Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Run, Hillary, run?

Salon gives us the latest on the recent moves to have Hillary replace Obama:
Traister argues, persuasively in my view, that had Clinton won the presidency in 2008 instead of Obama, there’s no compelling evidence suggesting she would have been any more effective.
Here's your compelling evidence for ya: A Hillary first term would have been the equivalent of a third term, if we're talking about experience. She would have provided (and may still provide) Clintonian knowledge of how to work the system without the hassle of Bill's libidinous rep.
And here there is one very good reason to believe that a Clinton presidency might be marginally more effective than Obama’s second term: She would not be a lame duck president.
There's a better reason. She would not be a Republican masquerading as a Democrat, thereby bringing liberalism into disrepute.

For chrissakes, stop pretending that there was no difference between Hillary and Obama in 2008. She wanted a better health care reform package. She would have given the Wall Streeters real regulation. She would have given us a stimulus package that actually provided jobs. She would have instituted a HOLC style program designed to help people keep their houses. She would (I think) have gotten us out of these damned wars. And she probably would have followed her husband's advice when it came to the debt ceiling.

As for Obama: I understand that his new "job creating" proposals will include more tax cuts. Payroll tax cuts help workers, but even so: We need revenue, and experience has proven that tax cuts don't work.

Not that you can get anyone in this country to admit that simple fact of history.

Here's the Sean Hannity spin: How the Economy Got Here: Bush Tax Cuts vs. Obama Stimulus. Even at gunpoint, you couldn't get these propagandists to admit that the Obama "stimulus" was mostly tax cuts. The right keeps pounding the message that we tried the FDR solution and it failed. They'll never, ever tell you that very little of the stimulus went to creating jobs. It was no stimulus at all.

The Bush approach and the Obama approach were the same approach. They both proved the same point: Tax cuts don't work. Tax cuts don't work. Tax cuts don't work.

About Rick Perry: I keep hearing that he'll succeed because he's "bigger than life," and that's what Americans want. That's what some Americans want. I think George W. Bush won over middle America during the first debate in 2000, when he seemed so cool and soft-spoken.
Hillary was better on health care, more acutely anti-W (there would have some investigations of multiple misdeed) and would have put on the dom boots to punish the JP Morgan bad boys.

She was always more regulator than Bill and didn't have his close ties to the financial lobby via Rubin. And she wouldn't have lost the House in '10 -- many seats, yes, but it took real talent to lose the majority.
What do the Obots got besides "He's not as bad as Bush" and "Hillary wouldn't be any better"?

I mean really?
She would have had a healthcare reform bill ready from Day One, wouldn't have taken a year diddling with it, and the public would have known what's in it!

And her cabinet appointments...


Hillary 2012
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic