Cheney: US different if Hillary Clinton president

[Infohawk]

http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-us-different-hillary-clinton-president-153817016.html

I think this guy is mostly trolling. The right hates Hillary Clinton too. (They were hell-bent on trying to impeach Bill Clinton when things were going pretty well for this country.) It's a sort of interesting question though: would things have been better if Hillary were president?

I don't think so. She wouldn't have done anything different in the labor market which is the main problem facing the economy right now. I don't think she would have had a drastically different foreign policy.

 

[Chaosblade02]

Even the KKK supported Obama over Hilary Clinton......

http://www.dailypaul.com/40594/yes-this-is-true-the-kkk-just-endorsed-obama-over-clinton

Not only did they support Obama, but claimed to have donated $250k to his campaign. I'm just as confused as anyone about this.

Grand Turk Cletus Monroe has also been very vocal about the election and has donated thousands of dollars to Obama's election fund.
"The boy's gonna do it. My Klan group has donated up to $250,000 to the Obama fund. Anything is better than Hillary Clinton. Hell I'll even adopt a black kid from Africa before I vote for Hillary."

LOL!!! Anyway I'm with Cletus on this one and would have also preferred Obama over Hilary Clinton.

 

[sMiLeYz]

The KKK would pick child of a black man and a white women Barack Obama, over a decorated war veteran with an all white genepool that is John McCain. Right....

 

[Chaosblade02]

The KKK would pick child of a black man and a white women Barack Obama, over a decorated war veteran with an all white genepool that is John McCain. Right....

Its been verified by multiple sources that they supported Obama, for whatever reason.

They couldn't have picked a worse candidate to run against Obama than John McCain. And John McCain couldn't have picked a worse running mate than Sarah Palin. I know many conservatives who absolutely refused to vote for John McCain, and just didn't show up to even vote for the election.

 

[rchiu]

http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-us-different-hillary-clinton-president-153817016.html

I think this guy is mostly trolling. The right hates Hillary Clinton too. (They were hell-bent on trying to impeach Bill Clinton when things were going pretty well for this country.) It's a sort of interesting question though: would things have been better if Hillary were president?

I don't think so. She wouldn't have done anything different in the labor market which is the main problem facing the economy right now. I don't think she would have had a drastically different foreign policy.

Well far right is gonna hate any democrats. But Bill Clinton was much more of a centrist compared to Obama, and that reflected in his policies, the people he hired. Assuming Hillary Clinton would follow the similar policies and use the same group of people, the politics wouldn't been as divisive as today. People like Palin and Tea Party wouldn't have a platform, and it would been easier for Hillary Clinton to bring the two sides together to deal with the problem, be it unemployment or other issues.

of course she wouldn't been a magician and fix the economic problem and unemployment problem we have today. But I think there would have been less bad blood, less extremist on both side in the politics and things can move forward faster than today.

 

[a777pilot]

Run Hillary, run!

 

[nageov3t]

Hillary and Obama didn't have widely different policies, but I always felt like Hillary wouldn't have folded before the GOP every time they said 'boo,' and wouldn't have allowed them to set the agenda even when they were in the minority.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well far right is gonna hate any democrats. But Bill Clinton was much more of a centrist compared to Obama, and that reflected in his policies, the people he hired. Assuming Hillary Clinton would follow the similar policies and use the same group of people, the politics wouldn't been as divisive as today. People like Palin and Tea Party wouldn't have a platform, and it would been easier for Hillary Clinton to bring the two sides together to deal with the problem, be it unemployment or other issues.

of course she wouldn't been a magician and fix the economic problem and unemployment problem we have today. But I think there would have been less bad blood, less extremist on both side in the politics and things can move forward faster than today.

You're completely delusional.

 

[Thump553]

Even now I don't think Obama has remotely approached the level of right-wing GOP hatred that Hillary did. Remember all the hairbrain conspiracies they came up with-like she had that attorney (who committed suicide) murdered?

I will admit though that Hillary has done a bang up job as Sec of State, very low key and with remarkably little GOP criticism. For the time being they probably no longer view her as a threat.

 

[1prophet]

Even the KKK supported Obama over Hilary Clinton......

http://www.dailypaul.com/40594/yes-this-is-true-the-kkk-just-endorsed-obama-over-clinton

Not only did they support Obama, but claimed to have donated $250k to his campaign. I'm just as confused as anyone about this.


