Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference

Regular readers will remember my description of the policy differences between then political rivals President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as not being "a dime's worth of difference." After watching their joint appearance on 60 Minutes, I feel vindicated:

The president lavished praise on Mrs. Clinton for her discipline, stamina and talent. And they put a glossy shine on history by brushing off the tough primary attacks five years ago as the product of trying to find differences where, they now say, there actually were not that many.

“Despite our hard-fought primary, we had such agreement on what needed to be done for our country,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Made for tough debates, by the way,” Mr. Obama added, “because we could never figure out what we were different on.” “Yeah, we worked at that pretty hard,” she said.

It was a rather extraordinary event. And to my eye, a real degree of warmth, and yes, chemistry, shone through. Was Obama tapping his preferred successor? Not formally of course. But it seemed rather clear to me. Time will tell.

Speaking for me only

< Immigration Reform Proposals to be Submitted This Week | Report: Grand Jurors Voted on JonBenet Ramsey Charges in 1999. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Pols will be Pols . . . ." (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:43:28 PM EST
    came to mind . . .  :)

    I pretty much expected it to be all warm and fuzzy. But I will say, Hil looked great. And she does have a history of getting along quite well.

    BTD has selective memory syndrome: (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:27:28 AM EST
    Not a dime's worth of difference on issues I care about.

    Got that right (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    Personally didn't think that there was a dimes worth of difference on foreign policy although many voted for Obama because he was the "peace" candidate.

    Definitely think there were considerable differences in domestic policies and possibly in the area of civil liberties.



    Not really (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    The only difference in the Primary was that Hillary supported the Health Insurance mandate, an Obama did not.

    As to Civil Liberties, I think Hillary is more hawkish than Obama.   Early on as Secretary of State, Hillary in an offhanded way said that she though it good idea to investigate the State Department for disloyalty.

    People are looking through rose colored glasses here.

    And BTD voiced this opinion about there being no differences between the two--in 2008.


    Of the two, which person voted for (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    FISA and which person voted against it.

    As oculus stated in the parent of my comment BTD qualified his statement as follows:

    Not a dime's worth of difference on issues I care about.

    True--but the only difference (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:24:47 PM EST
    And I wonder if Hillary now supports current policies in that regard.

    Hillary as more progressive than Obama.....there really is no evidence of that.

    And, a shame that one cannot just simply support her without the usual Obama bashing....

    The difference many here recite is all about perceived character differences, not policy differences....


    Her stated policy on the mortgage crisis (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:52:16 PM EST
    was considerably better for people than the policy that Obama decided to implement. A policy difference not a character difference.

    Voting against FISA was a policy difference and not a character difference. Stating that he would filibuster FISA and then voting for it is a character issue. See the difference.  

    BTW, I think you must have me confused with someone else. While I do think there is a possibility that her domestic policies would have been better for people than Obama's policies, I do not support many of Hillary's policies any more than I support Obama's similar policies. Unlike some people who will support their guy no matter what his policies are, I do not do suddenly support policies just because they are presented by a particular politician.

    Had Hillary became president and implemented the same policies as Obama, I would have stated that I disagree with the policies just as strongly as I do now.  


    Thank you for mentioning those things, MO (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    I was focused only on women's health issues as the major domestic policy difference, but you rightly cited both FISA and mortgage relief. I should not have had to be reminded of FISA, since it's an issue I often note as Obama's first failing. Re: mortgage relief policies, I think because I'm a renter it doesn't readily come to mind. But you are on the mark, nevertheless.

    That's at most two differences (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    And given all the other issues and the differences between Republicans and Democrats in general, these two differences do not seem all that significant.  

    The similarities in position are much greater than any differences....And I would defer to the principals in their view of this--they didn't have to say anything about having like positions in 2008 to say they are in sync now.


    FISA all by itself was a major issue (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:06:26 AM EST
    when it was proposed by Bush. The Democratic base was up in arms until Obama gave it the seal of approval with his vote. Then all of a sudden losing 4th amendment rights was not such a big thing to his supporters.

    Now see that is the difference. If FISA was a serious infringement of our rights when it was a Bush policy, then IMO it is still a serious infringement of our rights now that it has become Obama's policy. You can continue to justify it all you want. I will not, since I definitely find it horrible policy and very significant.  


    yes (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:30:22 AM EST
    I find that the first and forth amendments matter a lot less now that Obama is president.

    First Amendment? (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:37:27 AM EST
    How has the government inteferred with private citizen expression under Obama?

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:44:35 AM EST
    for recalling FISA. But, I don't think you banged the drums to a degree commensurate with Obama's betrayal regarding this item.

    Now, I'm not one of those critics searching high and low to find something, anything, to criticize "O" about. Politicians can, do, and should, change their views as new information comes to light, or previously unknown facts are revealed to them. But, none of these things happened re: FISA. And, If I'm not mistaken Obama didn't just express his misgivings about this program during the Primaries. He shouted it from the rooftops, saying something along the lines of, "Not only will I fight against the travesty that is this fisa proposal, I'll go to the mattresses and lead a filibuster 24/7....52/12,..... as long as it takes."......or words to that effect.

    And, what was one of his earliest acts after his inauguration?

