Dana Milbank: 'Would We Be Better Off Under a President Hillary Clinton?'
By Noel Sheppard | November 07, 2010 | 00:06
After a stinging defeat at the polls Tuesday, liberal media members are rethinking the horse they backed in 2008, what with the economy struggling, unemployment near 10 percent, and the Democrats suffering their worst loss in a midterm election since before most of these so-called journalists were born.
It was therefore not at all surprising to see Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank waxing nostalgic in his Sunday piece about whether or not we'd all be much better off if Hillary Clinton had been elected president two years ago:
Would unemployment have been lower under a President Hillary? Would the Democrats have lost fewer seats on Tuesday? It's impossible to know. But what can be said with confidence is that Clinton's toolkit is a better match for the current set of national woes than they were for 2008, when her support for the Iraq war dominated the campaign.
Milbank's loyalty is touching, isn't it? So's his imagination:
Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children's coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.
Hillary Clinton settle on comprehensive healthcare reform? Really? Is that what we saw her do when her husband was president and her arrogance on Capitol Hill ignited an uprising that led to Gingrich and Company taking over Congress in 1995?
But Dana's delusions didn't end there, for next he made the case that Hillary's economic initiatives might have subdued the housing crisis.
Her "good relations with Wall Street" as well as her being "the heir to her husband's donor base" would have provided her "more executives in government - envoys who would have been able to ease the uncertainty about tax and regulatory policy that has been crippling business."
"Most important, there can be little doubt that, whatever policies emerged, she would have maintained a laser focus on the economy."
Little doubt? Based on what?
Milbank didn't say. Instead, he concluded by claiming Obama could easily re-instill the confidence the public has lost in him simply by doing "what Hillary would have done."
He makes a fine Monday morning quarterback, doesn't he?
Yet, nowhere in his piece was the name John McCain mentioned. Mightn't his economic campaign promises as well as his Wall Street connections likely have proved better for what's financially ailed us than Obama's plans?
Milbank didn't consider that. No, this column was an ode to Saint Hillary.
Could be Dana was floating a trial balloon about a new book on the current Secretary of State.
Mightn't be a bad idea. After all, that would have to sell more than his recent literary failure “Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Teabagging of America” which, according to Politico, has been flying off the shelves like umbrellas in a desert.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
She could be right about the first quote Noel
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:26am.
We probably would have been better off with Hillary. Heck we would have been better off with Howard Stern than the bumbling mess we have in the WH right now.
Right, Shawn.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:46am.
They didn't back a "horse" in '08. They backed a complete and total jackass!
Hillary is a conservative when compared to the rat bastard Fascist SOB now touring India.
Hillary, conservative by comparison?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:37pm.
Hardly so. Just look at two of her recent experiences:
Last month: Honoring Ramadan at the State Dept by hosting a muslim-only dinner for muslim youth. Never did that for Christians. Or the Boy Scouts, did she?
Last week: The worst thing that could happen: Subjecting the US to the UN's Human Rights Council "Universal Periodic Review" by Iran, Cuba, Venezuala, and other despotic countries. “Our taking the process seriously contributes to the universality” of the human rights process, one State Department official told Fox News. “It’s an important opportunity for us to showcase our willingness to expose ourselves in a transparent way” to human rights criticism.
One of the Human Rights complaints? -- That the US mistreats women. This complaint comes from Iran, who is about ready to stone a woman to death for a crime of adultry.
And here's the demand from the UN -- that the Hillary's State Dept is seriously considering: All these treaties and conventions should be “self-executing,” meaning that no subsequent U.S. government action should be required for them to go into effect—regardless of the U.S. constitutional separation of powers, and the separation of powers between federal and state governments. In other words -- the United States must subject itself to international law, and thereby void any and all national laws -- including the Constitution.
No -- I don't think Hillary Clinton is conservative by any measuring stick.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Dana Milbank...
Submitted by AgentAmerican on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:27am.
Dana Loesch wants her first name back.
Gee, Noel, you suppose, just for a moment, our friend Dana Milbank has second thoughts concerning his fetish...errr...admiration for Barack Obama?
Duh.
