Clinton vs. Obama

[daveosupremo]

On which issues will President Hillary Clinton differ most from President Obama? On which issues will she move left, and on which issues will she move right?

Will she run to his right on environmental policy by approving the Keystone Pipeline and approving more permits for drilling on federal land?

Will she stop the dramatic cuts to the military?

Will she push single payer health care?

[IceSpear]

Hillary arguably ran to Obama's left on health care even in 2008, so I'm assuming that. She'll run to his right on foreign policy of course.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While Obama is certainly no liberal, Hillary is to his right on warmongering, Israel, fracking, outsourcing, and numerous other issues.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Not even trolling: considering the historical precedents of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ, when did everyone decide being a hawk/interventionist became an inherently "conservative" thing?  It had to be post-Iraq war, which is really lazy.

[BlueSwan]

Not even trolling: considering the historical precedents of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ, when did everyone decide being a hawk/interventionist became an inherently "conservative" thing?  It had to be post-Iraq war, which is really lazy.

True. If anything, from an ideological perspective you would assume a conservative (not a neocon) to take a realist position to foreign affairs, i.e. letting countries mind their own business unless direct US interests are involved, whereas you'd expect a liberal to take a more idealist position. This would entail a stronger focus on international cooperation rather than unilateral action, but it would also mean a greater penchant for intervening internationally to uphold human rights, etc.

Neocons represent the worst of both worlds, really.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Obama (or as the hysterics refer to it, 'warmongering')... but she's a lot more aggressive on issues like women's rights, healthcare and education. Plus I think she'd be more populist on economic issues... not that it's a good thing.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Obama (or as the hysterics refer to it, 'warmongering')... but she's a lot more aggressive on issues like women's rights, healthcare and education. Plus I think she'd be more populist on economic issues... not that it's a good thing.

A Democrat who doesn't want his/her party to embrace economic populism?  Uh, come on over...

[BaconBacon96]

Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Obama (or as the hysterics refer to it, 'warmongering')... but she's a lot more aggressive on issues like women's rights, healthcare and education. Plus I think she'd be more populist on economic issues... not that it's a good thing.

A Democrat who doesn't want his/her party to embrace economic populism?  Uh, come on over...

Huh. No thanks.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Obama (or as the hysterics refer to it, 'warmongering')... but she's a lot more aggressive on issues like women's rights, healthcare and education. Plus I think she'd be more populist on economic issues... not that it's a good thing.

Granted, being more populist than Obama on economic issues isn't a very high bar, but I don't see any evidence for it. I think she's more in the Cory Booker camp. Remember when Cory Booker criticized Obama for mentioning Romney's Wall Street ties?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Obama (or as the hysterics refer to it, 'warmongering')... but she's a lot more aggressive on issues like women's rights, healthcare and education. Plus I think she'd be more populist on economic issues... not that it's a good thing.

Granted, being more populist than Obama on economic issues isn't a very high bar, but I don't see any evidence for it. I think she's more in the Cory Booker camp. Remember when Cory Booker criticized Obama for mentioning Romney's Wall Street ties?

I think her comments over the past few months have been testing the waters for a 'more' populist message.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Obama (or as the hysterics refer to it, 'warmongering')... but she's a lot more aggressive on issues like women's rights, healthcare and education. Plus I think she'd be more populist on economic issues... not that it's a good thing.

A Democrat who doesn't want his/her party to embrace economic populism?  Uh, come on over...

Been there, done that, got the trauma and t-shirt to show for it.

[bedstuy]

Not even trolling: considering the historical precedents of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ, when did everyone decide being a hawk/interventionist became an inherently "conservative" thing?  It had to be post-Iraq war, which is really lazy.

You're wrong.  That trend developed during the Second Red Scare where anti-Communism fueled the idea that we needed to beat back communism militarily and needed a giant military to oppose the Soviets. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton is clearly more hawkish than Obama (or as the hysterics refer to it, 'warmongering')... but she's a lot more aggressive on issues like women's rights, healthcare and education. Plus I think she'd be more populist on economic issues... not that it's a good thing.

Granted, being more populist than Obama on economic issues isn't a very high bar, but I don't see any evidence for it. I think she's more in the Cory Booker camp. Remember when Cory Booker criticized Obama for mentioning Romney's Wall Street ties?

I think her comments over the past few months have been testing the waters for a 'more' populist message.

Which comments were these?

[pbrower2a]

Not even trolling: considering the historical precedents of Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ, when did everyone decide being a hawk/interventionist became an inherently "conservative" thing?  It had to be post-Iraq war, which is really lazy.

Neither Lincoln, Wilson, nor FDR wanted war, but got it anyway, and handled it as ferociously as necessary. The current President is on the brink.

There is no ideological defense of genocide for either a conservative or a liberal.

Paradoxically it may be the politicians who least relish war who handle it best.

[IceSpear]

Hilary will be an extension of Obama, which means an extension of Bush. Bush 3.0 at worst and Bush 2.0 (Obama) at best. She will be more dovish on WS, and more hawkish on foreign policy. She won't get make domestic issues a topic in her first term since she will probably have things on her plate like foreign policy, immigration, and the economy. She's also more pro-Israel

A Texas Republican complaining that the next Democratic nominee would be "Bush 3.0".

Only on Atlas...

[Mehmentum]

Funny, out of all the potential 2016 candidates, Clinton's not the one I would consider 'Bush. 3.0'.

Hint: It's Bush!