    From Crooks & Liars
    April 07, 2009 09:00 AM

    Obama DOJ Embraces Bush Co FISA Argument - And Takes It Even Further
    "In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned."
    Anything is possible, I suppose. But, it stretches credulity to believe he discovered something so earthshaking overnight that he would pull such a breathtaking U-Turn so early in his new Administration.  


    You say that - "at most two differences" (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 06:23:33 AM EST
    as if we were discussing which way the toilet paper should roll, over or under.  Or whether the napkin goes under the fork or next to it.

    I think we all understand that there is no perfect Democrat, no candidate whose views are 100% in line with our own, but please - don't trivialize the real differences there are.  Things like 4th amendment rights are important, and worth fighting for, and worth reminding people about.  As are the other issues on which it appears there are differences.

    It's all well and good that you have decided that the areas of agreement outnumber the areas of disagreement, and you're willing to take the bad with the good, but I hope you won't mind if others of us pass on the big mug of STFU you keep wanting us to drink from.


    Yep (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:04:33 AM EST
    Voting against FISA was a policy difference and not a character difference. Stating that he would filibuster FISA and then voting for it is a character issue. See the difference.
    and yep
    Had Hillary became president and implemented the same policies as Obama, I would have stated that I disagree with the policies just as strongly as I do now.

    Hillary more progressive than Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:13:36 AM EST
    maybe not a drastic difference, but yes, she is more progressive than Obama.  Her voting record was more progressive.  She said that any democratic president with a majority in both houses of congress should discuss single payer and indeed should start with that.  Her proposed solutions to the housing crisis were more progressive and more populist.  

    Hillary did not advocate single payer (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:32:48 AM EST
    Nor did Edwards.....

    Well, that (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:27:46 PM EST
    and experience and command of the subject under discussion and overt intelligence and a backbone.  But other than that they're exactly the same.

    HRC wasn't my first choice.  In fact, after Edwards crashed and burned I didn't have a choice for a long time.  But even I could see the differences between Obama and Clinton and it irked me then and it irks me now how casually people say "the only difference..."  

    It typically comes from people who are primarily focused on foreign policy.  And in that arena there is some -- not total -- truth to it.  But I live "domestically" and if one believes that in domestic policy there isn't much difference then one either isn't really interested or observent. Or both (neither?)


    Hillary supported the mandate, so did Obama (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:21:48 AM EST
    but he wasn't honest about it.

     But Hillary also supported the idea of single payer IF the democrats had the White House and both houses of congress so that it was something more than a chance to beat our heads against a brick wall.  At the very least she supported a public option, which puts a personal mandate in a whole new light.  If you offer a public option, such as the chance to buy in to Medicare you have to insist everyone buy in.... it's how we get to single payer government healthcare.


    Not what I recall (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    Do you have a link to Hillary's support for single payer--beyond just the Obama statement that if we were starting from scratch single payer would be best but political realities required working within a private insurance framework?

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:46:48 AM EST
    Of course they appeared in sync.  This wasn't a debate.  Big deal that they like each other.  I like my colleague too, but said colleague has some strange ideas about what constitutes teamwork. Am I going to air the differences publicly?

    BTD, I'm surprised that you so needed to be vindicated, but whatever.  If you have entertained doubts since your first statements that you are now discarding, you might want to pull them out and look at them.

    I thought you were wrong then -- because the issues that you cared about weren't the issues that I cared about -- and I haven't changed my mind.  As I recall you had strong opinions about Afghanistan.  I, on the other hand, know that I will never like an American President's Foreign Policy so I care almost exclusively about domestic issues.  Using the lens of domestic policy, how can you possibly use the record of a Secretary of State to vindicate your re-invented "dime's worth of difference" attitude?


    You may not vote like an elephant....... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    I only note this b/c during the (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:06:43 PM EST
    2008 primaries, BTD allowed as how health care reform wasn't an issue he cared about. Of course, he subsequently immersed himself and us in studying this issue.

    Heh, he is creative (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:08:31 AM EST
    Those creative types are always like that :)

    If there was going to be evidence of (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:09:28 AM EST
    there being more than a dime's worth of difference between these two, it certainly wasn't going to be aired or revealed in a joint interview while she is a member of the Cabinet in an Obama administration.  In fact, I don't ever expect her to criticize Obama once she steps down.  

    There's a reason Hillary is the Secretary of State and not, say HHS: she is much more in alignment with Obama in this area than she would ever have been on domestic issues; on matters having to do with health care, child nutrition and education, women's reproductive rights, poverty, she would have been a thorn in his side from the word "go."

    As interviews go, it was nice enough; coming hard on the heels of her testimony before the House and Senate on Benghazi, it was probably a boost to her public image, and by extension, Obama's.  I don't think it means as much as people want it to, but maybe I feel that way because I'd just as soon not start the 2016 presidential campaign quite this early.

    That legacy thing (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    Let me see, who can be President and will defend ACA?  Maybe even fight to make it better?  If ACA is sunk, Obama will have to be content with being the President that got bin Laden and you can't rely on the Democratic base to keep that achievement alive and bright and shiny :)

    Policy intentions no difference, negotiating skills.....I think difference.  Hopefully I will get to experience that, find out if I was right or wrong about that.

    Yes, and I Would Like to Think... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    ...if history was different and we had implemented Hillary Care, the bill would have been 100 times better and we wouldn't have spent months sucking up to to the D holdouts who did nothing but water down the bill.

