The What If Game
Dana Milbank at the Washington Post writes a column about how a President Hillary Clinton would have done things differently than a President Barack Obama.
Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children’s coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.
The Clinton campaign advisers acknowledge that she probably would have done the auto bailout and other things that got Obama labeled as a socialist. The difference is that she would have coupled that help for big business with more popular benefits for ordinary Americans.
Clinton, for example, first called for a 90-day foreclosure moratorium in December 2007, as part of a package to fight the early stages of the mortgage crisis with a five-year freeze on subprime rates and $30 billion to avoid foreclosures. But an Obama campaign adviser dismissed Clinton’s moratorium, saying it would “reward people for bad behavior.”
So, still no public option, then? I think it’s wrong to think of the Obama presidency only in terms of the number of seats lost in November (so she would have only lost 40 seats then?) but in what was accomplished in the time with big enough majorities to get things done. And even though it wasn’t good enough for some people, Obama did manage to get some major pieces of legislation through Congress. This will be how history remembers him – how well the legislation worked.
One thing I’m sure of – history will probably not look kindly on the treatment of America’s first African American president. There’s a weird double standard for him – he can’t us teleprompters, talk to schoolchildren or travel to India like other presidents have done with no controversy.
I thought President Obama was above this crap:
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) – Illinois Republican Mark Kirk won’t be seated in the U.S. Senate in time for the start of the lame duck session of Congress this month – unlike two other newly elected senators.
The session begins Nov. 15. But state officials say the paperwork officially declaring Kirk the winner of the Senate race won’t be delivered until Nov. 29.
That should still allow Kirk to participate in two weeks of the session in December. He argued strongly during the campaign that voters needed to send him to the Senate quickly so he could help block spending and tax increases.
Two Democrats are expected to be sworn in at the start of the lame duck session. Chris Coons of Delaware will fill the remainder of Vice President Joe Biden’s term, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia replaces the late Robert Byrd.
i dont think Obama has any control over that decision, but please feel free to blame him for it anyway…. i woke up and my arm was asleep.. DAMN SOCIALIST PRESIDENT!
LOL, President Hillary Clinton! The GOP wanted her as an opponent so badly as they would have campaigned against Bill Clinton and his Arkansas Mafia.
She would have never beat McCain.
I hate the “what if” game. Hillary supporters will say that she would have been a thousand times better than Obama. Obama supporters will say she would have been a thousand times worse. I think they would have been pretty much the same since both would be dealing with the same Congress.
it think the only difference is, Hillary and Co arent above fighting dirty. They may have employeed some Rovian tactics against the GOP… the GOP of course would then pull it back just enough so they could pretend to be innocent, have Glenn Beck warn of “liberal killers” and
we’d be in the same position we are today. just with purist lefteabags saying
“Hilter 1936= Hillary 2010”
Sorry nemski, but as President Clinton said here at the J-J dinner in Nov. 2009, the Democrats were going to win no matter who we ran, as long as we didn’t run an ex-felon. McCain was a hopeless, blatently opportunistic candidate who put the seal on his defeat by choosing Palin as his running mate. Hillary would have won.
I supported Obama, but I could have supported Ms. Clinton if she had somebody on her campaign staff who understood that delegates at the Democratic convention were not the same as the U.S. Electoral College and the same rules didn’t apply. They ran their campaign based on the same rules as a presidential election and they weren’t there yet. And so they failed to get the nomination.
One thing I’ve learned in politics is that the ones who seem to be the very smartest can make the dumbest mistakes. Never fall in love with a politician. They will break your heart every time.
I supported Hillary before I saw Obama. I still think she’d be a great president. But once I saw him speak, there was no doubt who was the better candidate.
People forget. They forget that falling in love thing that happens when he’s speaking.
Auntie Dem, great minds. š I remember the first politician I fell in love with. Changed his major and went to Clown college. true story.
In one of the debates Candidate Obama criticized Hillary’s health care proposal because it had an individual mandate and no public option, and offered his own plan that had a public option and no individual mandate. That was one of the reasons I supported Obama instead of Hillary.
But once in office, President Obama has delivered Hillary’s proposal, and said anybody who insisted on Candidate Obama’s proposal needed to be drug tested.
I don’t need Hillary; I just need Candidate Obama to show up for work.
