Options
Is there any point in a Clinton Presidency?
blueisthecolour
Posts: 20,127 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I mean US Politics has veered so far to the right over the last decade that I really question what Hilary would achieve. It's obvious now that the Republicans have absolutely no interest in working with Democrat, regardless of how 'moderate' they are. Obama proved to be far better at campaigning than governing and even before the loss of both houses to the Republicans he was struggling to have any real impact. Most senior Democrats have had to publicly distance themselves from even his liberal-lite stances just to keep their seats.
The right-wing press has built to such fever-pitch that anything other than rigid conservatism is now vehemently shouted down at ever opportunity. Hillary could agree to across the board tax cuts and free guns and she would still be portrayed as some sort of communist, America/Freedom hater.
It seems to me that the choice for the US public is either 4/8 more years of political rancour and stagnation or just letting the Republicans get one with creating their 'Conservative paradise'. Personally I think it might be better if they just do the latter so that everyone in the country can see it fail and they can finally move on.
The right-wing press has built to such fever-pitch that anything other than rigid conservatism is now vehemently shouted down at ever opportunity. Hillary could agree to across the board tax cuts and free guns and she would still be portrayed as some sort of communist, America/Freedom hater.
It seems to me that the choice for the US public is either 4/8 more years of political rancour and stagnation or just letting the Republicans get one with creating their 'Conservative paradise'. Personally I think it might be better if they just do the latter so that everyone in the country can see it fail and they can finally move on.
0
Comments
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-feminism/
Well yeah, of course. She's a mainstream US politician so she's pretty right-wing compared to any other nation's politics. However the Republican right is now living in such an 'American dream' fantasy world that to them she's basically Stalin. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone who doesn't believe in:
1. Massive reduction of the welfare state and associated taxes
2. End of all government regulation of business.
3. Complete and total freedom in gun ownership and carrying.
4. Zero tolerance, no compromise, 'America first' foreign policy.
5. Entrenchment of Christianity and Bible commandments in law.
But she isn't a Republican. It doesn't matter that she'd do exactly what the Republicans would do, its all about her being a democrat, a Clinton and a woman to boot who doesn't believe in the literal truth of Leviticus and thinks that women should have rights.
I would say that Clinton is strongly in tune with three of those five, which shows the level of choice on offer.
Clinton 2 will look like Clinton 1. Hopefully not followed by another911 because it ignored threats.
Clinton's problem is that as secretary of state she was responsible for a line of failures from the reset with Russia, to the debacle in Libya, and the withdrawal from Iraq that brought ISIS in. There's also a trail of inquires into her too - not least over destroying her email records as Secretary of State, and the killing of the US ambassador to Libya. She's also not good on the meaningless soaring rhetoric - like Obama was, and less politically astute, more error prone, and less charismatic than Bill.
There's also the unknowns about her health, and her age . Its going to be asked what damage her 2012 clott caused, what her medication does, and how likely it is she will suffer one again. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/us/hillary-clinton-goes-to-hospital-after-exam-finds-a-blood-clot.html?_r=0 Thats going to focus attention on her age - where she would be the second oldest President ever if elected.
The Republican problem is that, even if some of Obama's vote is much less enthused for her, she will attract a female vote. A sensible Republican Party might put up a moderate, much younger, good looking, hispanic, candidate - like Rubio - against her to pull in another voting block that went Obama - backed up by a VP candidate from the swing northern states, or another female.
The Democrats though are stuck - as there's no one else on offer moderate Americans would vote for, or have heard of.
Its her or another Bush by the looks of it, I think she will win, I have the feeling.
Anyway, if Hillary can win, it shows that not all Americans are quite so right wing as her opponents so it gives everyone else hope.
Agreed though i think Obama has proved that point well.
Left wing president? Obama caused massive racial tensions? The economy has only survived because there's been no budget passed for years? Clinton caused 9/11? Obama caused IS? Hilary too old at 67? Rubio a moderate? No other moderate Democrats?
What world are you living in exactly?
Thinking that Obama, Clinton or any big player in the modern Democrats is seriously left wing is a delusional drinking of the kool aid. There can be no other thing for it. Any serious examination of their respective records dispels the notion instantly.
Hillary will be 69 if she is elected but Reagan was the same age when he became President in 1980.
Although to his credit Obama got some healthcare reforms through in the US thought to be impossible.
Still not left wing though.. Obamacare is further to the right than anything the Conservatives in the UK would ever dare propose.
If Clinton wins then it won't have anything to do with her being a woman and it won't be a victory for women's rights. It will be a victory for the Clinton brand and their money.
There are plenty of other of female politicians in the US who have got to where they have through their own efforts rather than riding the coat-tails of their husbands. A victory for H. Clinton would be a message to the girls of America that they can do anything they want as long as they marry a successful man first.
If the Democrats really wanted this to be about empowering women then they should go for someone like Elizabeth Warren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren)
Maybe so that is the nature of America but to a lot of people reliant on health care in the US they are too poor to provide for themselves have something to be thankful to him for.
Obamacare is probably better then anything offered by anybody else standing for president in the US.