    And while it's not a dimes difference, for many families, it literally tens of thousands of difference.

    Also.  I highly doubt Hillary would have picked Napolitano and we would have never heard the name Jan Brewer and the 'show us your papers brown man' laws.

    IOW, it's the butterfly effect and only someone with little imagination would view any two humans as interchangeable, especially the POTUS.


    Hillary did not get to (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    implement nationwide healthcare, but they did give her
    Tricare.  For  years every time something was all screwed up with Tricare I had to listen to wingers around me complain about how Hillary had really screwed up their lives.  That damned Clinton wife who didn't know her place.  There were problems in the beginning that were eventually ironed out, then the for profit insurers began arguing for larger and larger copays and boy how the bellyachers bellowed some more.

    Hillarycare became Tricare and it is for profit insurer based, it  has been changed and morphed since its inception too.  One thing that seemed to fix most of the problems for me were the two wars.  Suddenly you couldn't be stressing serving families out with all this insurance fighting and all these copays.  The for profit insurers didn't do anything though to improve any of that, they still insisted on their same profits.  You the tax payer just paid more, and you ended up paying for secret slush funds at facilities.  Fort Rucker has one, and when the insurance you bought me won't pay the bill the taxpayer pays for my health coverage again out of the secret slush fund.

    Legislation is one thing, how that legislation survives or becomes changed by the next administration, House, and Senate is another.  I did get Hillarycare though.


    Not Much of a.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    ...secret slush fund.  Not sure what that even means or what it has to do with this conversation.

    But seems like you are suggesting what Hillary did in the 90's for the military is what she would have done for America 15 years later.  Seems like a stretch.

    But more importantly, and the point I was making, is that I don't feel like Hillary would have done the same things, like allowing D's to holdout on their own legislation.  That they aren't one in the same as suggested.


    I don't think you know what Hillary (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    Would have done if she had been able to do anything at all concerning Tricare over the past 15 years.  Fact is though, some of us got Hillarycare and there were problems with it, once that was solved lobbyists then set to work tearing it up, shredded it, and turned everything that made it affordable and effective on its head.  The final death blow being that now my insurance costs are through the roof, you must pay out raw cash as well as pay my bloated premiums, and now 17 million retired and some active duty military are looking at now being thrown off Tricare Prime because you can't afford it for us anymore.

    So what Obama got can be preserved and improved upon if only people will stop doing nothing other than bitching about it and actually go to work.  Hillarycare not worked on is now worse than Obamacare.....jus sayin


    She was a Senator for awhile too (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    She didn't go lioness in the Senate about what had happened to Tricare.

    I was in the insurance business for (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:39:06 AM EST
    years dealing specifically with retired people and those who were on disability.  We never even bothered to do anything with people on tri-care since it was by far better than what people could do on any other government or private option.  
    You may have issues with it, but compared to everything else....it would have been unethical to try and get anyone on tri-care to change and no one was interested in changing anyway.  

    Or alternatively (none / 0) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    Healthcare Reform would have crashed and burned spectacularly just as it did the last time Hillary pushed it, but hey you have your hypothetical future and I have my reality where millions without access to healthcare now have it.

    They do? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    you have your hypothetical future and I have my reality where millions without access to healthcare now have it

    Must be one of those alternative realities ...


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#105)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    that 1.4 million people, don't matter to you, not to mention the improvements in the quality of said care and that the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet.

    And I'm sorry ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    I'm sorry that 1.4 million people, don't matter to you, not to mention the improvements in the quality of said care and that the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet.

    ... for your poor reading comprehension.  But I'm happy for the 1.4 million people with coverage, despite the fact that this represent only a slight decline, and is due mainly to young/healthy people who have the least need for health insurance and can only stay on their parents' policies because they can't get jobs with health benefits.

    Not to mention the obvious fact that Obama promised real reform and a public option but only gave us the Republican plan of '94.


    I'd like to believe that Clinton would (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:58:56 AM EST
    paint our drones a different color.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by kmblue on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 05:32:09 PM EST
    Hillary would not have rolled over for the GOP the way Obama has.  But that's just me.  Hillary would not have been deluded by dreams of post-partisanship.  She would have fought.  Sorry she didn't get the chance.

    Oh good (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    pointless fighting would have been much better than actually achieving things.

    Ahem (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kmblue on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    Who's talking about pointless fighting?  Not me.
    I'm talking about the courage to state a conviction and stand by it.  
    I haven't seen much of that from Obama.  Except, right, he's into cutting social security and Medicare.  He hasn't wavered on that one!

    Yeah (2.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    that's totally happened and isn't just a moronic fever dream of a few internet leftists, meanwhile Obama actually passed the ACA- you know the bill you guys whine about that actually helps provide millions of people with access to healthcare.

    "Moronic fever dream?" Really? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    That's how you'd choose to characterize the desire for a health care system modeled after a single-payer structure like Medicare?  That's how you'd choose to defend another insurance-based model written with and by insurance-industry people when we already have reams of evidence that that model is dysfunctional?  

    Hey, I get that you're all about defending Obama, but maybe you could step back from the "who" of it all and focus a little more on the "what," as in "what plan would best serve the people?"

    And for what it's worth, the ACA isn't so much about access to care as it is about access to insurance, and while there are many who have benefited by, for example, being allowed to stay on Mom and Dad's plan until age 26, or not being disqualified from coverage because of pre-existing conditions, there are still tens of millions of people without any coverage at all.  We're a year out from full implementation and there is still a lot of wrangling and resistance by the states over exchanges and coverage.

    And in this atmosphere of deficit hysteria, and resentment about giveaways to the poor, I think it is probably not too wise to depend on there being adequate subsidies for those who can't afford insurance premiums.

    Note, please, that we're discussing access to and affordability of insurance, not access to and affordability of care.

    I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't say for sure that Clinton would have been more successful than Obama in shaping a plan more to the benefit of the people; I do think she would at least have allowed single payer on the table, something Obama forbade.  He had an opportunity to put it all out there, to hear what the people were saying, and he rejected it.

    You must be so proud!


    It requires something like a leap of faith (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    to think she would've done anything like going all-out for a single payer system after taking all that insurence lobby money.

    I don't know that she would have (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    gone all-out for single-payer, but I do think she would have had it on the table, and allowed it to be a part of the discussion, and allowed those with extensive knowledge of such systems to speak.

    That's all most people wanted: a chance to be heard, and for people to have information from all corners, not just the one owned by the insurance industry.


    Well that's true (none / 0) (#98)
    by sj on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    But I would liken it to the leap of faith given to Obama when his campaign seed money came from banksters.  But he was still given the chance to prove himself independent... or not.  He's not.  But he deserved the chance to show himself.

    As it happens, that seed money bore fruit.  But he showed that to be the case.  It wasn't a bunch of people on blog (myself included) making guesses -- however well educated those guesses were.


    the moronic fever dream (none / 0) (#106)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:47:09 AM EST
    was a reference to the belief by some that Obama is going to all Clinton (Bill) on entitlements, Single Payer wasn't moronic just unrealistic, but again I realize a symbolic stand that made HCR radioactive for a generation is far more important than a pragmatic achievement that expanded access for millions- I'll tell my friend with Tourette's that he shouldn't be able to get health insurance because hey its just not good enough, or my siblings who are still covered post-college under my parents' plan that because they can't get Single Payer they should get nothing and be a noble sacrifice at the altar of political posturing.

    Pre-existing conditions (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:59:47 AM EST
    Can still be a reason to be denied by insurance companies or at the very least, to be charged more (until next year).

    I know - I just got denied twice in the last two weeks for coverage.

    And while we'd love to give magical kudos and ponies to only Democrats, let's be clear that keeping the "kids" on mom and dad's insurance and eliminating denials of pre-existing conditions is popular among Republicans too.


    Fighting for real change on HCR ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:10:45 AM EST
    ... is just a counterproductive "symbolic stand"?

    Did Obama know this when he promised a public option?


    "Pointless fighting"? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    Delivering what you promise is "pointless"?

    Maybe people should learn to stop writing checks their @ss can't cash ...


    I believe BTD's (none / 0) (#107)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    line is Pols are Pols-- this is one of the primary reasons for the historical pattern of first mid-term set backs: Presidents take office, fail to fully achieve their promise and lose seats in their first midterm, its what happens next that matters for their legacies.

    Not just failing to ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:15:44 AM EST
    ... "fully achieve their promise" (i.e. compromise).  Many times politicians will adopt positions to fight for things they don't have the power to unilaterally deliver and settle for less than what they'd like.  Obama, OTOH, repeatedly promised to deliver things that were entirely within his power and then backtracked - particularly on the issue of HCR (public, televised hearings, no backroom deals, would require a public option to sign a HCR bill, etc.).

    Hee-YOOOOOGE difference.


    Would you rather have a public option (none / 0) (#117)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    in a bill that didn't pass than what we actually have now?

    I'd rather have a POTUS ... (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    ... who delivers what he promises, rather than merely making promises to get elected, then engaging in backroom deals with the drug/Pharma companies to get a crappy ACA.

    a reminder as regarding chemistry (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    I believe it was Trent Lott who gave her grudging respect after she had been in the Senate for a few years and genuinely seemed to like her, even as he disagreed with her on everything.  Sec Clinton seems to win people over with her work ethic and brains alone.

    no, actually, you're still wrong, in a huge way. (4.71 / 7) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:01:29 AM EST
    although, in fairness, since sect'y clinton didn't win in 2008, one can't say with 100% certainty. the biggest difference between the two:

    pres. obama's "post-partisan" view. a policy position that has seen him degrade bills, to appear "nice" to the intractable republicans. ms. clinton, having dealt with this group since '92, would not have made this same mistake. or, if she tried to start out her presidency this way, would have quickly realized its lack of efficacy, and treated them like the rand paul's they are. she wouldn't have waited 4 years to go: "gee, they don't like me, and will do everything they possibly can to obstruct me, maybe i should do something about that."

    oddly, this is a policy position you yourself (BTD) have consistently complained about, with respect to pres. obama, it surprises me that you would so conveniently overlook it, in your haste to declare yourself absolutely correct.

    again, in fairness, we can't know for certain that a pres. h. clinton would have been less "post-partisany" than a pres. b. obama has been. that said, we got a glimmer of that, during the "benghazi" hearings, when she slapped down the idiot tea partiers.

    Weirdest reasoning ever! (4.60 / 5) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    Because they do some lovey-dovey PR, they're suddenly two peas in a pod.