I would like to see a debate between Candidate Obama and President Obama.
Different “what if question”
….there is an incomming republican senator, Dan Coats is backing fillibuster reform.
I say BAD idea. It is something Dems want, liberal wants, yadda yadda…. BUT i see the Republicand gaining a majority in the senate next election. Even if Obama is re-elected i think the likes of Ben Nelson will be washed out for good. Do we really want to use our majority now to allow republicans to have MORE power when they take over?
Wonder when Dana Milbank will write his article speculating on what would have happened of the republicans has showed up to govern this country rather than work at their own party’s power?
Yes, I crack myself up.
What apparently Milbank wants you to know is that Hillary Clinton would have given up her ambitions for small wins. President Obama did not give up his ambitions and gave in on (relatively) smaller items to get the bigger win.
This is all a part of the *lack* of narrative claiming credit for the most productive Congressional legislative seasons ever. And it takes the DC Heathers Corps to work out counterfactuals that would make a virtue out of *less* achievement.
I’ll remind the people who want to make the Clinton example a lodestar — lots of us were really unhappy with Mr. Bill when he scaled back his ambitions in order to steal the Republican’s agenda, or to give the DLC BS full rein. No doubt Mr. Bill was successful at what he did (which was mostly sucker-punching repubs), but let’s not forget what his legacy is — starting with DADT and including the elimination of Glass-Steagall which enabled the banks to break the economy.
Que the perfection whiners who never have a plan to get to their perfection, who don’t do much to push their legislators to represent their interests and who spend more time whinging on the internet rather than, you know, *doing* something about the lack of perfection. For those of you playing at home, you will be getting a replay of the usual bullshit from these people. Who apparently take their cues from how Dana Milbank is allowed to operate.
Do we really want to use our majority now to allow republicans to have MORE power when they take over?
The filibuster always hurts Dems but never helps them. Democrats have no recent history of using a filibuster successfully; only of having it used against them (in the worst cases, used against us by our own side). I don’t see any chance Democrats will peel off moderate Republicans to join with them to execute a filibuster – there aren’t any moderate Republicans.
On the other hand, there will always be turncoat Dems to help Republicans with their filibusters. We are better off without the filibuster.
The filibuster always hurts Dems but never helps them.
This!
The most filibusters in history was against civil rights legislation.
I was going to say “Bork,” but I checked and the Senate rejected Bork 58 against and 42 in favor on an upperdown vote.
There are different “rules” for Dems, as the filibuster illustrates. Part of that problem is that Dems, unlike Repubs, don’t speak with one, very loud, outraged voice.
Not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. It’s just a thing.
We would have already attacked Iran, gas prices would be $12/gallon!
And there would be dozens of women accusing Bill Clinton of sleeping with them.
You are a bad boy, LG. Funny, but bad!
If there had been no filibuster threat for HCR, I wonder what excuse Dems would have come up with to not pass a public option?
Can’t ignore the Blue Dogs, anon. The filibuster threat wasn’t the real problem (altho it added to the problem) when it came to the PO. The Blue Dogs didn’t want it and wouldn’t vote for it.
If we could have passed legislation with a simple majority, I think we’d have a public option (although some dispute this – they think there was really only 40-something votes for it). The problem was with Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, etc. threatening to vote with Republicans on the filibuster.
I’m not sure, UI. I’m beginning to think that “public option” is for the left what “ending abortion” is for the right. It serves to get the base fired up, but actually doing something about it would mean having to find another carrot to get everyone to the polls. š
The Blue Dogs didnāt want it and wouldnāt vote for it.
Technically the Blue Dogs are in the House, and the PO did pass the House without their votes.
But assuming you mean Senate Conservadems as well, I think there was a simple majority for the PO. If you believe FDL there were 53 Senators willing to vote for the PO in reconciliation.
Actually, Senate Dems would have followed strong leadership from Reid and Obama. The reason so many Dems wavered was because Reid and Obama let them. Maybe Nelson and Lincoln would have dropped out, but still a majority would be left.
Of course then the industry would have stepped up its efforts even more, and instead of “We don’t have 60 votes” the excuse would be “We don’t have 50 votes.”
āpublic optionā is for the left what āending abortionā is for the right.
