Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

Dr. Veith–one correction–Mrs. Clinton is the current Secretary of State, not the Secretary of Defense (I couldn’t even begin to fathom her in that position).

Who would I rather have: neither!

Mickey Mouse

I honestly don’t think that Hillary Clinton has the skills to run for, or be, president (Which is not to say she has no skills at all). That’s why she had to stick with Bill Clinton all those years. Bill, for all his faults, had an ability to schmooze that Hillary lacked. Together, their whole was greater than the sum of their parts. But being a great political operative (like Karl Rove, for example) doesn’t always translate into being a great candidate or office holder. I guess I’m saying that we don’t need to worry that much about Hillary. At the end of the last campaign, she said she wouldn’t run again, and I think she meant it, and had good reasons to mean it.

I haven’t forgotten Mike Gravel. He was fun in 2008, and he’s willing to challenge the President now.

I think Hilary would have been more accommodating to a hostile congress aka more willing to seek compromise. She likes being in power to much to do anything to compromise it. I also do not think she would ever be elected because the media would crucify her as they have every female candidate, they did it before. I am beginning to think the media is more afraid of a female president than the American public.

Only with a weapon aimed at my head could you force me to make this choice. The very thought makes me squirm. However, if I had to make a choice, I’ll run away and hide.

I’m not under any illusion that one secular humanist could make more of a difference than another. One hates America, and the other hates families (…takes a village anyone?), not so much as individuals as with their worldviews.

It’s Obama’s fault.

I’d take Hilary in a heartbeat over Obama. She seems to have the requisite gravitas Obama lacks, though I disagree with her about most policy matters. Would she display the same arrogance in power that Obama has? Maybe. Probably. But, she also just might be a better leader than Obama.

Okay, let’s say the choice is Clinton or Obama. I’ll take Obama, because I think Clinton is more likely to get us into another war. The choice, then, is between likely and likelier.

Tom @11
What evidence is there that Clinton would be more likely to get us into another war? We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does Libya ring a bell? During the Clinton administration we had small scale incursions (Mogadishu, Kosovo).

I think that one is as likely as the other to get us into another war.

That being said, I would take Clinton because I think that she would be more willing to find some middle ground economically. But I am not thrilled with either option.

Either one would be running on a pro abortion platform.
I couldn’t even vote for Mickey Mouse on that.

Steve @ 12, at the start of the Libyan revolt, there was a lot of reporting on how Mrs. Clinton (along with UN ambassador Susan Rice and security adviser Samantha Power) were pushing an indecisive President to take action.

Kerner said (@5), regarding Hillary Clinton, “That’s why she had to stick with Bill Clinton all those years.”

I’m sorry, but are you, as a Christian and conservative, suggesting that Hillary should have divorced her husband?

Aaaaand Michaeal Henry (@8) is today’s Voice of Christian Charity!

I’m not under any illusion that one secular humanist could make more of a difference than another. One hates America, and the other hates families.

So, let’s see, we have dissemination of falsehoods in an attempt to defame (neither Clinton nor Obama is a “secular humanist”). And then more lies and smears, just for good measure.

Your Voice of Christian Charity for September 1, everyone! Make sure to check back for tomorrow’s winner.

Steve B. asked (@12):

What evidence is there that Clinton would be more likely to get us into another war?

Um, well, most of the debates from 2008, if I recall. Clinton was far more hawkish, defending our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that the Presidential office seems to make every candidate more interventionist (and — per America’s stellar foreign policy — ipso facto, pro-war), as it did Obama, I have a hard time seeing how Clinton wouldn’t be even more pro-war than she already was/is.

