Hillary Rodham Clinton: How Would She Govern?
The three leading Democratic party Presidential candidates may all be claiming to be change candidates. Obama is saddled with lack of experience even though his two opponents have little more. Edwards is relying on the ‘populist’ approach while Hillary Rodham Clinton claims being First Lady and starting her 2nd term as a Senator qualifies as the most experience. That would make First Lady Laura Bush nearly as qualified to be President and she has much higher approval ratings than Clinton.
Hillary Rodham Clinton avoids taking risk so contrary to what she touts most of her legislative initiatives in the Senate have languished in committee. Her health care ideas are being criticized by her Democratic opponents as well as GOP candidates and her first attempt at it in the nineties nearly cost both Clinton’s their careers.
Hillary Rodham Clinton would like you to believe many things. Forget the scandals, forget her tendency to be cold and distant and compare her to great leaders of the past rather than notice her similarities to less admirable politicians in the country’s history.
While Hillary would like you to think of the Clinton Administration as a repeat of Camelot and the Kennedy’s of the sixties, it would require forgetting what her supporters have been able to dismiss. Things like Travelgate, Chinagate, sex scandals and a close encounter with impeachment for lying to Congress.
The failure of the Clinton flagship campaign issue, health care, failed primarily due to Hillary’s refusal to compromise and attempts to bully other politicians. It seems reasonable that her ‘experience’ in politics has not altered that characteristic. Is she cannot change the attributes that give her a high unfavorable rating, how does that translate into a candidate of change. Perhaps it means she will only change things about this country that fit her agenda.
The real change offered by Hillary Rodham Clinton for President is bypassing two term limits by helping her husband back in the White House. If there were no baggage, character flaws or scandal in the Clinton family history that might be a good thing. But as it stands now, the downside risk has been defined by the last Clinton Administration and we cannot afford to take the risk, knowing what we do.
A good read responsible for this post is offered in an upcoming article in Newsweek. The linked reference is offered below.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
September 9th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
The safest bet on the way to Communism…Finishing destroy the military…giving the Chinese more secrets…socialist medicine…She would govern like Hugo…
September 9th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I must agree with Richard. I grew up with two parents who taught me the importance of hard work and personal responsibility. I don’t need another set of parents, Hillary and Karl Marx, telling me that I have to pay for a large percentage of the population who will find it unnecessary to work as hard as I did. even Hugo Chavez knows the truth. Let’s hope the American people can focus long enough to see the writing on the wall.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Although this post is very good, the first two comments as I begin to type are immature and obnoxious. Grow up.
I’d like to argue a couple of points in the actual post:
Statement: “…while Hillary Rodham Clinton claims being First Lady and starting her 2nd term as a Senator qualifies as the most experience. That would make First Lady Laura Bush nearly as qualified to be President and she has much higher approval ratings than Clinton.”
–> First, Laura Bush wasn’t First Lady of a state as long as Hillary Clinton was, Laura Bush hasn’t been First Lady of America as long as Hillary Clinton was; and she’s never been elected to the US Senate, nevermind TWICE.
That said, if Laura Bush wanted to run on her experience as First lady, I would welcome that experience.
In addition, according to polls, it is true that Hillary Clinton may not be the most popular First Lady in America (but she’s very close).
But, according to polls, it is true that Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in the world.
I’d say that’s good enough, wouldn’t you?
Statement: “…Forget the scandals, forget her tendency to be cold and distant and compare her to great leaders of the past rather than notice her similarities to less admirable politicians in the country’s history.”
–> Okay, let’s forget that.
Next paragraph from you: “While Hillary would like you to think of the Clinton Administration as a repeat of Camelot and the Kennedy’s of the sixties, it would require forgetting what her supporters have been able to dismiss. Things like Travelgate, Chinagate, sex scandals and a close encounter with impeachment for lying to Congress.”
–> What happened to your suggestion that we “Forget the scandals…”?
Most of us have forgotten “the scandals.” In FACT, most of us didn’t care about “the scandals” in the first place. After Clinton was impeached, his approval numbers soared and he has remained a rock star around the world ever since.
Americans who thought the country was going in the right direction at this point in Clinton’s Presidency regsitered in at around 70%. Bush’s right direction/wrong direction numbers right now are the complete opposite — 30% right direction/70% *WRONG* direction
We know the Clinton Haters aren’t going to vote for Senator Clinton. We get it. You think Bush is doing a good job. Let’s see how that works out in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, it’s pretty obvious how Clinton will govern: Like President Bill Clinton, only smarter.
Under Clinton’s leadership:
We finished off the Gulf War efficiently and brought our troops home.
