In 2008.....

You don't think that the GOP would have found a way to tear down the Dem congress in 2010? Why do you think that the democrats would have got more seats? I think that the only chance they had of that is by doing things. No matter what the dems did, the GOP was ready to launch into their socialist/marxist/communist assault. Beyond that, I think it's evident from the frustration in democratic voters, that people weren't happy with how long and drawn out the HCR process was and how in the end so many compromises (public option) were made, and still the GOP crossed their arms and turned their noses up.

Any sort of fantasy where you think that the Dems were going to be able to skate from 2008 to 2010 should be wiped from you head.

A
R
T

If they handled the financial issue better they could have gained more seats. The healthcare issue turned more people away. Democrats lost the House majority.

This is a lot of "if"s and no real reason to believe that Clinton would have done any better given the opposition.

I think it's silly to think that the dems should have held out to do HCR after 2010 on the assumption that they could get even more seats. You don't think that the GOP was prepared to make financial reform just as unpopular? Think again.

A
R
T

I was for Hillery but even if she had been elected the depression would still have happened. I would bet she would have shown more balls than Obama has and the dems are a bunch of chicken **** bastards only interested in reelection just as are the repubs.

no question the financial problems would have been the same. Can't argue that.

Can't argue what chicken **** bastards have been in control the last two years either.

I realize Obama's administation has passed some good legislation but on the big stuff, the things people voted them in for, they've dropped the ball and allowed the minority party and their corporate employers to run over them.

I do NOT believe Hillary would have allowed that to happen beyond the usual back room horseshit that has always gone on and always will.

The thing that amazes even a jaded cynic like myself is that Obama has been so politically inept as a leader that even the good things he's done are not recognized because he's so detached or at least comes off that way. This is BAD politics and look what it's cost the dems. Maybe the next party leaders they choose should be car salesman or evangelists.

As for you Fido, I think there's a pile of your dogshit left in the backyard that's perfectly aged for you to eat now. Go get it, boy.

I found a fairly good article on politico (I don't articulate these things well, so usually find something that does) talking about the perceived failure of the Obama presidency. The was written quite a bit before the mid-term elections. It's not the gospel truth, but its a fairly decent summary imo.



Why President Obama loses by winning

On the question do I wish Hillary won, not a chance. On the things I am disappointed about dealing with detainees and the patriot act and things like that, I know Hillary or worse, McCain would have disappointed me more and his term is not over. Hopefully he will get rid of some of those Clinton hawk people.

I think that was the point. Obama was not elected because of the Dems. He was elected because moderates and independents wanted someone who wasn't shilling politics as usual. Then, he moved in and started naming some of the biggest names in traditional politics into key positions. Rahm Emanuel? Give me a break! Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner? Reappoint Bernanke? Hillary might have made some of those very same decisions, or she may have picked her own favorite insiders, but that's what happened to the Dems in this election. They lost the independents and moderates in favor of fanatics who promise true change to politics as usual.

I think you're projecting your own political inclinations onto the mass of disillusioned independents who voted for Obama in 2008. If they were paying attention, they knew that Obama would appoint a bunch of Democratic operatives to key executive positions -- every president appoints party loyalists to positions within his administration. What did you expect, that Obama would appoint Mitch McConnell as his chief of staff? As it is, Obama appointed two Republicans to his cabinet -- not that he gets a lot of credit for that.

Independents aren't disillusioned with the Democrats because they were too partisan. After all, the Republicans are even more partisan, and they didn't do too badly in this past election. Rather, independents are disillusioned because the economy is still in the tank and things don't appear to be getting better. And they'll soon become disillusioned with John Boehner and his gang of congressional cretins. That's the fate of all independents: hope for a pony while always getting stuck with the manure.

The point was that independents and moderates looked as Obama's lack of insider experience as a plus. It was a major negative with regards to Hillary. That's what we're talking about here - folks who voted for Obama instead of Hillary. Party loyalists would have voted for either in the general, independents might have been swayed more towards McCain if Hillary was on the ticket - even with Palin as an anchor around his neck.

Independents most certainly are disillusioned with Democrats because they were too partisan. They're disillusioned with Republicans for the same reason. It turns out that the train called the Tea Party movement ran over everything in it's path (including many moderate independents), especially after it was usurped by an ultra-conservative faction. That faction then turned it's attention to incumbents of both parties, pulling independents to the right and, unfortunately, leaving only liberal dem loyalists to vote for their candidates. The moderate representation of the Democrats in congress was decimated because they lost many of the independent voters.