Good point. Unfortunately we have a whole bunch of those issues. In 2008 I got seriously fired up to vote for Obama because he promised to end the tax cuts for the rich, and PO with no IM. Those were my issues.
Other people were equally fired up over gay rights issues, Gitmo, and withdrawal from Iraq.
I can’t dance fast enough to regain my footing on the shifting sands of what Democrats stand for.
Have we all been had?
The problem is, recent history has set new horrible precidents for fillibuster usage. if we make it harder to fillibuster and the R’s have.. say a 3 seat majority in the senate, and you KNOW they will all vote together, we will see the repeal of everything obama passed, including lilly ledbetter and the hate crime laws.
Republicans have been very clear about their intended extreme agenda. Democrats may not have used the fillibuster in the past, but that is no reason to take the option away.
anon, we havent been had. I dont want to insult people i agree with, but the republicans win because they sabotage the government and the left blames Obama. the right blames Obama for bad weather, but the tragedy is so many democrats just assume (including him) that the Rs were ever going to cooperate on ANYTHING. It would have been amusing for him to push for war with Iran just to make them oppose it. The presidency, when it is working the way it was intended to (NOT the dictatorship Bush had) has very little actual power. If one senator wants to shut down the government, they can…. and the president cant legally do anything about it.
we can bitch all we want about our dreams not coming true, but the enemy… yes i said enemy… is the republican party and the conservative movement. We must defeat them before we start lambasting our own because they are always united. always. always? yes. always. The teaparty will fall in line.. look at em. they have already thrown out their Constitutional Crusader’s slogan to fight the social wars (as if that should come as a surprise). In less than 2 weeks after the new congress is sworn in you will hear talk about changing what they said was a “perfect” constitution in order to usher in a conservative taliban-like rule. The whole time progressives and liberals will be arguing over purity and who’s issue is more important.
The important issue is destroying the conservative movement. One that beast is gone, we can argue over what to do next.
And we would have even LESS with president hillary… I think we would be talking loudly about how VP Obama should primary her and usher in a new age of reason…. that Conservatives, with their own personal propoganda channel would surely kill.
We must defeat them before we start lambasting our own
Well, when are we going to start? If we aren’t going to use the Congress or the Presidency in the fight, what are we going to fight with?
OK, that’s enough whining for now from me. We are apparently on the path to accepting our national Darwin award.
Comment by a.price @ 12:23 pm:
“the republicans win because they sabotage the government and the left blames Obama”(for capitulating to the republicans at the first opportunity.)
delcrat, would you rather live in a country where petty fights news cycle ratings wars swing the country violently to teh left and the right every 2 years? Do you actually think the compormise Obama tried to have with the republicans was part of some evil neffarious plot to move the country to the right? do you actually think ANYONE else would have had any more success against think unified opopsition who cares nothing about the well being of the country?
lemmiE answer for you
“ISRAEL IS BAD!”
It isn’t about left or right. It is about corporations versus citizens. Obomba sides with the corporations. Hillary might have been less inclined to side with the corporations, but who knows?
And stop race-baiting with āISRAEL IS BAD!ā comments, a.price. It is despicable.
“delcrat, would you rather live in a country where petty fights news cycle ratings wars swing the country violently to teh left and the right every 2 years?” In case you haven’t noticed, thanks to Obomba selling out the base, we’ve got one of those.
“Do you actually think the compormise Obama tried to have with the republicans was part of some evil neffarious plot to move the country to the right?” Spot on !!
“do you actually think ANYONE else would have had any more success against think unified opopsition who cares nothing about the well being of the country? yeah, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, anyone not beholden to TBTF banks, “health” insurance, war industries and other corporate leeches.
lemmiE answer for you
āISRAEL IS BAD!” It’s true that israel is bad, but that hardly explains Obomba’s pusillaminous governing style.
…and why do you always seem to bring israel into the discussion?
It is tough to play the “what if” card here. Barack is our President, and I am proud of that. That said, I was a Hillary supporter from Day 1 and remain so today. It wasn’t that I didn’t like Obama. He is passionate and inspirational and was the far better speaker of the two. He came along to provide hope when that was what people needed most. I just align myself more with the policies and principles Hillary supports and don’t think she would have been labeled a socialist as quickly as Obama was. It would have been neat to see what she could have done. That said, I hope Barack succeeds. God knows we need it. The Republicans just want to try for the Bush years all over again and we know how that worked.
