere. This was not true four years ago.
Bill's had an opportunity to let his "brand" rest a bit, and reinvent himself after his bad behavior during the primaries. He is now loved and listened to in a way he wasn't before and these past four years he has done great work with the CGL.
Obama was very generous to both, before it proved to be expedient and beneficial. Reaching out to Hillary was a risky gesture, but he did it and it turned out well for all of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/07/2012|
We would have universal healthcare instead of more. Customers to health insurance companies.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/07/2012|
The Republicans would perhaps not have been so obstructionist. But that's hardly Obama's fault. It's the fault of the racist Republicans.
If Republicans weren't so racist and obstructionist, it would have been, at best, about the same.
But they are.
I, for one, refuse to fault Obama for that.
The flip side is that instead of a chorus of birtherism, ridiculous attacks on Obama as a socialist (if only he were more of one), etc., we would have had the same anti-Clintonian personal attacks on their sex lives and financial dealings.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/07/2012|
r2 doesn't know what he's talking about. Hillary was the first to extend benefits to same-sex couples. In 2009, the Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Foreign Service Employees was implemented at the State Dept.
Let's not forget that Hillary jumped on the chance to debate at LogoTv's first debate. Obama didn't even want to do the debate.
In the Senate, Hillary had a reputation of working well with both sides so I don't know where this whole polarization BS is about. Aside from Bill, she's the most popular Democrat.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was ended by Congress. It was Pelosi and the Democrats who killed it. All Obama did was sign it. Remember Obama set up a Commission to study the effects.
Obama doesn't care about gay issues. He was forced and shamed into it. More than that, he was going to lose gay votes.
Please. Rewriting history is pathetic r2.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/07/2012|
"Obama was very generous to both, before it proved to be expedient and beneficial."
LOL. Sure. Like it was really up to him.
That was cute.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/07/2012|
To add to that, I really don't know what issues Obama truly cares about. He gives nice speeches but I've yet to figure out what he stands for. It seem Obama needs to be goaded/pressure into doing the right thing.
I will vote for him not because I like him but because I hate Romney and the GOP are extreme. Some of the issues that matters to me are not of great import to the President though.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/07/2012|
Unicorns would have been flying all over the white house lawn and magic pixies would be reading us bedtime stories every night!
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/07/2012|
To quote Babs, it worked out well for her. If she decides to run in 2016 it will be a coronation, not a race. I think even if Romney wins 2012 she could beat him.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/07/2012|
r6: Hillary was generous to Obama for backing him. Not the other way round.
I love how the Hillary haters try come off all fair and reasoned, yet they can't refrain from twisting the truth in order to slam her.
The rest of your post is deliberately negative too. The media - and the public - is over the Clintons' love life. We already know Bill has affairs.
They're both widely respected. Naturally, you can't deal with that.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/07/2012|
McCain would have been elected, even with that idiot Palin as his running mate, because Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians, etc., don't want to see our presidency turned into an oligarchy. As long as Bill Clinton is around that will always be the concern surrounding Hillary. Billy does not know how to let go; he still tries to interfere with Hillary's work. He wants to be back in the White House more than Hillary.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/07/2012|
There is no point r12. But the whole unicorn and magic pixies, that would be the Obama campaign promises in 2008. Remember the whole if he was elected, partisanship would end and both sides would hold hands and sing Hallelujah. David Axelrod was a good salesman. He didn't sell Obama on me though. Like this year, in 2008, I voted for Obama out of hatred for the GOP and Sarah Palin.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/07/2012|
The slightly-camouflaged racism of today would be unfettered misogyny. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would be reduced to screaming nothing more than, "She's a CUNT. CUNT!!! CUNNNNNNNNNNT!!!" and "reasonable" Republicans would brush it off, telling us they're just entertainers who aren't politically correct!
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/07/2012|
OP is a freeper trying to stir up shit by reigniting the old Obama vs. Hillary debate. Just ignore and move on.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/07/2012|
Yes, r15, the Dems, Reps and Libertarians don't want to 'turn our presidency into an oligarchy'.
That's exactly why they voted Bush Jr. into office - TWICE.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/07/2012|
PUMAs never die.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/07/2012|
More BS from Obama supporters. In 2008, any Democrat could have beaten McCain. The country was ready to move on from 8 exhausting years of Bush. Bush and the GOP were toxic. Remember pundits were saying that the GOP may be dead for the next generation?
Well, it only took them 2 years. It is because of Obama that the GOP was resurrected.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/07/2012|
We will see how she does when she is elected POTUS in 2016.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/07/2012|
[quote]"Let's not forget that Hillary jumped on the chance to debate at LogoTv's first debate. Obama didn't even want to do the debate.: -- R9
Where she defended DOMA.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/07/2012|
There would have been TRIANGULATION times a thousand OP.
Plus NEW "rumors" of Bill and bimbo outbreaks would have been a small industry unto itself.
