Better off with Hillary?

[Anonymous]

It's like reading a choose-your-own-adventure book, but with the "disappointments" (in my IMHO) with the current administration, I wonder if Hillary might have been a better leader.

Would HRC be spending a ton of money on bail outs, would she have been more influential at the Summit, would she have been so quick to over turn stem cell funding/pro life prgress (probably, but as the FIRST thing in a new administration, she probably would've waited a little...at least after making an appearance at Notre Dame), would she have elected questionable nominees to her Cabinet, and the list goes on.

[Anonymous]

Would HRC be spending a ton of money on bail outs, would she have been more influential at the Summit, would she have been so quick to over turn stem cell funding/pro life prgress (probably, but as the FIRST thing in a new administration, she probably would've waited a little...at least after making an appearance at Notre Dame), would she have elected questionable nominees to her Cabinet, and the list goes on.

Yes, no, yes, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's like reading a choose-your-own-adventure book, but with the "disappointments" (in my IMHO) with the current administration, I wonder if Hillary might have been a better leader.

Would HRC be spending a ton of money on bail outs, would she have been more influential at the Summit, would she have been so quick to over turn stem cell funding/pro life prgress (probably, but as the FIRST thing in a new administration, she probably would've waited a little...at least after making an appearance at Notre Dame), would she have elected questionable nominees to her Cabinet, and the list goes on.

1. Yes. Look at her voting.
2. More influential? Probably the same.
3. Yes. Look at her voting. Maybe she would have waited for political reasons, but does it really matter?
4. Yes. Look at her husband's cabinet and her campaign staff.

I like her, but I don't see real differences between her and Obama on these points.

[Anonymous]

But Hillary is more moderate than Obama (who seems so extreme left wing).

[Anonymous]

He's been president less than three months. He took over a RUIN of an administration. He's not a miracle worker and there's no quick fix.

He's got three and a half years to succeed or fail. I'll wait to judge.

[Anonymous]

I was a major HRC supporter before Obama won the nomination. I was very happy when Obama selected her for State. I'm disappointed that Obama put Larry Summers where he is and some of the other cabinet picks didn't thrill me (LaHood, Vilsack), and I dislike some provisions of the bailout, but otherwise I'm not disappointed with Obama. And I am so pleased about the organic garden on the South Lawn!

I truly don't think Hillary would have done a better job so far. If you knew me you'd understand that this is a major statement of faith on my part, because I've been with Hillary for years and I have enormous respect and affection for her.

[Anonymous]

Anyone would be better than Obama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone would be better than Obama

Coming off what I think was the worst president in history, the fact that someone can make that statement shows that the theory of multiple universes has proof right here on this list. If we don't live in parallel universes, we certainly think in different realities.

[Anonymous]

But Hillary is more moderate than Obama (who seems so extreme left wing).

What exactly has Obama done that is "so extreme left wing"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But Hillary is more moderate than Obama (who seems so extreme left wing).

What exactly has Obama done that is "so extreme left wing"?

Understanding "extremely left wing" as "anything Rush disagrees with," I suspect that poster would say that anything you and I think is reasonable is "extremely left wing."

[Anonymous]

Understanding "extremely left wing" as "anything Rush disagrees with," I suspect that poster would say that anything you and I think is reasonable is "extremely left wing."

Seriously! I am so tired of hearing about how Obama is so radically left wing when he is basically pursuing centrist policies. I think people characterizing Obama as extreme left wing need a refresher course in world politics.

[Anonymous]

I did pretty well with Bush and so did the country--our GDP grew most years and after 9/11 we had no more attacks-with Obama I am now seeing his attempts to socialize and it scares me--and seriously how can we have a treasury sec that doesn't know his own taxes and is looking into taking over more businesses???? Thank god his (Obama) cap and trade nonsense was turned down so far as was card check--both extremely left wing policies which would have affected everyone esp. those of us who love Target and Walmart. I think Hilary would have been more measured and pro business--the social stuff she would have been the same but that doesn't bother me since I am liberal on most social issues.

[Anonymous]

I did pretty well with Bush and so did the country--our GDP grew most years and after 9/11 we had no more attacks-with Obama I am now seeing his attempts to socialize and it scares me--and seriously how can we have a treasury sec that doesn't know his own taxes and is looking into taking over more businesses???? Thank god his (Obama) cap and trade nonsense was turned down so far as was card check--both extremely left wing policies which would have affected everyone esp. those of us who love Target and Walmart. I think Hilary would have been more measured and pro business--the social stuff she would have been the same but that doesn't bother me since I am liberal on most social issues.

Oh brother. This is basically just more of the same rhetoric.

What, exactly, is Obama trying to "socialize"? What businesses has he taken over or is he "looking into taking over"? How do trade caps and majority sign-up count as "extremely left wing policies"? Do you know anything about the world political spectrum?

I'm sick to death of these terms being flung around.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I did pretty well with Bush and so did the country--our GDP grew most years and after 9/11 we had no more attacks

Definitely. As long as you don't consider the anthrax attack -- which killed people right here in DC -- or the attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to be "attacks", we weren't attacked. More Americans were killed in Iraq during the Bush administration then were killed on 9/11. If you don't consider water falling from the sky to be rain, it also didn't rain during the Bush administration.

[Anonymous]

And PP, if you are so against socialist policies then I assume you don't want government to fund public education, or collect social security when you retire, or go on medicare...