Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

If Hillary had been President …

If Hillary had been President …

Inspired by today’s bumper sticker post, let’s all wonder how things might have been different had Hillary won the election (some say she did win the election, but that’s another matter).

For better and for worse.

I’ll start.

We woud not be the weak horse in the Middle East, and Israel would not be under siege.

Next?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Maybe so, but still a Cloward, Piven and Alinsky believer which goes against everything conservatives believe about the Constitution and America. Progressives would just be more clandestine. Remember Hill is a proud progressive – barf.

The White House would not have been labeled “hostile to women” as recently reported. Or would it?

I do not agree. She has gone along with every misguided pronouncement Obama has made regarding Israel and, in fact, when the controversy regarding the building in Jerusalem arose during Slo Joe Biden’s visit, she later berated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a now-infamous 45-minute phone call, telling him that Israel had “harmed the bilateral relationship.” (The State Department triumphantly shared details of the call with the press.) I do not believe she is a friend of Israel.

    Owego in reply to bobbl. | September 17, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Exactly right. She has been a “get along to go along” her entire “career.” With the exception of the walk-on NY senatorial seat (for which she qualified by conveniently purchasing a house in the state) she’s never won or done anything on her own. The perennial appointee, she is a singularly unaccomplished woman in a world full of accomplished women, in politics, business, the arts . . .you name it. She should go home and knit.

The resurgence of Hillary is fascinating. I know that the President establishes foreign policy, but Hillary is responsible for implementing it. So, her grubby little hands are all over our disastrous policies. I would challenge anyone to identify a region, country, or organization in which we are in a stronger position than we were in January of ’09.

Hillary is strangely quiet. Two possible reasons. One, she is trying to distance herself from this debacle; and two, she understands that the less visible she is, the more she is liked. The corollary is that the more you see and hear of her, the more you dislike her.

Conventional wisdom is that the Clintons are political geniuses, and that their machine is invincible. So, how did an unknown, with no substance, whip them in ’08?. What makes anyone think that she could have beaten anyone, even the lame McCain?

    jakee308 in reply to Oldflyer. | September 17, 2011 at 10:43 am

    He was black. (and sexist but that’s another story)

    It seems that in the religion of ‘Victimology’ (i.e., as practiced by liberals/leftists/progressives and other assorted lunatics) Blacks as victims have a larger ‘Liberal Guilt’ status over women as victims since they did not achieve ‘victim’ status until the ’70’s.

    Plus He was so magnetic.{retch} And well spoken.{gag} and CLEAN!{puke}

Indeed she is a progressive, however when threatened she is a politician first. She has the instincts to back off on policies that are unpopular with the hope to piecemeal a progressive agenda over a longer period. Unlike Obama, who showed the Dems who they really are and how destructive progressive policies can be.
, Hillary would be facing an easier run for a second term, thus far more dangerous.

Bill would have to keep his zipper zipped.

White House meals would be vegan.

Conservatives would still be doing their Rip Van Winkle routine.

I really believe she would NOT have passed that health care boondoggle, having learned from earlier experience. She would probably have tried some measure of it though; that said, I don’t trust her for a minute.

But there’s no way she would have been as BAD as this dude; in that sense, she would have been the lesser of two evils.

    Yes. She said during her campaign that healthcare was something for her second term (assuming she had one). Her priority was HOLC, keeping people in their homes.

    In her own words.Read and weep:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230767702474045.html
    “And mortgage securities bought by taxpayers must be valued accurately at prices disclosed in real time, with checks and reporting requirements to prevent abuse.”

    We would have been in a real recovery by now if she was President.

NY-09 would still be Democrat.

She would have stopped with TARP, and there would have been no misguided Stimulus I. There would be no Fast&Furious, no Solyndra, no Light-Squared scandals.
The Attorney General would be prepared for meetings and hearings.

Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan or two others of their ilk would still be on the Supreme Court. We’d probably have an Attorney General just as corrupt as Eric holder, a Secretary of the Treasury just as clueless as Timothy Geithner (if that’s possible), and a Secretary of State worse than Hillary Clinton.