    I work in the movie business.  We do these kind of things every day.  Every production is "just like a family".  And every person on the team was "of one mind".  They HAVE to say these things.  They are almost always (read: always) lying.

    Politics is no different.  Scripts are written. Words are said.  Game faces put on.  Lying commences.

    This piece of transparent PR isn't proof of anything.  Other than the fact that we have two professional pols who do can do the business of being pols.

    And I say this not being a fan of the illegal foreign policy either of these people espouses.

    Of course there was no difference on policy. (4.40 / 5) (#7)
    by Payaso on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:51:40 PM EST
    He copied all of hers.

    The real differences were in experience and character, which she had both of and he had neither.

    One difference on policy (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    that Mr. Obama should have stuck with rather than copy Mrs Clinton was his position on social security (cf. Philadelphia primary debate, April 6, 2008):  Senator Obama was in favor of lifting the payroll tax cap to capture new revenues, and Senator Clinton was against that idea. Senator Clinton referred to the 1983 Commission and a bipartisan commission being the best and smartest way, and that was what she would do.  Obama countered that the 1983 Commission raised the retirement age and raised payroll taxes something that he did not like  

    So, you want Hillary to run in 2016? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:29:41 AM EST
    That's up to her (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Payaso on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:34:07 AM EST
    but we could do a lot worse.

    We could do a lot worse (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    that could be the Democartic Party's official motto, at this point.

    Alas, too true (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:40:42 PM EST
    But in this particular case I would probably vote for the lesser of two evils.

    Not Serious (4.33 / 3) (#4)
    by koshembos on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    It makes no sense to take 10 minutes said after 5 years as a reflection of the difference between the two. In reality, Obama turned out to be a huge disappointment. The losing elections of 2010 were direct results of Obama's dysfunction. We lost the house, the majority in the senate was reduced and above all we got reactionary governors in many states.

    You supported a dud over a capable and wise individual.

    Or and this is just the facts talking (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:04:03 PM EST
    not your usual convoluted conspiracy b.s. so bear with me-- 2010 was just an off-year election and in an off-year election sitting presidents lose seats barring some sort of extraordinary circumstance (9-11)- see Clinton losing the House for the first time in generations or Reagan dropping seats in 1982-- it happens, especially during a president's first term.

    But hey keep on beating that dead horse if it makes you feel good.


    From one of the states that Dems lost (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:19:29 PM EST
    which has had huge impact on my family's lives, incomes, savings, hope of retirement. . . .

    It did not have to happen.  I could see it from the ground, up close.  It did not have to happen.

    The national Dem Party is even more dysfunctional than before 2008, with direct impact on my state, again and again.

    And Obama is the head of the party.


    Agreed. It did not have to happen. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:20:14 AM EST
    Speaking as a Democratic Party official, the DNC was very responsive and cooperative with the state parties under Howard Dean's leadership when he implemented his 50-state strategy, and far less so when Tim Kaine took the reins after the 2009 election.

    It's been a little better under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but not appreciably, and remains primarily a Beltway-centric institution.


    When Florida (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:54:23 AM EST
    voted for Rick Scott, it wasn't Washington's fault. It was the fault of Florida voters. We got what we deserved. Same goes for Wisconsin and any other state. Always looking to pass the blame is generally a good way to lose in the next election too.

    Wasserman-Schultz may be better (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    than deplorable -- and I liked her -- but she lost it with her inaction again in the recall, refusing to help with funds and finally coming to the state at the last minute, for a fundraiser . . . to raise funds for the national party.  

    In contrast, the national GOP ramped up the outside money to amazing levels, as already reported.

    However, we still are learning more about all of the anti-Dem sources of funds.  Just last week, and I saw nothing reported on this, a CNN interview with an NRA lobbyist was revealing.  The lobbyist cited  NRA support of something like half a million bucks -- and cited a followup survey to assess impact of its support.

    That survey, so the NRA claims (and from its ad saturation that I saw, it could be so), showed a 6 percent pro-Walker bump from NRA funds alone.

    Even if only a fraction of that, the NRA's impact in addition to the impact of all of the other outside funding from the GOP was killing, no doubt about it, and a repeat of 2010 in the state.

    It's not enough to stay blue in the states in the presidential elections, when the GOP -- as it did in 2010 -- grabs the governors' and legislators' seats to redistrict for the next decade to come, not only at the state level but also for Congress.

    So, here we sit, with its stalemate, and with little hope until the next redistricting, almost a decade away.


    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:06:35 AM EST
    That doesn't explain why so many state legislatures and governorships were lost both in 2008 and 2010.

    But don't you stop believing!


    Don't foget that state legislatures lost to GOP (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    in 2010 midterms, as here in MN, had the additional impact of having GOP legs. in control of mandated reapportionment of Congressional districts, due to the 2010 US Census.

    True, but (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:16:18 AM EST
    that doesn't have anything to do with the massive state losses to the Republicans in 2008....

    Well I'm stuck on 2010 (none / 0) (#33)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    MN Dems lost the state houses majorities just in time for reapportionment. Got it back in 2012.

    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    I think people elected Obama and the democrats with a great deal of Hope and were disappointed.  It didn't seem to make sense to then turn around and give it back to the republicans.  But I think two things happened. 1.  Democrats were demoralized and stayed home and 2.  Independents don't like weak and the democrats took the advantage they were given and acted weak.

    Well, like the raw numbers in polls (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:53:12 PM EST
    don't tell you the full story, so also, elections don't always express the full intentions of "The People."

    All that election results tell us is that of those who voted a certain outcome was reached.

    But, you're right. Dems felt severely disillusioned, depressed, and betrayed. While the R's, riled up to a frothy, deranged, mission by Fox and the radio, struck like coiled snakes.

    Obviously, in off-year elections, all you need is a majority of the minority, and the outcome was inevitable.  


    The same thing (none / 0) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    occurred in 1994 and 1982 and 1954, the only two 2 term presidents not to lose seats in their first midterm since 1950 are Nixon and GW Bush- both of whom had a major war.

    Maybe not a dime's... (3.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:02:23 AM EST
    ...but definitely a nickel's. Mostly related to Obama's virulent mommy and daddy issues (which keep him from being an effective partisan politician -- partisan meaning firmly committed to the people who elected him). Hillary can at least tell some Repubs to go shove it publicly, Obama could never do that as effectively. He's far too phucked up a personality and far too in need of approval. I don't get the sense Hillary care about ANYone's approval.

    Oh yeah (2.60 / 5) (#87)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:42:04 PM EST
    moronic projection just what we needed, I'm glad you can read Obama's mind, awesome hey I think you're saying these things because you have issues with your sexuality- sure that seems like a pointless insult on my part but given that he have similar levels of evidence I feel comfortable making it.

    I wish she had told Scaife (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    to go shove it when she was pow wowing with him during the primaries..

    I mean, the guy only tried to prove her husband was a murderer, rapist and drug dealer when he was President..

    And, I wonder if the same spirit of pragmatic forgiveness obtained when she was raking in all that Insurence Lobby $ ?


    Sitting down for an interview ... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 04:55:27 PM EST
    ... with his newspaper is "pow wowing"?

    Wow.  You must have been really upset every time Obama went on Fox News.

    BTW - See if you can guess which candidate received more money than Hillary from the insurance lobby.  I'll give you a hint ... starts with "O".


    Yeah (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    when the boys divy it up in the backroom, they need to do it a little more on square next time..

    Or somebody might get hurt.


    But... (none / 0) (#1)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:22:09 PM EST
    what about the individual mandate?????

    Oh wait...

    Watching it now on the west coast (none / 0) (#2)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:38:35 PM EST
    In the "not a dime's worth of difference" category, I can mostly agree with that, purely on policy matters, which I thought at the time of the 2008 election. One area where I would disagree is on the issue of women's rights. Clearly, it has been one of Clinton's strong suits for years, and one for which she had already become well known and respected. However, Obama has come quite a way in that regard. In terms of non-social issues that are big things affecting presidential legacies--economics, environment, defense, foreign policy--they always seemed about the same to me (although Clinton had/has the edge of vast stores of knowledge, some of it institutional knowledge, due to Bill's presidency).

    A couple of things really stood out in the interview:

    1. Body language. It's obvious that their respect and warm feelings for one another are not pretense. Too bad Steve Croft can't let go of needing a "story" for the ratings re: their relationship. He keeps harping on the tension btw them during the 2008 campaign, and how can they really have overcome that? It's very annoying, and not terribly professional for someone who expects to be taken seriously as a journalist, IMO. But par for the course for mainstream media.

    2. Asking Clinton is she feels "guilty" about Benghazi is more silly fluff for the ratings, and a gotcha-type question besides. I think she answered the question well, without falling into his intended trap. And she and Obama both addressed the "abdication of responsibility" accusation by the GOP with clarity and without emotion. I was surprised Croft didn't try to ding them with Israel's intransigence on the settlements.

    It's funny (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 01:54:53 AM EST
    I get emails and alerts about dozens of things everyday that are supposedly interesting to me and I miss this completely!  Oh well.  Must pay more attention.

    Without getting into the passing the torch question,  I think that clip does a pretty good job of saying get your sh*t together to the GOP.  It highlighted past acrimony in the service of a strong current working relationship.  They both came off exceedingly well.  I suppose the Obama team is consciously deciding to dial up the in my mind nebulous Likeability war (that we like him more than we support him, and god knows we like him more than the GOP leadership) to buy him some room to get things done.  I don't know if it will work but they seem to have the GOP on their heels a little bit.  

    All in all an intriguing clip, you can read into it in many ways but after four years that warmth has a ring of truth to it.  Their relationship is mutually beneficial and it will continue to be.  In terms of their leadership styles, they do complement each other quite nicely.  As I'm sure they know.

    Really? (none / 0) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    As for any residual bad feelings, they said it had taken their aides longer to get over it than it had taken them.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    they made a slight error of omission there. They should have said something like:

    "Our aides took longer to get over it, and some of our primary supporters on blogs such as TL still haven't".


    heh (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    The "body language" (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    revealed an easy-going, warm, fairly genurine relationship.  Either it was one of the best acting bits--and they should both get a special award--or it was real.  My bet is on "real" for a number of reasons...not only the neuro-linguistic dash of a sister/brother or close cousins imagery; but, for the reason that this professional working duo do have more in common than otherwise.

    The complementary & complimentary relationship is rather obvious.  Whether born of the political need they had for each other and the understanding that they would be stronger together than deflecting from each other...who knows.  For me, as Democrat & as admirer of the dedication shown by both, it was great fun to watch.