Okay, SK (@10), I’ll call. “She seems to have the requisite gravitas Obama lacks”? Define, please. Give examples.

no difference, both evil. Michael Henry is exactly right. Secular, humanist, heathen, evil. God-haters, both of them.

tODD and Tom,

Sorry, I just disagree. Hilary seemed more hawkish in the primaries, but then again, George W. Bush was against nation-building in the 2000 campaign. Clinton was also famously critical of General Petreaus during Senate hearings in 2007, whereas Obama had already staked out ground as an “anti-war” candidate. tODD, you correctly stated that the Presidential candidate makes everyone more interventionist, to me that just outweighs campaign stances for almost any candidate (I would have a hard time seeing Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich becoming all that more interventionist in a hypothetical Presidency, but you get the point). I have a hard time putting a lot of stock in campaign poses regarding foreign policy. The reports about Clinton and the others pushing Obama regarding Libya to me says much less about hawkishness than it does about decisiveness. That squares with the leadership style of Obama in the domestic sphere as well. A lot of dithering and hyped speeches, along with political calculation and partisanship, but at the end of the day not a lot of leadership and decisiveness. I would see Clinton as having a more decisive leadership style that is less deferential of Democratic congressional leadership. I don’t know if that is necessarily a good thing, but I do see it as a difference.

@19 It’s worth noting that it’s never enough simply to disagree with another person’s politics. You should malign their character as well.

God is a Republican.

Steve (@20), I can’t help but notice that the sole argument you offer in defense of your position is “I just disagree”. Not terribly convincing, that.

Seriously, give us a reason to believe that a hypothetical President H. Clinton would not be more likely to get us into another war?

You said:

Hilary seemed more hawkish in the primaries, but then again, George W. Bush was against nation-building in the 2000 campaign.

But this is precisely my point. He became more interventionist/pro-war once in office. So did Obama. And, I argue, so would Mrs. Clinton.

It’s a pattern. You’re asking me to believe that Mrs. Clinton would somehow become less interventionist than she sounded in the primaries. Why?

JH (@19), thanks for bringing some real intellectual heft to this discussion.

tODD @18 – I’ll defer back to my “Maybe. Probably.” statement. Oh Blessed Qualification, How Thou Dost Savest!

Anyhow, her gravitas comes as much from keeping her mouth shut, or not saying anything too stupid when she does talk. To some extent her gravitas is increasing as Obama’s seems to continually be decreasing. An odd event in which she seems to be growing simply because Obama is shrinking.

I can’t think of any specific examples that indicate a gravitas accrual to Mrs. Clinton, but only impressions which at this stage are about all we have to work off of. She just appears in the press to be more serious.

Obama. Better the devil we know than one we don’t. Plus Obama seems weak at best. Hillary on the other hand strikes me as a stone cold killer, and seems a little too comfortable wielding power.

You’re welcome, Todd 🙂
I also agree with Helen, wholeheartedly.

tODD,

I am arguing that the default is interventionism in the Presidency, with rare hypothetical exceptions, regardless of the candidates campaign poses. I am arguing that Bush, Clinton and Obama, while they all took different campaign poses, would revert to the default once they were in office. There is already empirical evidence to support this from the Bush and Obama administrations and I would point to Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq war when she was in the Senate (it seemed politically advantageous at the time for her, though she tried to walk it back in the 2008 primaries). I think that the weight of the default consensus of foreign policy interventionism (which has been solidly in place since at least WWII, though the argument could easily be made that it goes back much longer than that) pretty much swallows up anyone in office. The only difference in foreign policy across most recent administrations is effectiveness and tone, not necessarily much in content.

I think there wouldn’t be a hair breadth’s difference between Obama and Clinton in foreign policy. If there was, why would have Obama made Clinton the Secretary of State? I know the argument for political expediency, but if there was really that much substantive difference in foreign policy, Obama wouldn’t have given the State post to Clinton.

You asked me for a reason to believe Clinton wouldn’t be more hawkish, but other than campaign rhetoric (which isn’t exactly accurate, Clinton didn’t talk about bombing Pakistan during the campaign and Obama did) what reason to you have to believe that she would?

I’d rather elect the diamond planet, but if forced, I would choose Hilary. She has been made to eat humble pie; Obama has not, and probably would not.

Neither.

How about we get someone who understands what this country was built upon? Freedom from the tyranny of an overreaching government.

The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat. 😀

Oh all right. I vote Steve Martin.