If. Could. Rabbit.

If the dog had been fast enough it could’ve caught the rabbit.

Speculation about what ‘might have been’ are futile and most likely incorrect.

Yes, Hillary’s presidency might’ve been different. Better than Obama? Maybe, maybe not.

Fact. Hillary is nanny statist and collectivist ideologue.

Fact. She(Bill) is a slick politician so it is likely that WORSE legislation than got passed would’ve got passed.

Fact. The clinton years were only productive due to a REPUBLICAN congress and the hidden effect of the lessening of world political turmoil due to the USSR collapse.

Fact. Hillary has been more than willing to compromise her integrity to retain any iota of power.

Fact. Hillary has been a willing participant (and perhaps architect) of the Administrations anti-Israel policies. (think of who her close advisor is: a Muslima)

Assumption: Hillary most likely has(had) crippling facts that would’ve derailed Obama’s election (or if she had just fought back) but it would’ve alienated the Democrats base of Black voters and she might not have won.

In return for her acquiescence to Obama’s ascension to the throne, Hillary accepted a Cabinet position that she might be able to use as a springboard into the Presidency AND that is filled with economic opportunities for Bill and herself. It also allows her a certain amount of cover if those policies become a liability or have negative effects.

I wouldn’t trust her as far as I could throw her.

Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | September 17, 2011 at 11:22 am

Obama jumped off the “gradualism” plan, motivating the almost boiling smaller government frogs to jump out of the pot and form the Tea party style “rebellion. Hillary may have the same insidious goals, but would have been slicker in implementing the Alinsky methods.

Disagreeing with Hillary would mean you are sexist (instead of racist), while the abuse of Palin would still be approved.

Hillary Clinton spent eight years in the White House and then another eight years in the Senate. Sixteen years of insider experience. Not only that but she came with an unofficial advisor who knew how to get things done.

I’m not saying that Hillary could have fixed all our problems – in fact she probably couldn’t. But then again FDR didn’t make the Great Depression disappear overnight either.

Hillary exudes competence. With her in charge people could be confident that the nation was in good hands and that she was doing everything possible to fix the problems we’re facing. She would have crafted a better stimulus bill, pouring the money in at the bottom instead of the top. She wouldn’t have wasted so much time and political capital on health care reform that wasn’t reform.

Hillary wouldn’t be running around the country giving speeches and Potemkin townhalls. She wouldn’t be fiddling around at dinner parties while Rome burned. She would be wonking in the Oval Office, not hanging out with the rich and shameless.

If Hillary had been the nominee she would have offered Obama the VP job, making him the heir apparent. That wouldn’t have repaired his character flaws but at least he would have had eight years of training and experience before taking on the hardest job in the world.

Bill Clinton came to Washington DC with a lot more experience than Obama had, and he struggled at first in a time far less critical. But he worked long hours and he learned fast, improving his job performance as he went along. Obama has improved his golf game.

Bill and Hillary both wanted to be president so they could use the power of the office to make this country a better place. Obama wanted to be president so he could enjoy the perks of power.

http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/like-things-were-going-so-well-before/

    But then again FDR didn’t make the Great Depression disappear overnight either.

    FDR’s policies were responsible for extending the Great Depression. He had nothing to do with ending it.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 17, 2011 at 12:33 pm

If Hillary were president, the economy would be ripping as women around the world frenzily upgraded their wardrobes with pantsuits.

I voted for Hillary in 2008, and then went and voted & campaigned for Mccain/Palin.

Then I converted from a lifelong democrat to a lifelong Independent. The undemocratic party can go down the toilet for all I care, they are a bunch of marxist and aliksites as far as I can see. I became a democrat when I was old enough to vote because I wanted to have a society that did help people, give a hand up, not a hand out and a permanent welfare state. I believe in the US Consitition, American exceptionalism and the foundations of this country. The undemocratic party is no longer the party of Truman and JFK, its now a party of disciples of Karl Marx and Saul Alinksky.