There may be other avowed independents hanging around here (ci comes to mind, and where's MAP?) to give a perspective that's different than mine, but I don't think I'm projecting so much as I'm representing.

Edit: I'll add that many independents are somewhat disillusioned with Obama, but I don't see anyone here indicating that they'd have made a better choice with Hillary. That's just not the case.

Lol, no way man. Not even for a second.

Cycloptichorn

Is that me?

I'm very, very happy it's Obama and not Hillary who is president right now.

Oh my goodness. REALLY happy.

The what-if's are a little fruitless lacking access to alternative universes and crystal balls and such, but from everything I know about how she conducted her campaign and what her personality is like, a) I don't think health care would've happened, at all, and b) there would be shitstorms up the wazoo. Ethics stuff, personal enmity stuff, all kinds of crap.

It was always evident that the next president, whomever that was going to be, was going to inherit a giant stinking mess. I wanted the person who could do the best job of getting us out of that. I still think that of the available candidates, that was and is Obama. It's a giant stinking mess but he's gotten a lot of stuff done and he's two years in. I mean, not even halfway done!

And that's just his first term -- I think it's very possible that his policy-not-politics approach (do what's best rather than what will get him short-term popularity points -- like the nearly invisible tax cuts) will bear enough fruit by the end of the first term that he'll be back for a second, and then when he doesn't have to worry at all about re-election, (plus more experience, infrastructure, relationships etc.) I expect to see a lot more yet.


....and that's totally ignoring the electability/ viability aspect. I still don't think Hillary would've beaten McCain/Palin. So if we're talking about if Hillary got the Dem nomination instead of Obama, IMO we're not talking about President Hillary Clinton but President McCain and Vice President Palin.... and that would be much, much worse yet.

unfortunately fanatics is the operative word. No matter what, we lose.

agreed

Aw, the so-called moderates sitting around complaining that Obama sucks, boo ******* hoo. I'm sure he's crying into his beer over this.

C'mon BPB, what's up with this weak ****? Obama's just a dude, doing the best job he can do, with a party that doesn't really back him strongly in Congress (in the Senate, anyway) and an opposition who is dead-set on his personal destruction, as much so or more than they were Clinton. What the **** do you expect, the guy to wave his hands and fix every problem?

I think the idea that Hillary would be doing any better is a total joke. She proved during the campaign that she couldn't properly run a complex machine, and you think she would have done better? Based on what evidence?

Cycloptichorn

cyclo there's no need for all that...it's my opinion, and although I agree with what you say Obama is facing, I am disappointed that he has done a half assed job handling it. He is perceived by many, rightly or wrongly as a weak sister. That's a fact. I believe Hillary would have done better. I'll put you down as disagreeing. In a side note, I think Hillary was defeated by a fed up population looking for a knight on a white horse and Obama played to that. Unfortunate for Hillary, unfortunate for the country.

I think you are right about that perception, but I would point out that unlike either Bush or Clinton, he got his major legislation passed in a tough environment. HC reform isn't perfect but he delivered a product that we can work with. Same for FinReg.

I would submit that the perceptions of Obama as week are essentially incorrect. His approval numbers are still remarkably high given all the crap that he's been through. He's pretty likely to get elected to another term. I think waiting and seeing how things turn out would give us a better picture of whether he's weak or strong.

As a historical example, in his second year of his term, almost everyone would have described Bush as a 'strong' guy. But he was a pussy in the end, which we all know.

I think Hillary proved she couldn't run an effective campaign, let alone a country. I don't know what you see about her that makes you think she would have been better.

Cycloptichorn

No. Many Republicans voters and many independent voters openly hated Hillary and would refuse to vote for her even as they openly showed an incredible reluctance to vote for McCain. Obama brought in the independent vote and many eligible voters voted for the first time in their lives. Hillary Clinton never had that kind of ballot box charisma.

Even if she won this hypothetical elections, I don't believe the far right Republicans would have compromised very much with her either.

The only difference would be that Clinton would have been more hawkish in terms of the two wars.

At least wall Street was on their asses with the Abacus scandal and the meltdown. The loss of House Majority shows bad political strategy and planning.

The loss of the house shows poorly on those candidates that lost. They were the ones who half-assed around and didn't get on board. None of that is Obama's fault, and he did campaign for many of the people who couldn't find it in themselves to show up for him.

A
R
T