He does play a mean banjo.

@29

Untrue! I would vote for an abortion loving Mickey Mouse over Donald Trump.

“I am beginning to think the media is more afraid of a female president than the American public.”

Fear? or loathing?

So many females in the media make politics harder for women.

What’s one more ‘jerk’ in the White House?

Thanks! If chased…I will run.

“The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat.” (@29)

And reasoning like that, my friends, is why we get such “conservative” Presidents as George W. Bush.

Just for the record, and to demonstrate that this blog has some readers who are not all right-wing Obama haters, let me say this:

I voted for Obama in 2008. I will gladly vote for his re-election in 2012 and I believe that history will judge Obama as one of our great presidents. In addition, if Clinton runs in 2016, I will gladly support her.

Now, does that mean that I “hate America” and that I “hate families”? Am I am an “evil, secular humanist, God-hater”?

Jimmy,

Do you hate puppies and kittens, too?

I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008, I won’t vote for him in 2012, wouldn’t vote for Clinton in 2012 or 2016. But I am pretty sure that you love America and love God and families. Does that make me a contradiction in terms?

I like puppies and kittens too. Thanks for judging me so kindly.
I am not accusing people who do not support Obama as not loving God, America or families. I likewise suspect that you are also a good person.

I just don’t think there is any evidence at all to think that Obama does not love God, America or families. One should be able to disagree with his policies without attacking him personally. (As I review these comments, I realize that you are not one of those commentators who engaged in personal attacks of his character, and I appreciate that.)

One of the reasons I like Obama as a person, and believe that he is an individual of strong moral character and temperament; is that that he does not demonize his political opponents despite their relentless efforts to demonize him. In this respect, he behaves more like a Christian than many of the Christians that attack him.

I’m with Jimmy, though I resent being lumped in with either conservative or liberal (both pejoratives depending on who is mouthing the label). In that regard, I don’t know which questions to answer. I will say that there is not a single Republican that looks like they have it together enough to be president. I actually liked some things about John McCain last go ’round. Then he picked Palin and that ruined it, proving he was “out of touch” or perhaps just cynical. As it said on the cover of The Onion recently regarding Bachmann, Perry and Romney:

“White hot GOP race down to two mentally ill people and person who lost nomination last time.”

It’s a joke. 🙂

tODD,

George W. Bush vs B.O.?

Most people in this country wish GW was still President, and not this guy that doesn’t have a clue.

To Steve @ 40.
Can you point me towards a poll to support your statement that “Most people in this country wish GW was still President”? I don’t think that statement of fact is true, but I may be wrong as I don’t pay much attention to polls.

Hmm, Steve, not sure about that. Lookie here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-gfk-poll-more-see-country-headed-in-wrong-direction-but-bush-gets-more-blame-than-obama/2011/08/25/gIQAXd9wcJ_story.html

Here’s a quote from the poll:

“And more Americans still blame former President George W. Bush rather than Obama for the economic distress. Some 31 percent put the bulk of the blame on Obama, while 51 percent point to his Republican predecessor.”

Google “Bushisms” and find out what clueless sounds and looks like. It’s even a well-known term now. I know what a Bushism is, don’t you?

tODD @15:

Not really, although he gave her plenty of legitimate grounds, with all his escapades. I just meant that she is an ambitious woman, but without a teammate like Bill she’d still be practicing law in Little Rock. So, if she wanted to get ahead in politics, she had to swallow all the humiliation she must have felt at the many bimbo eruptions and stick with him.

Now that I think of it, when a spouse has been betrayed as many times as Hillary has been, and the only reason she stays married is for cynical ambition, maybe divorce would have been the better course. But I really haven’t thought that through.

Kerner,

Have you ever considered that she actually loves the guy? It seems obvious they are both ambitious, but so? Is that necessarily bad? And why do you think she would still be in Little Rock? Just because of who she did (or didn’t) marry? She’s obviously not stuck there, and besides, you admit she’s ambitious. I don’t get how you slice the ambition factor there – hers versus his – just because he was president and she helped him get there.