At this point, I would not even vote for Hillary if she ran again. The entire party is bunch of far left lunatics. I don’t care for the far right either, but at least they are called out by the LSM, the LSM praises the vitriol and violence of the far left, which the LSM is a part of.

    alex in reply to alex. | September 17, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    in my humble opinion, many of us (moderate/conservative dems) realised just how destructive many liberal policies are, and many of us were Reagan dems, and will be again in 2012. However, the word “liberal” itself has been changed.

    I always considered myself liberal, in the classical sense of liberalism, of freedom of thought, smaller govt, free markets, competiveness etc (how europeans defined liberals). This new animal of “progressive” is essentially marxism, and leninism all wrapped up in the name of “progress”.

    I don’t think the dems ever realised just how Mr. Obama will essentially be imploding the undemocratic party. Many of us sane dems knew this and voted for Hillary, and then switched to Mccain/Palin. But considering they told us our votes weren’t needed, why would any pumas come back? Our loyalty is to the country not the party.

    David R. Graham in reply to alex. | September 17, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Wow! That is eloquent. Ditto from me!

David R. Graham | September 17, 2011 at 2:36 pm

Hillary is a trans-nationalist wanting US sovereignty subjected to UN and other distillations of “the international community,” which is a socialist concept fundamentally opposing the concept of a “community of nations.”

Hillary wants US civilian firearm ownership/use banned or restricted to the same end.

Hillary conceives of terrorism as a legal, not a military problem because, like her husband, she doesn’t want the bother of facing the fact that it is state-sponsored, all of it. She is terrified of the imams and mullahs, who lead the ummah, the impending State of Islam (Caliphate). She’s already lost the war. She recently lost Pakistan.

Hillary is a world champion nanny stater and political corrector. In other words, she is a tyrant.

Hillary’s brow-beating of General Petraeus in Senate hearings revealed a person who never could be fair. It was inexcusable of her but revealed her character, which debars her from stewardship of the USA.

Hillary differs from President Millstone in two ways: she doesn’t hate “white” people and she doesn’t hate the United States, its nature, history and destiny.

Her name is up and reports of popularity likewise because prominent Democrat operators are desperately looking for someone to primary President Millstone. The talk of her now is trial ballooning. Democrats, having put all their eggs in one basket, which had holes they chose not to see, have few or no eggs to throw at Millstone. Hillary is perhaps their only one, so they’re running up her flag to see who salutes. No one who matters to the testers will.

The great gift of President Millstone has been to show the world and the nation the inner nature and inevitable consequences of the socialist/”blue” model feverishly espoused by the Democratic Party. The Sirens of government munificence and beneficence truly do lure men to their doom.

Hillary is a conventional liberal Democrat while Obama is a left ideologue (notwithstanding his pretensions otherwise).

Hillary was as of 2008 a smart, experienced political leader with a depth of experience in dealing with both executive agencies and Congress, while Obama was totally lacking this kind of exoerience and seasoning.

Hillary has proved herself competent, while Obama moves from one manifestation of ineptness to another.

Like her husband, Hillary is a thorough-going pragmatist who learns from experience and mistakes — liberal and partisan, yes, but never blindly so.

Of course, it goes without saying that conservatives would simply hate a Hillary Presidency — but the country would have been better served by her than by Obama on the whole range of key issues.

If Hillary were elected instead of Obama, we’d be looking at a savvy triangulator who would be elected for another 4 years in 2012.

We wouldn’t have the TEA Party.

Sarah Palin would not be the first woman president. 😉

(I just had to throw that last one in!! 😀 )

Hillary is an ideologue just like Barack. Like all modern progressives, she hates Israel. I don’t think our position in the Middle East under President Hillary Clinton would be substantially different that it is now. Their goal remains the creation of a Palestinian state under terrorist control to destabilize and destroy Israel.

Think “A Decent Interval” (http://www.franksnepp.com/decent/index.html) if you will. Progressives long for the destruction of Israel. Just like they longed for the destruction of South Viet Nam. But they want to escape repercussions of being the proximate cause of the chaos and genocide that will follow the logical conclusion of their policies and actions.

Alex, A good first step, hopefully by the 2012 elections you can vour self a Conservative. The first step is always an independent. In any case welcome

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend