Imagine…………… Part II.

So, you wanted an alternative to Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Well, in my not so humble view, she couldn’t have been elected President – not that she wasn’t/isn’t qualified – but she carries considerable baggage from the “Clinton Years.” The General Election campaign against her would have made “Swiftboat” look like an elementary schoolyard spat.

But let’s imagine, the Democrats won and now we have President Clinton, Part II. Now what? Would Hillary have done better? Would she have done better, with all the ” Clinton Baggage” than Barack Obama?

Hillary Clinton is a smart, dedicated, knowledgeable woman who has served admirably as US Senator and as Secretary of State, but she carries huge negative ratings.  Obama entered the Oval Office with relatively high approval numbers, but that did not lessen the opposition that he received from the GOP. The Republican attack machine was in full swing before the last vote was counted.

Let’s look at a few positions where she would be attacked:

Gay Rights:

“Her husband signed “DADT” and DOMA.” Did she come out and disagree with him? Did she stand up for gay and lesbian Americans at that time?”

The War on Iraq:

“You voted for the War, and you and your husband himself stated that Saddam had WMD!”

The economy:

“The only reason that the economy was better is the Nineties was there was a Republican majority in Congress!  All the credit goes to the GOP!”

The War on “Terror.”

“Your husband did nothing about terrorism! Aspirin factory! He did nothing about the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole!”

And so on.

I don’t agree with the Republican attack points at all. Some of them are outright lies and some are massive distortions, but those would be just some of the daily talking points from the right-wing machine. The machine already has a large file on the Clintons.

Hillary, in general, is loved by the Left and hated by the Right. Public condemnation of her exceeds even that of Obama. Most of it has no basis in fact, but facts seem quite unimportant to the opposition. The Kenneth Starr “investigation” into the Clintons came up with nothing except a blue dress, yet the majority of Republicans and many independents believe that they were guilty of multitudes of crimes. Fair? No, but life and politics are rarely fair.

Do I agree with the scenario that I have painted? Of course not, but in my view, it is a realistic portrayal of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

William Stephenson Clark


Filed under American Society, President Barack Obama

21 responses to “Imagine…………… Part II.

  1. Zippy

    Hillary only became loved by the “left” when it was clear she became the only alternative to Obama.

    The ironic thing is that many of the hard right had so demonized the Clintons (for all the wrong reasons), that they didn’t really scrutinize Obama.

    Of course, except for the Truly Evil they don’t scrutinize much of anything. Attack of the Dumbfucks , who react on cue to what the flavor-of-the-month “issue” is (the month: should the New York city government violate the law and produce unnecessary litigation, because some relatives of 9-11 victims are too fucking stupid to tell the difference between random adherents of a religion and a hostile foreign power?).

    And, nothwithstanding the fantasy of Hillary as our great savior (that was never true–just look at her voting record in the Senate), the Hillary hate machine would not have even had to retool for 2009.

    Would she have handled it better? Maybe. Maybe should would have actually vetoed something.

    But I find the view of the Grand Change in Hillary just as much wishful thinking as believing that Obama wasn’t going to waffle at important times.

    The FISA vote (which, BTW, Hillary only opposed after clearly losing the nomination) showed otherwise.

    The question then becomes: what do we do? Relying on one guy in corporate-occupied territory was never a great strategy.

    • paulasayles

      Wow, Zippy! Look at all those F bombs! (And I thought I was the only one with a mouth like a sailor!!) 🙂

      • Zippy

        Good point, actually. Limited use of vocabulary is never a good thing.

        Perhaps I’ve reading too much of the Rude Pundit lately. 🙂

      • paulasayles

        Please forgive me if I made it sound like I was criticizing. Being a word geek, I don’t consider “curse” words to be off-limits or “bad.” I believe there is a good use for every word. The F word is my favorite because it is so versatile. I try to refrain here because I don’t want to offend anyone. So, PLEASE don’t think I was correcting you. I would never presume to do that, if only for the reason that people who live in glass houses…

  2. At our Kansas caucus in February of 2008, I ‘stood for’ Hillary Clinton. At Newman University where I was assigned, there were a few who ‘stood for’ John Edwards, a couple for Bill Richardson, quite a few for Hillary and the vast majority for Obama.

    I believed in her then and still do, but when she didn’t win the nomination I understood that our choices were McCain and Obama. That was a no brainer for me.

    I have no idea who the GOP will field as their candidate, and as PrairiePond mentioned yesterday Obama wasn’t known this far in advance of his election so maybe the GOP will have a candidate we haven’t even heard about yet. I saw yesterday that Huckabee has the early lead in Ohio. With Romney coming in 2nd, Newt Gingrich 3rd and Sarah Palin 4th. None of those people may end up being the GOP nominee.

