Clinton 2008 presidency

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What would have happened if Hillary Clinton won in 2008 and became the 2009-17 president? Would Obama have been her VP? How would she have dealt with congress and what would the next stage of the Clinton wars have looked like?
 
Much better for the DNC and America.

Clinton is a pit fighter and would have been able to manage things better. No Obama would have been VP, the two sides hated each other but Obama would have been Secretary of something.

Clinton would probably have stayed in Iraq and we wouldn't have ISIS.

The Clinton Wars would have been like WWIII fought by psychotic care bears on Khat. The process would have been mind numbing. Clinton had/has tremendous relationships in Congress and knows how to ball hard. The Clinton Machine is specifically designed to fight the Conservative Movement while FOX News is specifically designed to fight Clinton.

Showdown would have occurred on Gun Control and executive action would have bee taken after Newtown. Subsequently several Ruby Ridge situations.

In 2016 Obama would basically sweep into office in a landslide. If Bernie is getting 27K people, how many would a fresh 2015 Obama get?
 
Showdown would have occurred on Gun Control and executive action would have bee taken after Newtown. Subsequently several Ruby Ridge situations.

Uh-huh. The politician famous for triangulating would go all-in on gun control, a radioactive issue, via an expansion of executive power, and then just shrug off the public fiasco of federal agents killing civilians.

In 2016 Obama would basically sweep into office in a landslide. If Bernie is getting 27K people, how many would a fresh 2015 Obama get?

Definitely more, but I think you're overstating a 2015 Obama's appeal. A major factor in his 2008 success was the contrast with Dubya: the rube for the urbanite, the gaffer for the eloquent speechmaker. He wouldn't have that in 2015. Plus, he'd be much more of an everyday figure. Obama had been in the national spotlight for four years before he was elected president. ITTL, he'd have been a public figure for twelve years. The novelty of his rhetoric would've worn off.

I think he'd also have a lot of trouble squaring the circle of BlackLivesMatter. It's only been until fairly recently that Obama has publicly addressed face-on. For most of his presidency, he's been much more mum. Hillary, Sanders, and O'Malley all ducked those activists for as long as they could, and stuck with safe middle-of-the-road "All Lives Matter" rhetoric until sufficiently embarrassed.

Which would also be a problem for Obama because the media narrative would be about the uncertainty of an "Obama Coalition" verses the proven "Hillary Coalition". The 2008 nomination race saw Hillary eventually strike a more populist tone that focused on outreach to working-class whites and hispanics. If Hillary didn't bleed the former to Romney in 2012, Obama certainly will.

I think Obama would still win the nomination, absolutely, but it'd be more of a fight in the general election.
 
I think she would've been an overall better President than Obama because she would've had a better understanding of how to get congress to work and had a better understanding of how the GOP operates, so she'd be willing to tell them to f*ck off unlike Obama, but the flip side to that is that she would've been more willing to cave on things than Obama (she's a Clinton after all, triangulation is what they do best). The economy would've been a little better or worse than OTL, 2010 would've been a little better or worse as well. In 2012, Hillary would've beaten Romney for the same reasons Obama did (the GOP has been a mess over the last 8 years). Some sort of Healthcare reform would've passed in 2009 or 2010 as well.

As for foreign policy, she would've (for better or worse, I think for worse) would've been more hawkish than Obama, the plus side though is that there would be no "red lines" so she'd be a little more consistent. I could also see Hillary getting an Iran deal and normalizing relations with Cuba as well.

Obama is definitely not going to be VP. He either stays in the senate, launches a primary challenge against Pat Quinn for the governorship of Illinois in 2010, or gets a cabinet position of sorts. The 2016 race will be him vs. Sanders vs. Clinton's VP. Who will win the nomination? Who knows? Who will win the general, just like OTL, I lean towards the Democrats winning because again, the GOP is a hot mess, unless another economic collapse or a major economic crisis, and even then it would be close.
 
Hillary being Hillary, she makes a big mess of things and loses in a landslide to the Republican nominee in 2012.