LOL!!! Anyway I'm with Cletus on this one and would have also preferred Obama over Hilary Clinton.

That is a lie

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp

 

[nonlnear]

I would probably be considered by most to be "right wing". I thought the Clinton impeachment process was utterly pointless.

As for Hillary, I would vote for her over any of the GOP front-runners in a heartbeat. I can't say the same for Obama. Obama has managed to be a "worst of both parties" President. Hillary would be much stronger in managing policy outcomes, and would manage to get some of the Democrats' better points in. Obama has a penchant for "compromise" which boils down to keeping the worst pieces of Democratic policy in exchange for incorporating the worst ideas of the GOP.

About the only GOP candidates I would vote for are Paul, Johnson, and the like. Apart from them the GOP can go down in flames for all I care.

 

[child of wonder]

Hillary would not roll over as easily to Republicans as Obama has. Whether you agree with his policies or not, he has been a big disappointment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hillary would not roll over as easily to Republicans as Obama has. Whether you agree with his policies or not, he has been a big disappointment.

As much as he's rolled over he's been rolled. Who did that? Who took advantage of a man who was willing to accommodate and incorporate differing opinions, who made it a point to extend his hand. They say nice guys finish last but I think that's only true when imbeciles are doing the judging.

 

[chowderhead]

I see Hillary Clinton as a technocrat ... someone who is going to be deeply involved in formulating a plan and implementing it. Obama is a big picture guy and seems very hands off/delegate to others and sees what happens. They are different approaches to governing and I thought and still think we need someone who is going to get their hands dirty and be part of the actual process and propose ideas and work hard to get it passed. The health care debate was a debacle. Obama let it spin out of control when he really needed to get in there as soon as he was elected and work to get it passed if he truly wanted it passed. It took a year's worth of debate where it seemed Obama waited for Congress to take the lead. Clinton probably could have worked with Democrats and Republicans to get the best deal as soon as possible. It's all conjecture so it could very well be that the Republicans would have been just as strident but I would think Clinton would have been able to work with them in 2008/2009. I do hope she will run for President again. I would support her again (if she doesn't hire Mark Penn for her strategist).

 

[Lemon law]

In MHO, Hillary Clinton lost to Obama because Hillary not only voted for the Iraq war, she too long believed in what Dick Cheney said.

And now Dick Cheney is shooting off his mouth again, and we are all well advised not to put any credibility on what ever Dick Cheney says.

 

[Lanyap]

Hillary would not roll over as easily to Republicans as Obama has. Whether you agree with his policies or not, he has been a big disappointment.

Hillary has more balls than Obama.

 

[Lanyap]

In MHO, Hillary Clinton lost to Obama because Hillary not only voted for the Iraq war, she too long believed in what Dick Cheney said.

And now Dick Cheney is shooting off his mouth again, and we are all well advised not to put any credibility on what ever Dick Cheney says.

A lot of dems were for the war before they were against it, and before Bush and Cheney took over. Do we need to dredge up all those old videos?

Yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

 

[CanOWorms]

IMO, things would be the same because of one important fact: she is also not a white male.

We have an important social problem in this country with millions of unassimilated people with generational roots in this country. Many of them are in the Tea Party. They would rather destroy this country than let an "other" have control. The same would happen with Hillary Clinton.

 

[Lemon law]

Hillary and Obama didn't have widely different policies, but I always felt like Hillary wouldn't have folded before the GOP every time they said 'boo,' and wouldn't have allowed them to set the agenda even when they were in the minority.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ye of little memory, I remember when Hillary was Bill Clinton's point person on selling health care reform in 1993. Point granted, Hillary had balls and got called out on being too arbitrary and bossy by the GOP. But my point nothing got done on health care by the Clinton administration at all.

But when Obama tried the same health care reform in his first term, against the same basic GOP say no opposition, we can complain Obama is too willing to compromise and weak, but still, Obama got more done on health care than Hillary did.

At least Obama works within the constitution, while Cheney and his ilk seek to violate the constitution whenever it becomes an impediment.

Obama would be far more effective without the GOP lock step opposition and games that is destroying this country.

 

[Craig234]

You're completely delusional.

