President Hillary Clinton?

NomadicSky

Banned
Supposing that Hillary Clinton did just a little bit better in the primaries, and was elected last November?

It'd be almost eleven months into her term, I'm sure things would'nt be the same. I have some doubt that she'd have made Obama the VP, but I'm sure he'd get a cabinet position.

Gay rights would be farther along, no token symbolism, by now I'm sure the defense of marriage act would have been dropped.
 
I think Clinton would have chosen Obama for VP. It gives the Democrats a 1-2 punch and an heir apparent in upcoming elections, allowing the president to be more aggressive on risky issues or gay rights. The problem now is that Biden is not viewed as a strong candidate, even if he assumes the presidency. So, Obama must be more centrist than Clinton would have to be.
 
I think Clinton would have chosen Obama for VP. It gives the Democrats a 1-2 punch and an heir apparent in upcoming elections, allowing the president to be more aggressive on risky issues or gay rights. The problem now is that Biden is not viewed as a strong candidate, even if he assumes the presidency. So, Obama must be more centrist than Clinton would have to be.

SOunds like your imagining the tail wagging the dog. The president is in charge and will be conisidering her political fortures way before concern about her possible succesor, especially in her first year of what she undoubtably plans to be 8 years!

If Hilliary were to move on Gay rights more so than Obama has it would be because she has a differant agenda, which is likely.

Based on her history of postioning herself towards the center during her time in the Senate and during the campaign (until Obama forced her to the left) it is likely, IMO, that her responses to the finacial crisis would be less radical than Obama's (aiming for that second term).

THis would indeed cost her less political capital than Obama has already spent.

Thus leaving her with more to spend on Gay issues, which is a smaller issue than "socialized medicine".

THus, I think you are right, just for all the wrong reasons.:):p;)
 
Based on her history of postioning herself towards the center during her time in the Senate and during the campaign (until Obama forced her to the left) it is likely, IMO, that her responses to the finacial crisis would be less radical than Obama's (aiming for that second term).

THis would indeed cost her less political capital than Obama has already spent.

Thus leaving her with more to spend on Gay issues, which is a smaller issue than "socialized medicine".

By radical, I'm assuming you mean "intervene to help everyday Americans as opposed to corporate elites." So a smaller stimulus but just as big a bank bailout.

That'd also more likely mean the financial crisis would be far worse and unemployment may hit Great Depression leveal rather than just the bad recession levels we have now.

Probably the bigger issue being missed is that she dithers on Iraq and Afghanistan far more. Just like Bill, her position changes with every shift in the polls. Look also for even more grandstanding on Iran like she did during the election (even a statement that could be misread as a call for genocide).

I'm sure we'd also see every last trumped up "scandal" from Bill's time in office replayed. Look for calls to restart the Whitewater investigation, tabloid headlines about her supposedly being lesbian/antifamily/"hanging out with radicals," Vince Foster's name dragged through the mud again, etc.
 
By radical, I'm assuming you mean "intervene to help everyday Americans as opposed to corporate elites." So a smaller stimulus but just as big a bank bailout.

That'd also more likely mean the financial crisis would be far worse and unemployment may hit Great Depression leveal rather than just the bad recession levels we have now.

Interesting assumption, but wrong. Note I did not say smaller. You could have a smiliarly sized stimulus package without some of the more radical moves such as direct goverment ownership or the push for UHC.

Probably the bigger issue being missed is that she dithers on Iraq and Afghanistan far more. Just like Bill, her position changes with every shift in the polls. Look also for even more grandstanding on Iran like she did during the election (even a statement that could be misread as a call for genocide).


As opposed to "Steady at the Helm" Obama, with his grandstanding about Pakistan?



I'm sure we'd also see every last trumped up "scandal" from Bill's time in office replayed. Look for calls to restart the Whitewater investigation, tabloid headlines about her supposedly being lesbian/antifamily/"hanging out with radicals," Vince Foster's name dragged through the mud again, etc.


Trumped up? LOL!

And as for her radical past that would not be a departure form OTL with Obama having a similar if not worse history of such behaviour himself.
 
SOunds like your imagining the tail wagging the dog. The president is in charge and will be conisidering her political fortures way before concern about her possible succesor, especially in her first year of what she undoubtably plans to be 8 years!

I think the choice of a VP as a possible successor is a factor. For instance, I think Mondale's choice of Ferraro, Bush Sr.'s choice of Quayle and McCain's choice of Palin all enhanced their margins of loss, even though the overall outcome of the elections would not have changed. Reagan's choice of Bush helped build confidence; Gore's choice of Lieberman helped distance him from the Clinton administration.

By the summer of 2008, the economic crisis had broken out and Hillary Clinton might have had to face the possibility of being in an LBJ/68 situation four years later. After all, she will be 65 years old in 2012.
 
I think the choice of a VP as a possible successor is a factor. For instance, I think Mondale's choice of Ferraro, Bush Sr.'s choice of Quayle and McCain's choice of Palin all enhanced their margins of loss, even though the overall outcome of the elections would not have changed. Reagan's choice of Bush helped build confidence; Gore's choice of Lieberman helped distance him from the Clinton administration.

By the summer of 2008, the economic crisis had broken out and Hillary Clinton might have had to face the possibility of being in an LBJ/68 situation four years later. After all, she will be 65 years old in 2012.

So you're saying that a stronger VP can lead to more of a mandate, thus more aggressive policies?

Well, not a bad theory, on paper, but...

First of all, Obama easily had enough of a victory to claim a mandate.

Second of all, he has a strong grip on both houses of Congress (far more important for getting things done than a "mandate)".

Third of all, even your own examples seem to be focused on campaigns, instead of actual governing agendas.


Also, the elder Bush won with Quayle, before the country got to see him govern.:)
 
Top