This is Hillary Clinton we're talking about folks. Few political figures have ever had such skill in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, from botching the healthcare rollout in '93 so badly the GOP took control of Congress in '94, to losing the Democratic nomination to a freshman senator, and now possibly to a socialist from Vermont.

Plus, you thought the GOP/Tea Party reaction to Obama was bad? Imagine how they'd react to the woman they've written playbooks on how to defeat for decades. Unlike Obama, it would be open season even for Party moderates. Plus, Obama has a gift for bridging the various groups within the Democratic Party - how would segments of the Dem base react to Hillary being deep in the tank for Wall Street, or against LGBT rights?
 
Last edited:
How would Clinton have handled Russia? Obama basically did zero to contain Putin.

US championed sanctions against Russia OTL - Clinton isn't going to go much further than that, though she'll probably provide arms to the Ukrainian army.

Overall, FP will be the biggest difference. I'm not sure we'd have the Iran Deal (even though OTL as SoS she did oversee the initial stages). And I suspect we'd be at war in Syria. It'd start with openly and more comprehensively arming the opposition in 2012, probably expand to airstrikes/NFZ by 2013, US special force embeds, etc. By now it might have succeeded in ousting Assad, but the country would still be in a civil war type position, with the new government perhaps controlling Damascus and some major cities, but other opposition groups, the Kurds, and other Islamic groups maintaining their own fiefdoms (a la Afghanistan). Whether that's better or worse than OTL is a judgment call.

Domestic policy is going to probably be broadly similar, considering they drew from the same advisors and would have run into similar difficulties with Congress. Whether health reform happens will depend on if Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate. On the financial crisis, the broad strokes will be the same, although given how much Geithner and Summers led the response, if her economic team has other figures (like Roger Altman, Gene Sperling, Alan Blinder), the particulars may be somewhat different. Biggest potential difference would be if she launches a more aggressive response on housing.

Supreme Court, she probably also nominates Sotomayor. I suspect she'd have picked Diane Wood over Elena Kagan, though. She'd also win in 2012 for the same reasons Obama did. Will probably have more scandals - the Clintons tend to have more weird hangers-on frankly than Obama does, and it would almost certainly embroil her in more ongoing investigations. She'd also likely face more open opposition from the progressive wing of the party. Plenty of progressives have been disappointed in Obama for various reasons, but their earlier backing of him and the general sense that his heart is in the right place has muted this OTL. Clinton will face a lot more criticism from within the party, especially with her FP at odds with the left.

She might have offered Obama a cabinet post or a Supreme Court appointment, but he probably turns them down and remains in the Senate. Her VP is probably Biden, Ted Strickland (who took himself out of the running OTL), or Bayh, and Obama probably can defeat any of them in a primary in 2016.
 
You would see much more continuity with Bush second term foreign policy then Obama and the Arab Spring goes a heck of a lot better for the region. Sitting in Iraq which she would have done prevents the overflights from Tehran to Damascus and means by 2013 the regime would have cracked along with support to the FSA and training which Hillary would provide when it was needed AQI wouldn't be able to regrow in Syria.

Without the cover of IS I can't see Russia thowing in fully to Syria to save Assad. Russia likely does annex Crimea, but goes no further when the U.S. actually unites the world in condemnation instead of yawning.

End of the day Libya depends on how much she learned the lesson of Iraq that you have to help provide security after. That is a flip of the coin and depends on the general she decideds to listen to. OTL, it was Obama's call and he botched it.

On domestic policy she likely ends up far more successful then Obama in getting her agenda passed.
 
You would see much more continuity with Bush second term foreign policy then Obama and the Arab Spring goes a heck of a lot better for the region. Sitting in Iraq which she would have done prevents the overflights from Tehran to Damascus and means by 2013 the regime would have cracked along with support to the FSA and training which Hillary would provide when it was needed AQI wouldn't be able to regrow in Syria.

Without the cover of IS I can't see Russia thowing in fully to Syria to save Assad. Russia likely does annex Crimea, but goes no further when the U.S. actually unites the world in condemnation instead of yawning.

End of the day Libya depends on how much she learned the lesson of Iraq that you have to help provide security after. That is a flip of the coin and depends on the general she decideds to listen to. OTL, it was Obama's call and he botched it.