Their odd son-in-law would have been scrutinized as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/07/2012|
and what about Obama r23? Hillary talked about her own personal values. Obama was basically injected his religion and invoked into it to reject DOMA. This is the same guy who asked Donnie McClurkin to do a state-wide tour for him.
As president, Obama did defend DOMA. It is because of freakin' Ted Olson that the DOMA case is winding its way up the Supreme Court. I don't know why you guys are making up facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/07/2012|
Same policies, but she wouldn't have put up with the Right wing's bullshit. Part of her campaign included, 'I know how they think, and I know how to beat them.'
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/07/2012|
[quote]Obama's biggest mistake was trying to compromise.
Agree with that 100%. Not sure anything else would look all that different. In fact, I think HRC would have riled the loopy right as much, only differently.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/07/2012|
If Hillary had won, she would have been elected POTUS and would not have wasted a full year waiting for a consensus.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/07/2012|
Her hair would be more grey.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/07/2012|
"Part of her campaign included, 'I know how they think, and I know how to beat them.'"
Right--& just think, she never shared this info with her boss.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/07/2012|
r30 Obama has a small circle of confidants. He does not reach out to anyone. He has few friends. He's not one of those people who reaches out and asks for advice. He lives in a bubble.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/07/2012|
Hillary would have shown a hell of a lot more leadership the past four years, and she would be solidly defeating Romney at this point. Hillary is a much stronger leader and politician than Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/07/2012|
What r4 said. Also, people will discriminate against her for being a woman and can't run a country.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/07/2012|
My amateur take on Obama is that he loved being the Golden Boy, but the actual job of the president is not suited to his personality. He doesn't seem to enjoy being POTUS.
The Clintons LOVE politics. I have no idea why, by I think they thrive on conflict.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/07/2012|
Of course the Clintons lost both chambers of Congress in 1994, Obama only lost the House in 2008. Personally, I think 2016 will be Huckabee v Biden if Obama is re-elected and Hillary won't run. Huckabee will win narrowly, be another Carter and Hillary will run again in 2020 and beat him.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/07/2012|
34 - Hillary is like Nixon, unlike Bill she hates her enemies and like Nixon will do yet another makeover to eventually win the presidency!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/07/2012|
r18, it's pretty obvious idiot libs are buying into it, too.
Do we REALLY need to rehash this? It's only going to start pointless bickering.
Ignore the trolling OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/07/2012|
"But she would not have stood for the Republicans bullshit."
Where Obama is hands-off, dislikes confrontation and negotiation, Hillary LOVES it. I get the feeling that Obama compromises too often (and too soon) because he wants to get it over with, because he can't stomach it. Obama couldn't handle a job like Sec of State.
They ran Obama for the same reason they ran George W. Bush -- because they thought he could WIN. Not because either of them was suited to the job.
R36, don't kid yourself. Bill Clinton hates his enemies too.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||10/07/2012|
Pant suits would be all the craze!
|by Anonymous||reply 39||10/07/2012|
As much as I voted for Hillary in the 08 primaries, if she had won the presidency things would have gone the same way as every president before her.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||10/07/2012|
Better question. What if Hillary Clinton could fly?
|by Anonymous||reply 41||10/07/2012|
with comments like r40, voting is pointless. No need to show up at the polls, folks. r40 has just informed us that it doesn't matter who is President.
Funny because in the '90s when we had a competent President, there was relative peace and prosperity. Then comes Bush and all hell broke loose. Yeah... everything would have gone the same way as every president before.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||10/07/2012|
The question to ask about all of these people is, what would they do if they weren't in politics? Obama, writer. Bush, couch potato. Clintons, trying to get back in to politics.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||10/07/2012|
38 - True, but unlike Hillary he can disguise it!
|by Anonymous||reply 44||10/07/2012|
[quote] I think 2016 will be Huckabee v Biden if Obama is re-elected and Hillary won't run. Huckabee will win narrowly, be another Carter and Hillary will run again in 2020 and beat him.
Then you are not an astute political observer. Biden is 69 and in 4 years he will be older than McCain when he ran. If people have issues with Hillary's or McCain's age, then certainly Biden will be the oldest person to ever run for President.
Not only that, Biden is gaffe-prone. His campaign will have problem containing his off-the-mark gaffes. No way. Besides, Biden has been in the Senate for too long. As VP, he's been almost invisible.
In 2016, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan are my guess to run.
For the Democrats, Martin O'Malley, Mark Warner, and Andrew Cuomo.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/07/2012|
Yes, Hillary had a good reputation working with both sides of the aisle, but she got no endorsements from Senators in her campaign.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/07/2012|
Hillary and Biden both have the stink of loser all over them, but I think HIllary can overcome it and get people to vote for her.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/07/2012|
I think she would have hit the ground running and we would have had Bill advising her.
