Hillary Clinton Wins in 2008; What Does She Do Differently From Obama?

Would her healthcare plan differ from the ACA?

Unlikely. The ACA resembles her plan more than Obama's, actually - he mocked the universal mandate during the primaries only to wind up having to defend its constitutionality before the Roberts Court later.
 

Towelie

Banned
I would guess significantly more ethics problems and significantly less problems with Congress in regards to passing legislation. Probably a much more watered down Dodd Frank will help this, although I think the ACA will look different and again be rejected by her own party. Probably a more activist foreign policy. Her DoJ might be better than Obama's, however, and same with Department of Education, as it'd likely be less ideological (and less prone to things like Fast and Furious or any of the numerous Holder fuck ups; on the education front).

The Tea Party movement might not develop because I don't think she would be nearly as divisive in terms of the stimulus and an early push for healthcare reform, knowing her husband's prior issues with that course of action. Her being Hillary however would mean that some type of Populist right movement, with its own conspiracy theories and maybe a slightly different ideology, would develop.
 

Towelie

Banned
Something to consider here:

Hillary in 2008 ran a "beer track" campaign, moderate on social issues and respectful of gun ownership, with a messaging system that was heavily geared to the white working class (much like her husband), and she had the support and respect of many Blue Dogs and Jacksonian Democrat types. On foreign policy, she was national security focused.

I think she would annihilate McCain. 2008 was a wave year for the Democrats (the Democratic Congress did not take any heat for almost unanimously voting for the bailout or being in office while the economy melted down, because those things get blamed on the President's party, just like with Obama getting blamed for the rise of ISIS in early 2014 or the bad gas prices in 2010). The only reason the race wasn't a blowout was because Obama did not hold the Jacksonian vote that had traditionally been theirs. Palin swung quite a bit of populist leaning Democrats to McCain, and Obama being an arugula eating member of Reverend Wright's congregation did not help matters. There were areas of Western PA, WV, Arkansas, Missouri, Eastern Ohio that actually voted more for McCain in '08 than Bush in '04. Hillary could have likely run to an Reagan '80 blowout at the most, or replicate Clinton '96.

So, Hillary taking office in 2008 is taking office with a significantly more moderate and less liberal Democratic Party in terms of objectives and campaign promises. She wouldn't be the identity politics shill of 2016, at least not initially.

It is very possible that she rules as a centrist with all of the Clintonian baggage that she would be hauling, or that she would rule more to the left if it would strengthen her control of the party (again, with all of her baggage).

But it is entirely possible that she has a very different agenda than Obama would have had.
 
No way does she lose to McCain. The fundamentals of the election strongly favored a Democrat win; worst case she wins on 2012 instead of 2008 levels.

Before you start going off about how "pantsuit Dukakis" (which, I have to say, is a terrible nickname by any stretch of the imagination) losing a winnable election to Il Douche, please keep in mind that it took the GOP, the FBI, basically all of American news media, the Trump campaign, and he Russian intelligence service to defeat her, and even then she won the popular vote by nearly three million.

Absent a once-a-century aberration like the Orange One, she cleans McCains chronometer.

All of her central weaknesses are still there - only now she's facing a war hero and a man who has been the Senate longer than she's been in DC, as opposed to the guy who wants to grab women by the pussy.

Obama was the PERFECT combination for the Dems to run in 2008 - no baggage of having voted for Iraq, a young, articulate firebrand, inspirational, and ASPIRATIONAL, et cetera.

Conversely, he was also an unknown quantity. The GOP had, as of 2008, spent 20 years preparing to rip Clinton to shreds. Obama, not so much. All the avenues of attack he used against McCain in OTL - such as the Iraq War or his outsider status - are off limits to Pantsuit Dukakis. All of her strong points, McCain beats her in spades. Plus, McCain is actually a decent speaker and not awkward interacting with the public.

Plus, McCain will probably pick a much stronger VP this go around, say, JC Watts, while if Kaine is any indicator, the Dems shit the bed. We could end up with Edwards in the VP slot.

McCain wins, but it will be by MUCH slimmer margins than OTL 2008. The Dems then win handily in 2012.
 
Bill enlarged Nato considerably during his tenure, and it grew even more later, unnerving the Russians. Additionally, there was the intervention in Yugoslavia, which nearly resulted in a conflict between US and Russian troops over the airport. Hillary's foreign policy would have been a continuation of Bill's.

He also stayed out of Rwanda, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and, for several years, Yugoslavia. Note, we nearly went to war with North Korea in 1994 and Iraq simmered for a decade. I would call that a policy of restraint as much as anything else. The near conflict with the Russians was a near disaster but not exactly the result of foolish policy as much on the ground implementation.
 
Maybe without air support Assad falls, Iran gets pissed, Russia gets pissed, and the middle east turns into a major shit show; the Dems get wiped out in 2016 and we have an even bigger GOP nightmare take over.
Domestically she's probably pretty similar. There might be some slight differences with the ACA, but overall it doesn't change that much. Foreign policy would be slightly more aggressive.

