Is Clinton to the right of Obama?

[°Leprechaun]

I think that she is. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

My biggest concern about her is that she made a terrible argument for voting to give Bush a blank check to start a pre-emptive strike against Iraq where the number of innocent deaths was conservatively estimated to be at least 100,000 so certainly it is logical to think that the number was six figures. There are so many reasons that she was wrong on that vote. Her current foreign policy views seem very misguided to say the least. She seems influenced by what is politically expedient in general. I can understand concerns about supporting Sanders, but at the very least a vote for Sanders is against Clinton.

Whether she is guilty of committing a crime, whether her husband is dishonest and did wrong things in his personal life, whether or not you like her, these are of little importance compared to the direction in which she could lead the country, which might not be good. Would she be better than the three remaining GOP candidates? That is a fair question. I will let the rest of you comment on what I have written.

One final thought before I turn it over to the rest of you. Whether or not Sanders can actually win his party's nomination is not the most important criterion on whether I should be supporting him as the only alternative to Mrs. Clinton. Let me say before finishing my final thought that all the distractions are just that distractions from where the five potential candidates will take this country.

Anyway, a vote for Sanders is a vote to pull Clinton away from potentially dangerous policy decisions. What matters is not whether he can get enough votes to be nominated; what matters is how his delegates will influence the party and one obvious way is the choice of Clinton's VP. If he gets enough delegates can he stop a 2000 type disaster which helped cost Gore the election (in my opinion). Carter's choice is a good example of a choice within the lines of the party's base.

(edit: ok not a polished essay, but I tried to make it easier to read by adding breaks between thoughts,  the point of the post was to post a number of pertinent ideas, but I simply posted my ideas without trying to make a perfectly written argument, just some ideas worth discussing, more of an outline of key talking points than anything else)

[Oakvale]

Paragraphs.

[Mr. Smith]

It depends on how hostile Congress is, how far the base's power goes , and what it takes for human right's in X third world country to be examined.

She's currently being forced to the left of Obama, but she could easily be further right if necessary.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

She's to the right of the President.

[Illiniwek]

Probably.

She could leave the presidency having accomplished more liberal stuff though compared to Obama, depending on what Congress looks like, what the state of the filibuster is, and how hard the Republicans try to obstruct her agenda.

[Ebsy]

Well, let's see. She ran to the left of Obama on nearly every issue in 2008, and she is certainly running to the left of Obama in 2016. People may feel deep in their hearts that she is some sort of neoliberal rightwinger, but I just don't think the evidence points to that being the case.

[RR1997]

Yes, especially on foreign policy.

I still like Obama better than Clinton though as someone who is on the center-right. Clinton is still pretty good (Obama is fantastic), and I hope she destroys Trump in the GE.

[Ogre Mage]

When they ran in 2008, Clinton was the one advocating for mandated health insurance coverage.  Obama was against it during the campaign and then changed his position as president so she was the one ahead of the curve.  Her college aid plan was larger and more comprehensive, suggesting a $3,500 tax credit, an increase in Pell Grants, and $500 million for on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for those who don't go to college, acknowledging the importance of noncollege education. Obama suggested a $4,000 tax credit.  She also had a more ambitious green jobs plan.

Clinton can only been seen as more conservative if strictly viewed through a foreign policy lens.

[°Leprechaun]

When they ran in 2008, Clinton's was the one advocating for mandated health insurance coverage.  Obama was against it during the campaign and then changed his position as president so she was the one ahead of the curve.  Her college aid plan was larger and more comprehensive, suggesting a $3,500 tax credit, an increase in Pell Grants, and $500 million for on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for those who don't go to college, acknowledging the importance of noncollege education. Obama suggested a $4,000 tax credit.  She also had a more ambitious green jobs plan.

Clinton can only been seen as more conservative if strictly viewed through a foreign policy lens.

The question in my mind is how important the issue of foreign policy is. I think that it is fair to say it will be a major concern (as it currently is) to many, and probably most, voters.

[°Leprechaun]

Don't forget, there is a big overlap between military spending and other economic issues.
There is plenty of waste in military spending and I would ask whether it makes sense for the
United States to carry the bulk of the responsibility in defending the world.

If the US were to ask other nations to contribute more, there would be more of a so called "peace dividend" that could be used for solutions to the many problems facing this country.

[Averroës Nix]

I've never understood the argument that there's much of an ideological difference between Clinton and Obama at all, one way or the other.

[RaphaelDLG]

I've never understood the argument that there's much of an ideological difference between Clinton and Obama at all, one way or the other.

Agree.

Maybe Clinton is marginally more conservative on social issues like gay marriage, gun control, abortion, etc, but there isn't a lot of daylight between them on most anything.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Ambition is certainly a part of her metrics, which is the case for virtually every politician. If she has a Democratic Congress, she will fight for the things she believes in that could be considered most left-wing; she will want something meaningful to be a part of her legacy, just like how Obama pushed for the Affordable Care Act when he had the chance, even though there were a lot more pressing short-term priorities at the time that, arguably, he neglected and even worsened in the pursuit of health care reform. The country has weathered the storm now, so in ten years' time all people will see is Obamacare. So the legacy projects are almost always worthwhile. Hillary will be "to the left" if she has a left-wing Congress.

If Congress is relatively Republican, she might appear to be a little more of a centrist because she'll fight for things she cares about and believes can pass.

I mean, a common hit against her is that she's flexible and too willing to make deals with the devil, but the truth is, that's what most people would want in a president. Not everyone is an idealogue. Can I peg down her ideology? Not completely? And that's fine. I'd rather see the country make up some ground than have a president who chooses to stubbornly fall on her sword out of some desire for "ideological purity."