    And by 'aides' they mean 'spouses' (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    They mentioned spouses also (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    It was one of the funnier moments when Hillary mentioned the transformation of cool and calm Bill the candidate to not so calm Bill the spouse.

    Did she mention South Carolina? (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    Her smiles, laughter, and comments (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    suggest that she has moved way beyond the give & take of one tough campaign.  That says a lot to me about anyone ... a lot of good. If she can grow beyond the slings (even the nastiest of slings), I genuinely can as well.

    The difference between surviving & prevailing....she has truly prevailed as a person.
    Whatever she chooses to do in future, I strongly support.  Meantime, I want to applaud both the President and the Secretary of State.


    not a fan of many Obama appointments (none / 0) (#37)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    but choosing Hillary Clinton for secretary of state was brilliant and important, not just for Democrats but to show the world that we can transcend even a brutal primary competition.

    In Iowa, our former Governor Chet Culver won the 2006 Democratic primary with about 38 percent of the vote to 35 percent and 26 percent for his rivals. He didn't bring them or anyone close to them into his administration, and I always felt that was a big mistake. When things went south for Culver in 2009/2010, many Democratic activists and constituencies felt they had no stake in his success because they didn't have a voice in his administration.

    And.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    She was chosen because it was the only way she would go to the 2008 convention without putting up a fight for her delegates and 18 million votes....

    I think you don't know Hillary as (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    well as you think you do...

    If you could show me one example in Hillary's political life where she placed her own ambition above the structural integrity of the Democratic Party, I might - might - consider that in 2008, she was ready to throw the convention into complete and utter chaos for the sake of a Cabinet appointment, but I don't think you're going to find one.  

    And no, I don't consider her seeking the nomination to be an example in itself.

    One of my biggest peeves about the Clintons is that they will only push as far as the confines of the Democratic Party structure will allow them to, and then they will back off.

    Too bad, because the party could use some shaking-up.


    It's not just that the confines of the Dem party (none / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    won't allow them to, it's that they helped to create the confines. After all, Bill was the head of the DLC, not Howard Dean's 50-state strategy...

    I didn't say she WOULD do it (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:18:31 PM EST
    You are certainly reading more into the comment than was written or intended.

    But for the record, the chaos certainly wouldn't have come from her - it would have been many layers away from her.  She's not an idiot.

    But there would have been plenty of other people willing to create chaos at the convention. Obama knew that. He's not an idiot either.


    I'm only reading what you wrote, (3.50 / 2) (#63)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:35:19 PM EST
    after a very specific set of questions from casey.  You believe that she made a deal for a Cabinet spot in exchange for throwing her support to Obama - and that the interview was nothing but lies.

    For the record, Hillary-the-not-idiot knew that she would absolutely get the blame for the chaos; she was, after all the b!tch who wouldn't quit, remember?  Think anyone would have allowed responsibility for chaos to be pinned on the "many layers" away from her?  I don't.

    While I don't share your opinions about any of this - that the interview was nothing but lies, that Hillary traded her support for a Cabinet spot - you're entitled to express them; it would just be nice if you would take responsibility for them, instead of deflecting the negative response to them by making it everyone else's fault.


    At the time, wasn't the consensus she bowed (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:11:09 PM EST
    out in exchange for Obama's promise to help retire her debts?

    No, the consensus was not that (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:35:48 AM EST
    there was a quid pro quo like that. Hillary stayed in the race until every single primary had been held and the infamous Rules Committee had handed down its decision. At that point, when it was clear that the Party was not going to nominate her, Hillary ended her campaign and threw her support squarely behind Obama.

    There was negotiating around what role she and Bill would play in Obama's campaign and around how things would play at the Denver convention. Paying down her debt was part of those discussions.

    I read somewhere that Hillary's campaign debt from 2008 was finally paid off in just the last few days. When she accepted the appointment as SoS she was no longer allowed to actively work to retire that debt as her position as SoS does not allow her to engage in overtly political activities. That is why she did not campaign for Obama last year. So, i was happy to read that the debt is paid.


    They aren't mutually exclusive (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:20:34 AM EST
    There was negotiating around what role she and Bill would play in Obama's campaign and around how things would play at the Denver convention. Paying down her debt was part of those discussions.

    You seriously don't think it had to do with both?


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:19:18 AM EST
    How my answer, which I stated with the words "I believe", pushes this as I don't "take responsiblity" and making a "negative response...everyone else's fault."  

    Not sure how much clearer I can be in stating something is my opinion based on what I know and believe to be true (including based on many, many discussions right here that included very similar comments from you and others).

    The interview was a showpiece to show Obama and Clinton united.  Does that mean I think they hate each other, as you are seeming to attribute to my statements?  No.  Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and so yesterday's enemies will be today's friends. As I said, if you actually read my response to casey's question, you will see that I said that politicians are thick-skinned (especially Hillary Clinton). But, just because they can put on a good face in an interview, does not mean they are best buds either.

    This was a story designed to set up any future run for president that Clinton has in mind (which, I don't think she's even made up her mind about yet).  This interview was about laying the groundwork for that run, which is something both Clintons are masters at doing.

    Frankly, I don't care right now who's running in 2016, and I don't care to have the next election start right now.  I care about what the current president is doing and what his plans are for the next 4 years.