We led in the successful regime change of an evil dictator with the help of the international community.
After the WTC was hit a few months into Clinton’s presidency we weren’t hit on our own soil again.
We had a surplus.
We had a balanced budget.
We had more jobs.
And we had gasoline that was about one dollar a gallon.
No, Clinton doesn’t represent Camelot.
Clinton represents Smart Government.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Dear Jan,
When i have the time, I may take the rest of your entry apart but I assure you that almost all of it is as wrong as this statement “We had more jobs”
In the last year of the clinton administration, there were 139 million people employed in the US - currently there are 153 million.
As is so often the case with the left in general and Clinton junkies in particular, you simply have lost touch with reality. Claims that Clinton gets credit for a balanced budget and revenue surpluses that he fought against and said could not be accomplished in his tenure are ridiculous and as for the gulf war - it ended in 1991.
talk about revisionist history
September 9th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I would focus on just one thing (at this time) that Hillery might do; Universal health Care. My thoughts are simple… That Ms Clinton utilize the Health Care system that she would impose on the whole country - No Other Options!
That would mean her money cannot buy ‘extra care’, her position cannot buy her ‘a Presidential doctor’, or any other non-Universal Health System coverage. Health care for the masses includes us all…
September 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Thanks, RRD. Your response to Jan saves me a post. And my wife is telling I gotta mow the grass….
September 9th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Things were much better under Bill. I hope Hillary carries on that tradition.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Hillary is the poster child of the various left wing hate groups! Fiscal issues are of minor importance to them. They still have a 1960’s dream of remaking America into a “there is no right or wrong” society. The left wing haters despise; the family, the military, religeon, and anything patriotic! Why are Hillary and her friends so against any kind of restrictions on abortion, even partial birth abortion? Because her friends and supporters make millions of dollars aborting babies. And she and her party then get a little piece of the action in the form of campaign donations! I ask you this, if a 15 year old girl is mature enough to make the decision to abort her baby, then surely the left wing haters must agree that she is mature enough to marry the father of her unborn baby. As long as Hillary and her gang can keep the American family splintered and torn apart, they win. Look what they’ve done to the black family. Hillary is nothing more than a power hungry feminist who wants to decide what the rest of us have to live like.
Remember when the democratic party used to be the party of the working person? They did many great things for the average American. Who will they truly fight for now? Homosexuals, abortionists, feminist family haters, racial dividers, and any other kind of little freaky group that comes along! Hillary and her friends have absolutely no ideas when it comes to governing this country. They are haters and dividers! You lefties spend all your waking hours telling everyone how much you hate Bush. Maybe you’ll like President Thompson a little more!
September 10th, 2007 at 3:12 am
She can’t even run her own house…….
She certainly isn’t qualified to run the WHite House………or the country…..
September 10th, 2007 at 3:55 am
hiya hiya!..Richard is spot on……..dang is she really running?!
September 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I guess I should have been more specific, considering how Loyal Bushies have this habit of comparing current Bush stats with earlier Bush stats, not with other adminstrations:
Jobs created during each adminstration’s term(s) –
Carter +218K
Reagan +109K
Reagan +224K
Bush I +52K
Clinton +242K
Clinton +235K
Bush II ***MINUS*** 63K!!
What an genius, huh?
And how about those gas prices?
Which do you like better, a buck a gallon under Clinton or three bucks a gallon under Bush?
September 10th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Jan, I don’t know where you get your numbers (MoveOn.Org???) but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 12 million more people with jobs in the US right now than at the end of the Clinton administration. Look it up.
http://stats.bls.gov/data/home.htm
Let me give you two hints about your innumeracy problem - The first is that since the US population increased by about 30 million people during the 90’s, creating only about 500,000 new jobs in the Bush 1 and Clinton terms combined (as you claim) would have left us with about 15 million unemployed adults (additional to the base population) at the end of his term. Then, if your numbers were correct about Bush 2, we would have added about 10 million more to the ranks of the unemployed (assuming half the population is of work age) over the past seven years. Think about that and remember that unemployment has been around 4-4.5% during both the current and the clinton administrations.
The second hint is that with a population of 300 million and a work force of about 150 million, the numbers you presented would be such minute fractions of either the total population or the workforce, that they would be statistically insignificant. On a monthly basis, the best numbers you offer for Clinton represent a growth rate of less than 2/100’s of 1 percent.
“What an genius, huh?” Clearly, you need to find better reference material.
RRD
PS - adjusted for inflation, I have paid more for gas at other points in my life than I do now. I will pay less - and more - in the decades to come.