What are you talking about, rchiu being delusional when he says how things would be so less divisive under the more centrist Clinton?

Don't you remember all the lack of divisiveness during Clinton, when the Republicans were far more cooperative - limiting their opposition to that centrist with tiny measures such as pointing out that he was a mass murderer of political opponents including Vince Foster, who had made his money in drug dealing, with Hillary covering up their crimes by hiding documents from investigators in filegate, crimes from their criminalization of the White House travel department in travelgate to her turning an investment into a fortune with corrupt Wall Street help, to their giving out the Lincoln bedroom to donors (which was not the same thing at all as when Bush gave out the Lincoln bedroom to donors), to treasonously selling off US military technology to the Chinese, to starting false wars to cover up his sexual scandal? The small sum of $50 million put up by Richard Mellon Scaife to pay sleazy 'investigators' to dig up rumors about the Clintons, less than the more tens of millions the Republicans running the House spent to investigate the Clintons for years, firing their own special prosecutor after he came back saying 'no crimes were found'?

The small measures of things like impeaching Clinton in 'revenge' for Watergate, like shutting down the federal government, of blocking approval of all nominations when they wanted to blackmail the President opposing his use of his powers like the recess appointment, their changing the rules for judicial nominee approval so that only one Senator from a state rather than two could put a hold?

Sorry, but where is the delusion in rchiu simply pointing out the history of good relations Republicans chose to have with the centrist Clinton?

Obviously, they would act very friendly to Hillary, just not Obama the leftist radical.

 

[senseamp]

I voted for Clinton in primaries. I expected GOP to obstruct and attack anyone the Dems put in place. That's what Republicans do, they can't govern, but they sure know how to play political games. I didn't buy that nominating Obama would change that, not because he didn't try, but because the other side was not interested in changing the political climate, since divisiveness is the only way they can get elected. So I wanted someone tough like Hillary up there. That said, Obama got the ball rolling on health care reform. I don't think Hillary would have done anything about health care reform after her earlier experience with it.

 

[woolfe9999]

http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-us-different-hillary-clinton-president-153817016.html

I think this guy is mostly trolling. The right hates Hillary Clinton too. (They were hell-bent on trying to impeach Bill Clinton when things were going pretty well for this country.) It's a sort of interesting question though: would things have been better if Hillary were president?

I don't think so. She wouldn't have done anything different in the labor market which is the main problem facing the economy right now. I don't think she would have had a drastically different foreign policy.

I can't think of a candidate in either 2008 primary who would have overseen a substantially different outcome. Maybe Ron Paul, though the difference would not necessarily have been for the better.

The hard truth is that the economy was worse than we thought it was even though we generally thought it was quite bad. And on top of it we were on a deficit curve which was only going to get worse as the recession progressed, which in turn limited our options for stimulating the economy. There wasn't going to be any good outcome. In truth, politically it would have been better for the dems had McCain been elected.

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

I can't think of a candidate in either 2008 primary who would have overseen a substantially different outcome. Maybe Ron Paul, though the difference would not necessarily have been for the better.

The hard truth is that the economy was worse than we thought it was even though we generally thought it was quite bad. And on top of it we were on a deficit curve which was only going to get worse as the recession progressed, which in turn limited our options for stimulating the economy. There wasn't going to be any good outcome. In truth, politically it would have been better for the dems had McCain been elected.

- wolf

The economic outcome would largely have been the same no matter who got in, but that's just because the economic importance of the President is always vastly overstated. The policy outcomes may very well have been significantly different. I believe Hillary would have been able to negotiate more coherent policies, and been able to negotiate more sensible compromises than Obama.

Would it affect the unemployment rate? Probably not. Would it affect (among other things) the clusterfuck of terrible medical regulation that's going to explode over the next five years? I think so.

 

[Jhhnn]

I doubt that Hillary would have been as ready to compromise as Obama, nor as averse to failure. Rhetorically, she'd have re-introduced Repubs to the beatdown. Obama thinks they can be brought to reason- Hillary knows better, knows that the only thing they respect is power, that, like petulant children, the only time they'll listen is after they're spanked, not before.

 

[Fern]

Why the heck is Cheney thrusting himself into the political debate now?

Why is he seeking the spotlight? Why put out a book now?

I don't get it.

Fern