If Trump still runs in 2016, then Obama destroys him if he decides to run as well.
Because of the friendship between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I think his candidacy may be butterflied, however, I could be wrong as he complimented Barack Obama over a lot of Republican leaders in the lead up to the 2008 Election, and then gave him a hard time in the years to follow. Unless Obama is selected as VP nominee, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee is likely some safe, Caucasian male Vice President (Obama and Clinton were cautious when it came to being "firsts" with the Caucasian male vote). Then again, with Obama's charisma and ability to inspire, he could run against Clinton's safe VP and easily win the nomination and the General Election.

Potential safe Vice Presidential nominees she was considering:
  • Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Retired Four Star General, Wesley Clark
  • Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell
  • Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland
  • Former Governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack
  • Senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh
If Obama did not run and Clinton's Safe VP was the nominee, and can't connect with voters, the GOP nightmare referenced is likely:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...eadership_Conference_May_2015_by_Vadon_02.jpg
 
As aforementioned, her foreign policy is likely more old-fashioned. For example, in 2008, she made it clear she would follow the advice of the Pentagon before beginning a withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. There is probably no Rapprochement with Iran and Cuba, leaving Guantanamo Bay still open.

On Domestic policy, she probably does better when it comes to economic recovery, especially because her husband, being a former president could give her plenty of advice. I think she'd be a little more ambitious when it came to universal healthcare and education, because of how vocal she was about these issues as First Lady. Drug policy/criminal justice reform, she likely takes her husband's conservative route. Immigration, gun control, and LGBTQIA rights are where I find her to be similar to Obama, in order to court voters of those groups (although she may be initially reluctant when it comes to LGBTQIA issues, given her speech to the Senate in 2003). How she responds to racial issues is completely in the dark for me, although, after a hard-fought primary season against Obama, she likely takes the same approach and makes friendly with them.

I think she'd win against Mitt Romney in 2012 without a sweat, especially with Tea Party-esque conservatives dividing the Republican Party (some reactionary conservative group will arise in the wake of a second Clinton presidency). Romney, having to pander to that audience, will drift to the right and make himself out to be a corporatist-capitalist vulture/robber baron. Which will play into the Democrats' hand of tying him with CEOs that played a part in the 2008 economic collapse and easily associating him with the Bush-Cheney Administration, especially after their endorsement of him.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to see the divergence of opinions here regarding HRC and her capabilities. I commend you all for the civility extended, this is a rarity on boards these days!
 
All of her central weaknesses are still there - only now she's facing a war hero and a man who has been the Senate longer than she's been in DC, as opposed to the guy who wants to grab women by the pussy.

Not to debate present politics, but her "central weakness" in 2016 was her "insider nature." McCain is the perfect opponent for her precisely because he "has been [in] the Senate longer than she's been in DC" 2008, much like 2016, was a change election. This time, however, Hillary represents change whereas in 2016 she did not. Also, the points made about Hillary Clinton's more moderate campaign in 2008 are exceedingly valid, and so are the arguments that she was more partisan. One can be more partisan and more centrist if that makes sense. Partisan rooted in "my party is always right" even if it is not the most ideologically pure vision of said party. Hillary Clinton will be more aggressive in fighting the Republican response to her and building the bench of the Democrats. Yet, she may find she has more in common with them than President Obama did. It's a fascinating paradox, but one worthy of our consideration, I think.
 
I think she would have done more with the economy in '09 and would have put less emphasis on health reform. I dont think she would have taken a tougher stance against the Russians. Syria and the Ukraine are under their sphere of influence. Bank reform would have gone differently. She would have absolutely crucified Ted Cruz for his bullshit shutdown in '11 and I think although R opposition would have been just as fierce I think Hilary would have done a better job of fighting back. A bit of Machiavelli would have helped the D's from '09-'12.

We'd probably have seen a more thorough effort by the IRS against the Tea Party in the 2010-2012 timeframe overseen by Sidney Blumenthal. Maybe Hillary does something akin to her @ speech on the alt-right against the Tea Party. Hillary would go for the jugular, especially to get health care passed.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Unlikely. The ACA resembles her plan more than Obama's, actually - he mocked the universal mandate during the primaries only to wind up having to defend its constitutionality before the Roberts Court later.
Wasn't an individual mandate necessary for the ACA's success, though?

Also, I'm certainly extremely glad that Chief Justice Roberts called out Obama's BS on this and acknowledged the individual mandate for the tax that it actually is; I mean, if it meets the definition of a tax, then it's a tax--regardless of whether or not Obama actually acknowledges it to be a tax.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
We'd probably have seen a more thorough effort by the IRS against the Tea Party in the 2010-2012 timeframe overseen by Sidney Blumenthal. Maybe Hillary does something akin to her @ speech on the alt-right against the Tea Party. Hillary would go for the jugular, especially to get health care passed.
How exactly would an IRS effort in regards to this affect the Tea Party, though? Indeed, were there a bunch of tax delinquents among the Tea Party, or what?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes, but Obama pretended otherwise during the primary, and called it an unnecessary imposition.
Yes, that is correct; indeed, this is a part--albeit certainly not the main reason--of the reason as for why exactly I supported him back in 2008 (I was 15-16 back then). However, once it became clear that the individual mandate was necessary for the ACA's success, both Obama and myself changed our position on this issue. :)
 
Top