    For the record, you are also entitled to disagree with me, but not assume that I'm "not taking responsibility" for my comments because you don't like the way you think I express them.


    Oh, for heaven's sake, jb... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:10:50 AM EST
    you said this:

    She was chosen because it was the only way she would go to the 2008 convention without putting up a fight for her delegates and 18 million votes....

    And then you had this exchange:

    So, are you saying that Obama and Hillary (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:37:33 PM EDT
    made a deal prior to the convention and the general election that she would get the appointment at State if she threw her support to Obama and did not fight it out at the convention?

    I want to make sure i understand your comment.

    Parent | Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5

        Yes, that's what I believe (none / 0) (#42)
        by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:00:32 PM EDT
        I admit I have no proof, but remember the secret meeting at Diane Feinstein's house?

        They didn't exchange recipes for cheesecake....

    So, after saying that you believe that she made a deal, you then tried to tell me that you didn't say she would do it.

    That part - the "I didn't say she would do it" is the part where you abandoned responsibility for your previous assertions.

    And, just my opinion, but there's a difference between saying that the interview was theater, a show of congeniality, and saying it was a pack of lies.  You didn't use that phrase yourself, but when casey framed it that way, you agreed.

    Come on, I know you've been away from TL - at least from commenting - but you can't have forgotten how this works, can you?


    So, are you saying that Obama and Hillary (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    made a deal prior to the convention and the general election that she would get the appointment at State if she threw her support to Obama and did not fight it out at the convention?

    I want to make sure i understand your comment.


    Yes, that's what I believe (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    I admit I have no proof, but remember the secret meeting at Diane Feinstein's house?

    They didn't exchange recipes for cheesecake....


    So, in your opinion, everything they said (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:04:28 PM EST
    in last night's interview and everything Hillary has said in the past about how Obama decided to ask her to serve as SoS after the general election, and how Hillary was reluctant and wanted to stay in the Senate, and how she went to Chicago to talk with Obama and gave him the names of people she thought would be good as SoS, and how her aids and Obama persuaded her to take the job, all of this in November 2004, you think that is all a big pack of lies?

    I think (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    They are both politicians who will put out a good story that shows each of them in the most positive light. There's no reason to be acrimonious now. A united front is a good contrast to the disarray in the Republican Party (they look like grownups).

    I also think that, being seasoned politicians, they have thick skins, and it's easy to be nice and charming about someone when you want or need something from them.  Obama can be magnanimous now - Hillary is over it and is looking on to other things.

    So to answer your question - YES.


    As I recall, that mtg. took place later. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    Link: (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    Look at the date (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    That was June of 2008 - way before the convention and way before the election.

    Who do you anticipate will win Tom Harkin's (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    seat in the Senate?

    Hillary Clinton? (none / 0) (#66)
    by observed on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:37:09 PM EST
    Becoming an IA resident? (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:43:12 PM EST
    Too great a price.

    Obama donors (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:22:41 AM EST
    just paid off the last 200k of Hillary's campaign debt and just started a PAC? Hmmmnnnn..... just what was the deal?  Be good Hillary and I will make sure your debt is paid off AFTER you do your four years?
    Or was it "look Barry, I kept my part of the bargain and on top of that Bill pulled your butt from the fire several times.  Now I am leaving and I am going to be writing another book.  I suggest you keep your part of the deal.  I have this lingering debt......"

    BTD in Disguise! (none / 0) (#95)
    by smott on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    I read these threads and (none / 0) (#101)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    wonder what funhouse mirror versions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton people believe exist.  I wouldn't describe either of them as "progressive."  They are definitely more progressive than McCain or Romney, but at best, they are both left of center.

    I admire them both immensely and believe they each have done/would have done/will do a good job as President.  They have different strengths that wo, but in all, not much difference in policy (not talking about what has been enacted or what foreign policy positions we have taken--talking about what they state they "believe in").  

    I believe Hillary as president would have been a far more effective negotiator and would have recognized from the start that the Rs were going to give zero credit to the Prez for coming to the table with proposals that already reflect compromises.  On the other hand, I recognize that the republicans would have behaved even worse with a President Hillary Clinton than they have behaved with Obama.  They heap praise on her now and hold their fire because she is not a threat to them.  The closer she gets to the end of her tenure as SoS, the more their true colors start to show--look at their collective freak-out over the delay in her testimony on Benghazi because of a very real medical issue that they mocked.

    That's a belief (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    Not statement of fact.
    On the other hand, I recognize that the republicans would have behaved even worse with a President Hillary Clinton than they have behaved with Obama.  
    I don't have a belief one way or the other on that.  Except to say that the GOP has behaved really, really badly the last 4 years.  How much difference would it make if they behaved really, really, really badly?

    I don't disagree with you (none / 0) (#103)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    that the degree of bad behavior did not have much higher to go.  My point was that some people point to the respect that Hillary has earned from the Republicans as a sign that she would have been more effective than Obama--I think that the Republicans would have trained their fire at her more vigorously  if she were President and not SoS.  They would quickly abandon their "respect" in favor of scoring points and being obstructionists.  I do think we would have seen some outrageous things--maybe not dramatically worse than demanding birth certificates, but specially tailored to Hillary and Bill.

    Not what you said, though (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    Nor is it what you originally argued.  You made an "OTOH" argument.  I simply submit that it was actually the same hand though it might have had a different voice.

    If that makes sense.  :)