Opinion Forum

Would Hillary Be Better?

October 15th, 2009

Disillusioned liberals yearn for Hillary Clinton by Chris Stirewalt in The Examiner speculates that many liberals must now be wishing they had gone with Hillary Clinton for president instead of Barack Obama.

Clinton charged during the campaign, including in the debates, that Obama’s health care reform plans wouldn’t result in coverage for everyone now without health insurance. She charged that Obama’s plan would result in 15 million people still without health insurance. Looking at what’s likely to come out of Congress, the number of people left uninsured will probably be about, well, 15 million. Worse, those who remain uninsured, for whatever reason, will face paying fines for being, well, uninsured.

Clinton’s alternative would have been simultaneously worse and more honest:

The weight of her mandate would have crushed businesses and young workers with a vengeance, but it would have been real, honest socialism. And everyone would have been covered.

With the mumbling, accidental socialism of Obama, the insurance companies get richer and the middle class gets to pay more for less care. And what the working stiffs don’t pay, senior citizens will sacrifice in the form of Medicare cuts.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are likely pleased that Clinton didn’t win — despite the damage Obama may well do to the country in both domestic and foreign policy:

…for most conservatives, Obama’s incompetence is his best attribute. While it’s true that the president may dither his way into more trouble in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he may prove no worse than Jimmy Carter when it comes to deliberately weakening America’s position in the world. As Ronald Reagan showed, America can be made strong again.

But conservatives know that they never would have had a chance with Clinton. Where Obama has overfilled his plate like a kid at Thanksgiving dinner and now stares at an unappetizing mountain of cold mashed potatoes, Clinton would have taken measured bites and finished the whole feast.

By the end of her second term (oh, yes), Clinton might have undone the Republican Party for good, turning it into a marginal force that could occasionally block the majority but never really rule.

Personally, I still prefer Obama over Clinton, although I don’t think either of them should have been president. That’s why I voted for McCain, a man for whom I have unlimited respect. He may be in questionable health and have an unusual number of personality quirks, but at least he’s an experienced leader with a good sense of the country.

I support President Obama, generally, because he’s the only president we have, and he deserves our respect and support. Increasingly, however, I find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh (with gritted teeth) in hoping that most of Obama’s policy initiatives fail. I’m not sure how a president can be successful while most of his policies fail to be implemented, but Obama may somehow manage it, as evidenced by the fact that most people still like him even though they disagree with his policy preferences.

I guess we’ll all find out in 2012 how it went for Obama — and the rest of us.

Articles written by Tom Carter
Tags: health care, Hillary Clinton, Obama, uninsured
Categories: Politics | Comments (11) | Home

11 Responses to “Would Hillary Be Better?”

Brian Bagent | October 15th, 2009 at 4:28 am

Speaking of Rush, did you hear about Sheila Jackson-Lee’s stupidity on the floor of the House yesterday? I wonder when it became the business of congress critters to publicly and officially profer opinions on who should or should not be able to buy or own a business. I nearly wrecked my van on the way to work when I heard that.

Posts about Rush Limbaugh as of October 15, 2009 » The Daily Parr | October 15th, 2009 at 4:43 am

[…] about Rush Limbaugh as of October 15, 2009 Would Hillary Be Better? – opinion-forum.com 10/15/2009 Disillusioned liberals yearn for Hillary Clinton by Chris […]

Tom | October 15th, 2009 at 5:17 am

Well, Sheila Jackson-Lee has never been one to skip an opportunity to make a fool of herself. A video of her remarks in the House is here. The good part starts at about 2:35.

She also referred to the possibility that Limbaugh might be a judge in the Miss American contest (I hadn’t heard that before). She stated that if a contestant were of a different color (words to that effect), she wouldn’t be a winner. The obvious implication is that Rush is a racist.

Rush apparently fired back pretty effectively on his show. I don’t doubt that more people heard his response than heard Jackson-Lee’s speech.

Brian | October 15th, 2009 at 6:29 am

True that. I still remember her confusion over the Mars explorer/Moon landings like it was yesterday. “Can you guys drive that thing over to where the flag is planted?” It would seem that her arrogance is inversely proportional to her IQ. No way she is any higher than about 90 or 95.

Kevin | October 15th, 2009 at 11:54 am

I’ve got a friend who, like me, is a former Republican. He’s a huge Hillary fan. And that, largely on the basis of healthcare. But he’s not very liberal. He is less liberal than I am, and I have never been a Hillary fan!

Make of that what you will. But I think it’s a mistake to couch Hillary supporters as “liberal”. Many are. But many aren’t.

doris | October 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Definitely not a liberal, but a real supporter of Hillary. A strong, intelligent and powerful woman, what’s not to like? I know how threatened most old white guys are by a powerful woman, not you guys, so I get why she lost. I do think it would’ve been better if she could rein in Bill. Only thing I dislike about her, her forgivness of his actions toward their marriage, plus her awful laugh. Couldn’t have been any worse than it is now, and you can bet she wouldn’t be sitting on her hands.

Kevin | October 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

Brian, I “get” why taking shots at Hillary’s IQ probably gets you laughs. But I’d bet good money that it’s a good 40+ points higher than you indicate.

Tom, while I am unable to divine the intentions in Rush’s heart, and thus don’t know for certain whether he’s a racist or not. But he certainly has used racist rhetoric. If you’ve followed the news coverage of his aborted attempt to become a minor owner of the NFL’s Rams franchise then you will already have read of several concrete examples of it.

I’m not sure how that makes him any better than Ms. Jackson-Lee. IMHO they’re both destructive influences who rely on race-baiting to score cheap political points with… racists.

doris | October 15th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

She has to be a whole lot smarter than that, Brian, look where she is. Look, too, where she got her husband. Apparently, her I.Q. got her where she is, not her good looks or her great abilities in the boudoir. If one dumb statement means you are stupid, or have a low I.Q., I guess we all do,especially George Bush, and me.

Tom | October 15th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

I think Brian was taking a guess at the IQ of Sheila Jackson-Lee, in which case I agree completely.

Brian Bagent | October 16th, 2009 at 12:52 am

Tom is correct. It was the Queen of 5th Ward that I was talking about. But as far as Hillary, I’d say that she is shrewd. That doesn’t necessarily mean she has a particularly high IQ, however. Certainly above average, but a higher order IQ usually has an incredible aptitude for mathematics. Her insistence on bloating government even more than it already makes me question just how high it might really be.

Harvey | October 16th, 2009 at 10:32 am

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be worse for our country than Barack Hussein Obama (mmm mmm mmm).

As for Hillary, I don’t believe she would have ignored the economy, as Obama has done and pitched us headlong into this Healthcare snafu. She seems like a “tough old broad” but seems to be pragmatic in ways that Obama can’t conceive of.