President Hillary never attempts HCR, remembering what a failure it was last time and it’s affects on the congressional balance of power.
hold on…. you think RALPH NADER would have had success with this congress? wake up. he wouldnt even have gotten support from democrats. And, im not sure of you know this…. your posts and arguments suggest no, but in america, BOTH houses of congress and the president have to agree (at least in majority vote) for anything to get done.
The lefteabag’s refusal to blame who is actually at fault for this mess is shameful.
Comment by a.price on 8 November 2010 at 4:13 pm:
hold onā¦. you think RALPH NADER would have had success with this congress? he wouldnt even have gotten support from democrats. And, im not sure of you know thisā¦. your posts and arguments suggest no, but in america, BOTH houses of congress and the president have to agree for anything to get done.
Wrong.
The president can do many things without congressional approval. For example…
A Pres. Nader would have ended military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen,,,,,,
A Pres. Nader would be prosecuting the Wall St. banksters,
(all things the President does not need congressional approval for)
and then certain people would probably start screaming about a police state, because the president is pushing through his agenda without any checks and balances from the american people (while constitutionally his perfect right, it’d be a PR shit storm).
the short answer is we’re fucked. every time. they always win because we can’t get our shit together and stop fighting internally for that perfect result. we’re too busy playing stupid childish what-if scenarios to their irrelevant conclusion.
I think that Hillary would have had less of a progressive agenda than Obama but more backbone. While there is much about Obama that I admire, I have wondered if maybe he was too inexperienced (and, thus, too insufficiently cynical about the reasonableness of the Congressional Republicans) for the job.
I wish we could get both in a President–progressive principles and backbone (a willingness to go to the mat over the significant parts of his/her agenda). FDR was that way. I suspect Howard Dean would be that way too.
A President Nadar is a fairy tale since he’d never be elected. Same goes for a President Kucinich.
Liberals/Progressives are not the majority. Sad, but true.
Hmmm… could this be why Dems have so many problems?
We are our own worst enemy.
Actually Liberal and Progressives policy ideas are widely popular with American citizens, but not with corporations and most of the moneyed aristocracy. Our democracy has been stolen from us and government power has been sold to the highest bidder.
The reason why a Nader or Kuncinich-type of candidate can’t get elected is because of the influence of money in the political process. Large campaign contributions are bribes, nothing more and nothing less. Furthermore, the election process is corrupt and the results of electronic voting cannot be verified.
the president does not prosecute. the attorney general does.
also the big banks lawyers are MUCH better than any attorney general Nader would appoint.
a.price, did you get past chapter one in your high school civics and government book? Who does the Attorney General report to? What is the President’s oath of office? And which branch of government is tasked with Federal law enforcement?
TPM thinks the letter is bogus, which would be par for the course for Fox News.
I hope it’s bogus, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t. Which is sad.
To your point “could this be why Dems have so many problems?” this “letter” may just be another example of the constant misinformation, deliberate propaganda, and big lies that keep citizens confused and corporations in power.
Comment by pandora on 8 November 2010 at 4:44 pm:
“A President Nadar is a fairy tale since heād never be elected.”
Pandora,
The real fairy tale is the belief that Obomba is anything but a willing accomplice of the GOP and the corporations that own and run this country.
Say what you want about Pelosi, but her campaign for leadership is the only thing standing in the way of Steny Hoyer as Minority Leader. I am sure the last thing she wanted to do was stand there to be a punching bag for Blue Dogs and teabaggers. But duty called and Nancy answered. Bravo, Nancy.
āA President Nadar is a fairy tale since heād never be elected.ā
We don’t need to elect people who are more liberal. We just need the people we elect to be as liberal as their campaign promises.
Actually if you look at the ins and outs, Pelosi is executing a power play that will squeeze Steny out of any leadership role at all. This is the best thing she can possibly do for progressives in the next Congress. Go Nancy!