On domestic policy she likely ends up far more successful then Obama in getting her agenda passed.

Republicans aren't going to be any more cooperative with Hillary than with Obama. On Ukraine, what exactly, is going to be done beyond what was already done? (Sanctions, NATO buildup in E. Europe...) You'll get more direct arming of the Ukrainian Army, but Hillary isn't going to risk WWIII and Europeans aren't going to be any more persuaded to launch sanctions than they were OTL. Iraq is still going to be an Iranian client and 10K extra US troops in Iraq (if she can negotiate an agreement on extending troop presence) aren't going to butterfly ISIS.
 
Republicans aren't going to be any more cooperative with Hillary than with Obama. On Ukraine, what exactly, is going to be done beyond what was already done? (Sanctions, NATO buildup in E. Europe...) You'll get more direct arming of the Ukrainian Army, but Hillary isn't going to risk WWIII and Europeans aren't going to be any more persuaded to launch sanctions than they were OTL. Iraq is still going to be an Iranian client and 10K extra US troops in Iraq (if she can negotiate an agreement on extending troop presence) aren't going to butterfly ISIS.

Nope that is a load of wishful thinking that Obama didn't royally screw things up by deciding to try to wash his hands of the region after Bin Laden and Gaddafi were killed.

It took the complete and total abdication of Iraq to put it in the position it was in by 2014 and quite frankly Obama compounded the problem by empowering Iran and working with it like it was the major played in the area before the pullout to try to get his idiot nuclear deal.

As for Ukraine if it actually being armed by the West after Crimea would have caused Putin to not go for the East.

Weakness is not strength and abdicating global responsibility is not strength. Acting stupidly and billigerently isn't strength either.

Obama deserves the position he is going to get in the history books for his foreign policy that can be best described as 'can't someone else handle world affairs'. The answer is yes Russia and its allies can.

That is my only comfort about the Obama era foreign policy wise.

PS and yes Hillary would have known that if you want parts of the responsible GOP to work with her there needed to give and take. She would have a handful of supporters of the old Bush/McCain wing on foreign policy and that would be enough to get most of what she wants foreign policy wise.

Domestic policy is another story, but on foreign policy I see her more able to get things done then Bill as at least. She would have made her mistakes certainly on foreign policy, but no mistake as big as saying I am taking my ball and retreating from the world, which always sounds good in principle until the results come in.
 
Last edited:
One thing with Hillary. Assuming she has the House and Senate in 2008 Health Care is going to be as she wanted it. Not the abortion we wound up with due to allowing Reid and Polosi cut deals to get support. If it hits her desk not as she wanted she vetoes it and sends it back
 
One thing with Hillary. Assuming she has the House and Senate in 2008 Health Care is going to be as she wanted it. Not the abortion we wound up with due to allowing Reid and Polosi cut deals to get support. If it hits her desk not as she wanted she vetoes it and sends it back

Highly, highly unlikely. Given how much she had riding on passing health care successfully this time (after having failed in '93), she almost certainly accepts what can get passed. She isn't going to be vetoing anything.

The differences in terms of passage will be fairly minor. I could see her not pushing the so-called "cadillac tax" given the politics of it.
 

Deleted member 1487

What about the public option? Didn't that get successfully filibustered partly because Obama didn't play hardball with Lieberman?
How could he play hardball with that guy? He needed him and he was safe in his seat as it turned out when he ran as an independent and won.
 
What about the public option? Didn't that get successfully filibustered partly because Obama didn't play hardball with Lieberman?

"Even then, his [Lieberman's] vote wasn't the decisive one against some form of public option (it's pretty clear that Ben Nelson would never have been on board, and there were probably four or five others who would have let the whole thing sink rather than voting for any form of public option)." http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/09/catch-of-day-andharry-reid-and.html

To get a public option, you would have to abolish the filibuster, and the Democrats were simply not ready to do that in 2009.
 

Asami

Banned
Hillary being Hillary, she makes a big mess of things and loses in a landslide to the Republican nominee in 2012.