    What I’m pretty sure about is their nominee will not be a better choice than Obama. I’m not going to be one who stays home because it’s too important and I understand that few people accept the responsibility of voting. I won’t just sit it out and let em have it. And, chances are my vote will be for President Obama.

    Maybe I’ll be wrong and the GOP will have a candidate worth voting for.

  3. OK. It was fine and dandy with me that you put a silly picture of McCain on yesterday’s thread header. I’m not so fine with today’s unflattering picture of Hillary.

    I know, I know, fairness and all that…

    Still, she is so beautiful. And whether she has had help or not, she has grown into a more beautiful woman as she has aged.

    • WSClark

      I chose this pic for the thread, thinking that it would express the outrage of Hillary at some of the BS that would be thrown at her. It isn’t flattering, of course, but neither is the crap that the Clintons have had to deal with.

    • wicked

      She looks like the woman from Glee in that picture. Jane Lynch. (I had to go look it up. 🙂 )

  4. I wish beauty really could be only skin deep. It is, and we all know it is, but as we face our daily world we find out beauty (or what is acceptable as far as appearance goes) is still too important. It doesn’t matter whether you’re male or female although women do often get the raw end of this deal. Maybe men are just more likely to make the comments denigrating a woman’s appearance, while women think the thoughts but don’t express them as often?

    • btw, the men who are boorish enough to make comments about a woman’s appearance are always the men women find least attractive. Even if their outward appearance is pleasant to the eyes, the moment they open their mouths we can see how ugly they are.

    • I feel exactly the same way about those who are boorish enough to call me ‘dear’ or other words that I find endearing when the right people use them and I know who the ‘right’ people are!

      There was one particular blogger at WEBlog who uses this childish, clumsy behavior of calling females ‘dear.’ I asked him several times to stop, he ramped up the frequency of his rude and insensitive behavior. Anything I might have found redeeming about that person was belied because he showed no respect and earned none.

      • Some of that I beleive to be regional. When I was in the Southern United States, nearly every female I encountered called me “dear” particularly among salesclerks and waitresses. That has carried thru in many people that have Southern heritage. Not so much when I was on the West Coast. There, terms of “endearment” were rarely used.

      • Hello, fifteendegreesoffcenter, welcome to PPPs. Great nic, although mine would need to be more than just fifteen degrees. 😉

        I think you’re right about those endearments (that can sound anything but endearing) happening in some parts of the country more readily than others. But, no matter what, after you’ve asked (very nicely) for it to stop and instead it is done more often, then you know you’re dealing with a rude dolt.

      • wicked

        I can handle “dear,” I can handle “honey,” but when a female who doesn’t know me calls me “sweetie,” she’s pushing her luck.

      • @ fnord, these kind of ‘bug’ me, too. When I was in rehab, I heard ‘dear’, ‘sweetie’, and one or two others a lot. Primarily from older widows also in rehab (thanks to the staff for alerting them to my marital status – NOT), but from time to time aides as well. I try to not do this (although I grew up around it), but have been known to slip from time to time.

        @ wicked, you and my late wife must be related.

  5. tosmarttobegop

    I understood why the likes of Rush wanted Hillary to be the nominee, cut down on the chances of moderate Republicans voting Democratic.

    And even if she won, she is too likely to get in the mud pit and fight rather then do anything meaningful.
    I do think she has shown she has matured pass the single focus of partisan Politics.

    • I’m not so sure she has ‘matured’ or even changed. I think we’re finally getting the opportunity to see who she truly is without the media interpretation.

  6. “…would have made “Swiftboat” look like an elementary schoolyard spat.”

    I think we’ll see ever-increasing nastiness until and unless voters put a stop to it. Sadly, voters only see it as nastiness when it’s used against their candidate. Sorry state of affairs! Sad commentary on what we as supposedly civilized people will accept.

    We elect people and don’t elect people based on lies and exaggerations. Then we wonder how those idiots got elected.

  7. wicked

    Only my opinion but… I think the Rs wanted Hillary to be the candidate because they already had all the dirty they needed on her (and Bill) from the past. It would’ve made the campaign a cakewalk for them.

    I highly respect Hillary Clinton, but she wasn’t my choice in 2008 for the Dem candidate. She’s too Republican for me. Unfortunately, I’ve found that to be true in some respects of the current President. 😦

  8. tosmarttobegop

    It was only after the author of “Trooper gate” came out and admit the reality of the vast Right-wing conspiracy that I took a look back at my own thoughts and beliefs.
    I was so willing as I see today, to accept without question any bad thing said about Bill Clinton.
    Even those that were totally against any sense of reality or logic.

    Much like what is happening today with Obama, the simple saying it is all the proof some need to hear or see to make them believe.

    Yes Hillary is more conservative then liberal, perhaps more so then Obama.