He's like the person on twitter who still doesn't have a clue why those porn stars won't tweet him back...heh.
I personally think taht a
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:37am.
I personally think taht a McCain /Palin Presidency would be better than a hillary one. But we might be as bad off because McCain was not all taht far from a democrat.
Ok Picture caption
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:41am.
which is "Dumb and Dumber"?......just had to go there....cause the thin skinned trolls will be calling ME Hitler. I'M BALD THAT'S OFFENSIVE enough so bite me..been that way since .....life is offensive...get over it..damn(Oh no shawn and Jer will be on my a$$$ about it.....woooohooooo). Live my life........nobodys' is free and easy...tough it out!!!! I'm just sayin'...Perfect for "D & D"......
"Socialists eventually run out of other peoples' money"...Margaret Thatcher
G
We would have been better off
Submitted by Thoreau on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:45am.
We would have been better off with a wet rag as President. Which may not mean Hillary is a clear improvement, but I think it could be close.
I'm not going to get involved with this Danse Macabre with the Democrats/Communists. They are all scum. Just different parasites sucking off of everyone else at a different speed. The end result is the same.
The Democrats are now searching for their new hope for collapsing our Country. Let's make sure that after the mid term elections, they don't get up again. We have real problems to deal with. They can play with themselves or get tossed in the ocean for all I care.
We need to restore this Country to Constitutional law or it will fall apart. Hillary isn't the solution. She's just another boil on the crotch of a herpes infection.
The only "tool" in her toolkit is her husband
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:12am.
Bill Clinton is a tool and a half.
We would not be better off. We'd merely have a different mix of problems.
Not even a different mix
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:15am.
We'd have the same problems; all we would have in addition would be a huge hanky bill for the White House as she blubbers about how unfair someone is to her. Putting Hillary in as President would be like making Michelle Obama President. You would have a smile to your face, and a knife in your back.
Dennis Prager
and liberal journalists and
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:31am.
and liberal journalists and talking heads, instead of crying "racism" would be claiming that the people who didn't support her in her bumbling, were doing it out of sexism.
BTW, Milbank is now proposing that a woman would have done better than a (half-) black man.
Can't you just see his brain exploding from the strain of trying to deal with the dilemma?
Keep This In Mind
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:55am.
The left got behind Obama very early on for one simple reason, his race. Being an African-American meant they and their cohorts in the dinosaur media could say, nay, scream "RACISM" anytime anyone leveled any criticism no matter how true or on point that criticism might be.
Further, they were able to successfully "sell" Obama as a non-political or non-Washington insider candidate--something we clearly know him not to be. Add in that then-candidate--and now President--Obama never left home without his trusty teleprompter. That meant he rarely strayed off message and let slip the real truth about his motives and desires and it becomes clear that the wool was pulled over the American people's eyes.
As we here all know, if any left wing type like Obama were to be honest about their desires for where they want to take the country, they would not last much past the first few primaries.
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
All Liberal Questions Answered.
Submitted by Retired Geek on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:13am.
Liberal Progressives do you want to know EXACTLY what happened in the 2010 Election?
Democrats are you wondering how America is ACCEPTING 'Hope and Change'?
Barack Obama supporters do you want to see the FUTURE for Obama's Policies?
The answer to all of these questions are answered for you and MORE in just 10 Seconds on my Blog.
http://thpatriots.blogspot.com/2010/11/retired-geek-demplosion-liberatio...
John McCain would have been little better
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:13am.
McCain would have been little better. Given that he is more liberal than George Bush, and he was in agreement with the TARP spending (Bush's SOT actually changed it from Troubled Asset to bail out the banks; Geithner just continued the mess) I don't see any candidate (especially not Huckabee, who is a political liberal and social conservative).
The real problem is that the American people put into play the perfect storm. The megalomaniac Nancy Pelosi pushed her Soros-developed ruinous economic agenda through Congress, Harry Reid and his cabal essentially rubber stamped it, and Barack Obama signed it as though he was signing basketballs instead of legislation to affect the economy of the free world.
Meanwhile, the same Secretaries of State that are parts of the Soros' Secretaries of State project are still there, ready to damage again.