People marry for all kinds of reasons. Are they always so noble and perfect? Certianly not. And why isn’t it seen as a virtue (or less ambitious) to have supported a spouse’s career rather than pursue one’s own. There are leaders who are good at helping others achieve, not just bosses who tell others what to do and have the biggest ego in the room. In my experience, those are the most successful ones, when they can bring out the best in others. Maybe that is what he has done for her on some level, just as she has done that for him.

If not Bill, then someone else perhaps. But it’s kind of a silly argument. How could we ever know? Regardless, she’s not completely inadequate as a diplomat it would seem.

Haven’t seen any such polls.

But looking at where we were, and where we are…and what B.O. has done to make matters worse…I’d bet $ on it.

SK (@24), you have only confirmed to me that “gravitas” is a meaningless placeholder onto which one projects one’s gut feelings. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I think labeling it as such is a tad misleading, even if everyone does it.

Steve B. (@27), you said:

You asked me for a reason to believe Clinton wouldn’t be more hawkish, but other than campaign rhetoric … what reason to you have to believe that she would?

Well, I still think my attempting to infer positions from campaign rhetoric beats your … um, what was your evidence again? Are you positing a deeply cynical worldview in which everything said in a campaign, by whomever, is completely false and tells us nothing about what they truly believe? If you are, you have bigger issues than this discussion. But assuming you aren’t, then I think extrapolating out from the different war positions staked out by Obama and Clinton in 2008 isn’t all that crazy. Or do you believe that all Presidents are — and always will be — bellicose to the exact same degree?

Steve M. (@40), I like how you write “B.O.” It makes me giggle. It’s almost as funny as the word “poop”. Poop poop poop poop poop poop. Man, that’s good humor. Anyhow, I’m sure you have some actual facts to back up your assertion there. It’s not like even many conservatives have thrown Bush under the bus at this point.

Kerner (@43):

The only reason she stays married is for cynical ambition, maybe divorce would have been the better course.

Wow, Christian charity and Christian marital advice, all in one sentence!

Also, there are too many people named Steve/Steven/Stephen commenting on this blog.

I’d like to call a plenary Thunderdome session for all people so named. Four (or more) Steves enter, one Steve leaves. There can be only one!

I may be mixing my allusions.

Kirk @ 21
“God is a Republican”

If that were true, I couldn’t even say, “GOD, help us!”

Kerner @ 43
The people will stand for any number of divorces and other shennigans from men…. the Kennedys numbed us to all that.
The one thing Hillary could not do, being a woman, was get a divorce. Everything Bill did would immediately have been “her fault” and she couldn’t be elected dog catcher.

Guys, guys. I’m not saying that I know whether Hillary loves Bill in some fashion. And I’m not really even saying she should divorce him. And I concede that the two of them have an understanding as to their political teamwork. Bill has helped Hillary advancefrom his position of ex-president; something he didn’t have to do, now that he has gotten his own benefit of the bargain. I’m thinking out loud here, not trying to pass judgment on their motives for getting married. I’m not even saying that Hillary is an incompetent Secretary of State.

I’m just saying that Hillary as an individual, needed sebody like Bill to team up with to get ahead in politics, because he has skills she lacks. And he might not have gotten nearly as far as he did without her. They made their bargain, and they both have prospered by it. George W. Bush and Karl Rove did the same thing. If I seem uncertain that such a relationship is such a great basis for a marriage, cut me a little slack. I plead guilty to being a little romantic, which is a recent philosophical movement that has nothing to do with Christianity.

tODD – you mixed Mad Max and The Highlander. Would make an interesting movie …

I voted Obama in 2008 (primary too, though that was a tough call for me, and Clinton eventually won my state anyway.)

I now believe that Clinton would have been a better president for these times. She is a tougher negotiator. Obama gives stuff away for free and then yields to bullying.

FYI, Dick Cheney went on record over the weekend on several shows stating that Hillary would have made a better executive and he thought our country would be in better shape with her at the helm.