[100% pro-life no matter what]

At heart, yes (I think Obama is really MUCH more liberal than he has ever admitted or than how he has governed)

Right now politically, no

[Likely Voter]

If the spectrum is a line with Bernie Sanders on the left and Ted Cruz on the right then Clinton and Obama would be well left of the center and pretty close to each other. She may be slightly left of him when you factor in all policies (social, domestic, foreign).  Her campaign is certainly geared to be running to continue Obama policies with a sprinkling of taking them further. 

[Virginiá]

Well, let's see. She ran to the left of Obama on nearly every issue in 2008, and she is certainly running to the left of Obama in 2016. People may feel deep in their hearts that she is some sort of neoliberal rightwinger, but I just don't think the evidence points to that being the case.

It's hard to really draw lines with stuff like this. I'd say at the very least, her agenda is no less liberal and probably more liberal than Obama's.

There is no point in trying to argue that she isn't some Republican-lite. So many people seem to have already made up their minds on her and on top of that, they are all using different metrics to determine how left-wing she is, combine that with people's preconceived notions of her being a closet conservative, and you get a uncompromising view of her not being a liberal.

[7,052,770]

Maybe overall she is a little, but she's well to his left on a lot of equality issues.

I don't think you'd see Obama demanding equal pay for the US women's soccer team, for example. I never saw Obama run should an openly pro-trans campaign either. I'm sure she's not more pro-racial equality, but she has emphasized it more. (Obama's probably had to downplay it a bit for strategic reasons.)

[Boston Bread]

Her platform is to the left of what Obama campaigned on in 2012 or 2008, although I'd partially attribute that to Bernie. I think she is personally more moderate, but is moving left because she feels that's where the party is going.

[Blair]

I think that she is. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

My biggest concern about her is that she made a terrible argument for voting to give Bush a blank check to start a pre-emptive strike against Iraq where the number of innocent deaths was conservatively estimated to be at least 100,000 so certainly it is logical to think that the number was six figures.

Pre-emptive? Saddam should have let the weapon inspectors do there job if he wanted to be safe from military action. The goal of Iraq wasn't to kill civilians; and yes the number of civilians who died was
awful, although the majority ( I assume) where killed by the Pro-Saddam Militias, and other extremist groups in the region

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really; like most politicians and most people her views have changed. The accusation that she does what's politically expedient is well lacking in truth-her supporting Libya as SOS, her refusing to back away from the Iraq vote in 08, her refusing to commit to universal healthcare in '16
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it would be, I'm fine with conservatives opposing her on this basis but how can any progressive argue she wouldn't be good.

+Implementing Gun Control
+Stopping the deportation of undocumented children
+Passing a national LGBT rights bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the most important criteria is who is best to be Commander in Chief, we're electing a President not a student Councillor offering a new swimming pool. Sanders has virtually no desire to understand foreign policy issues at all (even climate change ffs)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates haven't picked a VP at a convention for ages

[Lief 🗽]

Clinton clearly ran to Obama's left in 2008 (even if the media ignored this). She had a stronger Wall Street regulation plan (while he mostly ignored the issue), her healthcare plan was more progressive, etc.

And she's running considerably to his left this year. Her platform is way more progressive than either his 2008 or 2012 general election platforms.

But Obama is a cool black guy while Hillary Clinton is a sketchy bitch, so of course the misogynist Bernie bros ignore all of this.

[IceSpear]

Clinton clearly ran to Obama's left in 2008 (even if the media ignored this). She had a stronger Wall Street regulation plan (while he mostly ignored the issue), her healthcare plan was more progressive, etc.

And she's running considerably to his left this year. Her platform is way more progressive than either his 2008 or 2012 general election platforms.

But Obama is a cool black guy while Hillary Clinton is a sketchy bitch, so of course the misogynist Bernie bros ignore all of this.

Not to mention Obama explicitly ran as a "post partisan unifier." It was like one of the major themes of his campaign. Not that Hillary exactly ran an "I welcome their hatred" campaign, but it was still a clear difference.

Honestly, young leftist white men and the sexist biased media already immediately decided that Obama was a radical left winger to fit their own preconceived notions, and either ignored evidence to the contrary or figured he was just faking it to get elected. Then when he didn't turn into the reincarnation of Malcolm X immediately upon being elected like in their wet dreams, these same groups threw endless temper tantrums about it. Similarly, they knew, deep down inside, no matter what she actually said, the sketchy bitch was a far right neoliberal warmonger. Nothing could ever possibly convince them otherwise, because their beliefs are not based on anything concrete, just their sexist-tinged gut feelings. Bernie represents the purity they didn't get with Obama, which is why they're going even crazier for him than they did for Obama. But even if Bernie somehow won the presidency, they'd probably turn on him within a few months of his inauguration for not overthrowing the government and starting a left wing utopia.

[Blue3]

Obama ran to the right of Clinton and Edwards in 2008.

[Higgs]

She certainly isn't campaigning like it, but in reality? Probably yes.

[Santander]

Clinton clearly ran to Obama's left in 2008 (even if the media ignored this). She had a stronger Wall Street regulation plan (while he mostly ignored the issue), her healthcare plan was more progressive, etc.

This.

If anything, foreign policy is what will win Clinton the election. Yes, she's made mistakes and yes, she's dishonest, but she has the knowledge and experience to competently run the country. The same cannot really be said about any other candidate since Jeb dropped out.

[ScottieF]

Only on foreign policy. On everything else they're pretty indistinguishable; if anything, she's maybe a bit to his left.

She's obviously running in 2016 to the left of Obama in '08 or '12, though.