Call me optimistic, but I am hoping that Obama wins this year and then we'll have eight years of Hillary (and Bill) starting in 4-5 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||10/07/2012|
Bob Dole was 73 when he was GOP nominee in 1996, a year older than McCain. Biden will also be Vice President and Vice Presidents tend to get the nomination if they run, Gore, Bush Snr, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon etc. Biden is from rustbelt Pennsylvania and blue-collar stock, a demographic the Democrats want to win back, and he actually gave a better convention speech this year than Obama. Look out for his debate performance on Thursday too against Ryan. He also presently outpolls all Democrats except Hillary for 2016, including the names you suggest. For 2016, all the names you suggest have problems - Christie is too socially moderate for the present GOP, Bush's last name will still be toxic, Rand Paul is too out of the mainstream and Paul Ryan will be tainted by being on the losing Romney ticket. Huckabee won Iowa in 2008, if he wins it again he probably wins South Carolina and likely the nomination. He was also runner-up in 2008 with Mitt and got closer to McCain than Santorum did to Romney and the GOP tend to pick the next in line!
|by Anonymous||reply 49||10/07/2012|
[quote] Bob Dole was 73 when he was GOP nominee in 1996, a year older than McCain.
Yes, and Dole came across as too old during the campaign, and he lost.
[quote] He also presently outpolls all Democrats except Hillary for 2016, including the names you suggest.
That's because Biden has name recognition as VP. Of course Hillary and Biden are the two Democrats who poll highest now, because they're the two Democrats everyone has heard of.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/07/2012|
I think we would be even more of a fascist state, then we are now.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/07/2012|
Hillary will run and win in 2016.
The insane misogyny on DL won't alter that little fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/07/2012|
Hillary is running in 2016. The big Dem fundraisers were all talking about it in Charlotte. And it's the fundraisers who know before anyone else what's going on. They've all said that Hillary is their girl.
Martin O'Malley has been a big disappointment. He gave a terrible speech in Charlotte, and comes across as smarmy.
It's going to be interesting to see if both Jeb Bush and Rubio decide to run. Jeb is Rubio's mentor.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/07/2012|
Biden is much more personable than Dole and a better speaker, he will also have been on a 2 terms general election winning ticket unlike Dole. There have even been presidents and prime ministers in their 80s before, Golda Meir, Churchill and Gladstone to name a few, and Mandela and Mitterand governed into their late seventies. Even accounting for name recognition, Vice Presidents do tend to get their party's nomination, indeed you have to go back to 1952 when Truman's Vice President Alben Barkley failed to get the nomination, to find one who did not (and Barkley had only been Vice President for 4 years when he ran, Biden will have been VP for 8). Of course it is also rare for a party to get more than eight years in the White House, since the war only Truman (excluding FDR's war presidency) and Bush Senior managed it and both only lasted a term. The Clintons know all this stuff. Of course George P Bush, Jeb's half-hispanic son, is his real heir apparent, Rubio is just the test dummy for George P in 2028. It may sound like fancyful parlour games, but it is not impossible!
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/07/2012|
She would have won landslide elections.
When it came to the health care policies between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, during the 2008 primaries, her ideas were to cover more people. But the main problem is with their Democratic party, which isn't liberal. Had Obama been a bold and liberal leader, he'd be landsliding Mitt Romney.
As for the Republican Party: They may as well have a trio of fascists dictators, together in one image, as their party's redesigned logo.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/07/2012|
Actually Obama has done more things differently as president than anyone before him. Hillary would have been like everyone else. Obama stands alone and is a great president. Everyone needs to vote.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/07/2012|
I honestly believe that Obama extended the Vice Presidency to Clinton but she turned it down and suggested to be Secretary of State because it's a position of actual power.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/07/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 58||10/07/2012|
R21 makes a valid point. But, even before the midterm elections of 2010, there was the conspiring of creating that "tea party" movement which came on too quickly to be believable. The TV news media were awfully face to embrace it as a legit movement; real movements take a good amount of time.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||10/07/2012|
Hillary won't get the Black voters!
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/08/2012|
R60 = Born yesterday.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||10/08/2012|
Fuck black voters. It's all about Hispanics now.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||10/08/2012|
How many of those fifty million hispanics are legally able to vote and how many are of Afro descent?
With thirty seven million Afro Americans plus lets say twenty million of those Hispanics are Black...
Don't forget the millions of Black Caribbean immigrants. Blacks still make up the largest minority group.
People like R62 assumes hispanic means one ethnicity.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||10/08/2012|
R56, are you kidding me? Obama is the pits. I doubt Hillary would have been any better, but the man is a disaster. On almost any topic you name, he has actively sought to implement Republican policies. Healthcare? The 1993 Republican plan, complete with mandate, which Obama said he would oppose when running in 2007. Drone strikes. Closing Gitmo. Had to be forced into evolving on gay marriage by bumbling Joe Biden. He is not only not different, he's more of the same - as Bush. Robert Scheer was absolutely right in the post I link to.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||10/08/2012|
PUMAS: Delusional since 2007
|by Anonymous||reply 65||10/09/2012|