This is Hillary Clinton we're talking about folks. Few political figures have ever had such skill in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, from botching the healthcare rollout in '93 so badly the GOP took control of Congress in '94, to losing the Democratic nomination to a freshman senator, and now possibly to a socialist from Vermont.

Plus, you thought the GOP/Tea Party reaction to Obama was bad? Imagine how they'd react to the woman they've written playbooks on how to defeat for decades. Unlike Obama, it would be open season even for Party moderates. Plus, Obama has a gift for bridging the various groups within the Democratic Party - how would segments of the Dem base react to Hillary being deep in the tank for Wall Street, or against LGBT rights?

Finally, some sensible logic that isn't shilling for Hillary.
 
With regard to her supposed ineptitude in electoral politics, I would simply remind people that the 2000 Senate race against Lazio in New York was not a foregone conclusion by any means, and that she won it decisively, by better than twelve points. (Yes, New York was a blue state. That didn't prevent it from electing Republican senators like D'Amato for many years, even in generally good years for Democrats like 1986 and 1992.)
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Republicans aren't going to be any more cooperative with Hillary than with Obama. On Ukraine, what exactly, is going to be done beyond what was already done? (Sanctions, NATO buildup in E. Europe...) You'll get more direct arming of the Ukrainian Army, but Hillary isn't going to risk WWIII and Europeans aren't going to be any more persuaded to launch sanctions than they were OTL. Iraq is still going to be an Iranian client and 10K extra US troops in Iraq (if she can negotiate an agreement on extending troop presence) aren't going to butterfly ISIS.

If there are still US Combat Troops in Iraq, of at least Divisional size, there is no ISIS breakthrough. They might infiltrate parts of the most hardcore Sunni areas of the country, such as Fallujah, but they would not run wild acorss the country. Keep in mind that with US intervention, Maliki does not go off the rails in my view. Clinton, like Bush before her, would have made it a priority to talk with him frequently and keep a lid on things; Obama did not do this. The military would not have been sectarianized as much as OTL, and the no show pay bullshit would not have been tolerated, as it sure as hell was not tolerated when CENTCOM was watching over things.

ISIS's numbers vary, of course, but the penetration that led to the breakthrough was not done by a ton of fighters. Almost all of the progress ISIS has made in Iraq has been because of a small number of hardcore supporters led by competent Chechen commanders. The other numbers they have at their command are mostly local Sunnis of varying willingness, and scant combat effectiveness (at least in Iraq; in Syria, this is different). 10K US Combat troops would have made a HUGE difference.

Since the initial breakthrough, the only real ISIS success of lasting importance in Iraq using the new numbers at their command was the seizure of Ramadi earlier this year, and that was done after MONTHS of attrition against poorly supported and often times, ammoless, Iraqi troops. This was not a well executed operation. What would happen time after time was that the initial attack using asymmetric suicide bombers and quick motorized attacks would succeed and throw the Iraqis into a panic, before they calmed down because of the inept infantry assaults carried out by ISIS hardened the troops in position.
 

jahenders

Banned
First, she'd start with far less of a messianic following and would have less delusions of a mandate from on high. There would be no silliness of a Nobel Prize for Nothing, not quite the same gushing from academia and everyone in left field.

So, she'd start with less political capitol and would likely step on some toes early on, losing more of that.

When she brought up healthcare it would awaken nightmares from when she tried before and probably develop more opposition from the beginning. However, that might be a good thing in that it would force a more moderate product, polished by debate. Heck, they might even have read parts of it, just because they had to argue over them.

So, the rollout would probably go somewhat more smoothly since there'd be less "making it up on the fly" and probably at least a few less court cases.

Other than that, she'd probably feel slightly less empowered to use executive over reach. She'd do some, but less frequently and less grandiosely.

Overall, she'd be somewhat less popular and would move the ball less to the left than Obama.

It's unclear whether she'd win again in 2012. In fact, she might be worn out enough not to run.

What would have happened if Hillary Clinton won in 2008 and became the 2009-17 president? Would Obama have been her VP? How would she have dealt with congress and what would the next stage of the Clinton wars have looked like?
 
Top