@anon–The best thing Pelosi could do for United States citizens would be to resign immediately and promptly fade into obscurity. She’s had more awful plastic surgery than Joan Rivers & Rivers is more personable. Pelosi and Reid are two of the many reasons for the Tea Party. They both seem a little nuts to those of us in the center, and their statements and votes over the years give the right-wingers plenty of ammo for attack ads & talk radio vitriol. Combine that with the fact that they couldn’t get Obama’s bills through both houses when the Dems controlled both houses. What kind of “leader” can’t make his/her troops fall in line on important votes?
These two are losers & they need to go.
Dems need to AGREE on an agenda and STICK TO IT if they ever wish to be successful. Stop being afraid of what Fox News says about you. Republicans make a stand on “morals”, principles and “values”. Democrats can’t seem to agree on a set of values, principles and/or morals, so they accomplish nothing even when they’re in power and cower to Republican threats (USA PATRIOT Act, war in Afghanistan & Iraq, etc.) least they be seen as “unpatriotic” in the eyes of Fox News viewers. NEWSFLASH TO DEMS–Fox News viewers already see you as unpatriotic simply because there’s a big D after your name. Grow a set of balls & vote against bad bills! Do that often enough & you might gain the respect (or at least the VOTE) of moderates.
Anon40, As Speaker, Pelosi and the House passed over 400 bills, many very progressive and most died in the Senate because of Obomba failed to fight for the agenda he campaigned on and Reid couldn’t do it alone. Pelosi is one of the most progressive and effective Democratic leaders, so it is not wonder that the right wingnutz and teabaggerz hate her.
Pelosi did her job way too well, and that is why the Repugnant party attacked her so viscously. She is just the leader in the House that we need to repulse the lame Tea baggers and Know Nothings. She is the strong progressive in the Democratic party and the personification of Democratic ideals. We are not simply Repugnant Lite!!
anon40: Best laugh of the day is that you consider yourself a “moderate.”
Oh Geezer…you have no idea. I’m pro-2nd amendment, pro-choice, etc. I’m all over the political map. “Moderate” seems to fit me better than any other label. I would have voted for Castle had he won the primary.
I voted for Coons as he seemed to be the only sane candidate for Senator. I voted against Carney as he’s one of Ruth Ann’s cronies I have zero tolerance for that corrupt bunch.
I find Pelosi & Reid to be abrasive, ineffective politicians, as do most of my liberal friends. In fact, a local talk radio host recently described them as “bullies”. I happen to agree with that description.
OK, maybe you’re just politically naive. Pelosi and Reid are “bullies” because that’s their job in leadership. The demonization of them is simple Fox-Limbaugh propaganda.
You’re also in the dark about Carney. He is no Minner crony. That was a shotgun marriage between the ever-jealous upstate and downstate Democrats. He was not in her inner circle, and barely in her outer circle. Once again, you are buying into propaganda put out by opponents running against him for office.
Geezer, i voted and volunteered for Markell in the primary mainly because of Carney’s inside status. It wasn’t just propaganda either. It was the state democratic committee actually giving money to help beat Markell that should have gone to down ticket down state fights. Was that Carney’s call? maybe not… but if he is such a genuine outside, he would have protested that and spoken out about making it a fair fight.
a.p.: I believe you misread the situation. I didn’t say he was outside; I said he wasn’t a Minner crony. Carney is not the head of the party, and frankly, I don’t think he’s enough of a leader to buck his superiors. He is a creation of the state Dems, but there are different cliques within the state Democratic Party. We got Minner because the downstate clique demanded that it was “their turn.” Minner’s cronies were mainly downstate Democrats, along with a few of her former colleagues, such as Tom Sharp, from her days in the state Senate.
He was in no position to demand anything, let alone that the state party not give him money. If you think you’d turn down the money yourself in that situation, congratulations — you’re adept at lying to yourself.
Looking back on the whole thing agree with you. There is a truth however to the phrase “perception is reality”. the perception was that Carney used his position and connections to waste money to beat up a fellow democrat, thus costing other democrats seats. No one did anything to combat that charge, so it became fact…. the dems constant problem. Also, Markell has been doing a very good job as governor.
Also, I’m not sure if i would turn it down or not… i do know i would be thinking about how many way i could advertise that i turned it down and if i could spin that into my entire platform. Esspecially in THIS politcal environment. Hell, i may make a big stink about not accepting any money even if there wasnt any offered to me.
How would things be different? Competence — she has it, Barry doesn’t.