Dennis Prager
No, we would not. Next
Submitted by wiwf on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:00am.
No, we would not. Next question.Hell No!
Submitted by Patriot II on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:33am.
We would be better off without ANY of them! Didn't we have enough corruption, immorality and outright bovine excretions from the clintons before...you idiots want more of that trash???
15 yard penalty
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:27am.
NO, NO, NO these a-hats are not allowed to do this.
WE WARNED THEM about his lack of any executive experience, ANY real world experience and we WARNED THEM using his actual uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh words and uh, uh, uh thoughts and uh, uh, uh ideas.
But they were so smarter than us and were racists REMEMBER?
NO, THEY DON'T GET TO DO THIS NOW.
Eyes wide shut
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:40am.
It's 9:40 on Sunday morning and the last thing I want to think about is being under Hillary Clinton!
NO . . .
Submitted by Kylerk on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:10am.
Hillary has the exact same ideology as Obama, and is another Alinskyite who would have employed the exact same methods to implement that ideology. We would have seen the exact same policies being pushed, and she would have shoved them down our throats in the same obnoxious manner.
The only difference - Instead of being called "Racists", we would all be called "Sexists".
Liberal trek?
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:49am.
That my friend is purely logical................. very spock like.
"Republicans and especially white men, can't handle a strong women and only are against her policies because they come from a woman".
So says WHOOPIE, Joyless, Katty, Armonpoortaste etc, etc, etc, etc
If you don't mind
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:44am.
i'd just as soon forego communism lite.
Correction.
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:26pm.
There is no such a bloody thing as Communism -light-.
And as was stated upthread, Rodham would simply be a different mask on the same dictatorial monster. with Fat Bill boinking a whole new generation of interns in the background.
I am hoping the Tea parties and LOCAL GOP groups RIGHT NOW are getting together who they want to go for 2012. We do NOT have time to lose.
My two bits
NVCon
That would be a sight to
Submitted by Captain Repus on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:52am.
That would be a sight to behold. A PMS torpedo running my White House from the west wing while her enabled spouse is playing lollpop games with the hired help in the pantry.
Makes me sick just thinking about the White House having to be fumigated once again.
Hillary in the White House
Submitted by Thalpy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:19am.
No.
It's odd (not really)
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 2:22pm.
It's odd how Milbank admits that if HRC were in office "it's impossible to know" if things would be different, yet virtually all of the MSM (in agreement with the administration, of course) keeps telling us things would be much worse were it not for BHO's bailouts and stimulus packages.
How can the one be "impossible to know" yet the other be a virtual certainty?
I know; it's not odd at all.
Hillary or Obama
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 2:29pm.
A distinction without a difference. They are two sides of the same coin, and we'd be just as screwed with HC. Communism is communism, no matter who is putting it into practice. And since HC is much less charismatic than Obama, the recent midterms may have been even worse for the Dems.
Yes. Hillary Would've made
Submitted by TCinAZ on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:18pm.
Yes Hillary Would've made a better First Black Female President. However, our First “Black President” and our then First Black First Lady, were “deemed and passed” Off as “RACISTS?” in South Carolina 08', if memory Serves Me. Whatsmore, MSNBC's Now indefinitely suspended Arbiter of what Is and Isn't allowable Speech (and Good Taste), later recommended that Someone, namely a Man, take her into a Room and Beat Her to within a inch of her Life for something that she'd said, that was admittedly Stupid.
So I'm terribly Sorry Dana, but even If she Were to run for President in 2012, One's Race Always Trumps One's Gender in the Democrat Party. Always. Meaning that she'd once Again end up on the losing end of things, by no fault of Ours. i.e, You'd better Check yourselves before you Wreck yourselves Doods!
Shrek...?
Much Thanks to Mrs. John Conyers for That one.
Yes, the jokes would have
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:52pm.
Yes, the jokes would have been better. Everyone knows that Jay Leno and others were forced to reevaluate their careers when the President became OFF LIMITS. You know, because Obama is black. However, no such rule exists for women (see Sarah Palin) and therefore we would still have comedians making us laugh.