Hindsight being 20/20, I do believe either she or McCain would have been the better President. Both look at the country more like most of us. They'd be trying to strengthen it from the damage done before rather than trying to change it to match an ideology of mediocrity.
Neither would have even thought about leading from behind. Actually I think McCain could have beaten Obama had it not been for Sarah Palin. She was a great good ole gal cheerleader, but her obvious lack of knowledge on all things global scared most of us to death. It still does.
But Hillary. I know how much I ranted that being the wife of a President doesn't necessarily qualify her to step into his shoes. Back to hindsight, having had Bill's back for so many years through so many experiences certainly educated her as to how the game should be played successfully.
The biggest complaint I remember hearing was having another 'two fer' and Bill in the White House as, to borrow from Palin, 'first dude.' It probably wouldn't have been all that bad. Just as she had been his advisor all those years, he'd then have been hers. He probably
is though we don't hear about it.
She doesn't have his charisma or charm. The 'aw shucks' persona to which we seem to be so drawn. It wouldn't work for a woman anyway. Consider Palin. It's fine, again, for a cheerleader, but not a woman dealing in what is mostly a man's world.
Yep. Hillary can hold her own with world leaders. Obama isn't doing so well. She has across the board appeal if somewhat strident. That could be perceived as strength in a woman. She'd bow to no one.
She's still a Democrat and I certainly am not enamoured with their policies these days. Yet I'd guess her emphasis would have been elsewhere, she'd have addressed the economy and the jobs problem long before now and perhaps best of all Nancy Pelosi would not have run roughshod over her.
Ahhh, hindsight. McCain is alive and well and little different than he was before he ran. My worries about his age and health seem to have been misplaced. Considering Palin would probably not have had the role as she would have wanted it to be, McCain would have approached matters far differently and he could have vetoed anything the Democratic congress tried to force feed us.
But what's past is past. What's current is current. Why is it I feel like I'm in the middle of a pool of quick sand?
2 comments:
The problem with this news is that Hillary's high approval ratings reflects more about her job, since she deals only with foreign policy, which most Americans are vastly ignorant of. During her husband's presidency, she was unpopular when she "meddled" in domestic policy, while only becoming popular during Clinton's second term because she focused more on foreign relations and especially when her husband humiliated her with the Lewinsky ordeal.
Had she become president, the Tea Party would have still existed and there would have been a lot of ugliness about a woman leader, and the old anti-Clinton machine that spent tens of millions of dollars to unearth every hint of scandal the Clintons might have been involved in. How quickly we forget that the rightwing had accused Hillary of murder, of being a lesbian, of making money through illegal insider information, etc.
It is funny to hear people now praise Hillary and wonder "what if..." Why don't people wonder, "what if...?" when it came to the 2000 election, when we could have had either Gore or McCain as president, both of whom would have been better for America than Bush had been.
We will never know, of course. And who knows? The stress of the presidency or an assassin's bullet might have killed McCain by this point and we would truly be living in a nightmare under President Sarah Palin.
I know what you mean, Mari. Hillery was my first choice. Bill always said she was smarter then he was anyhow. I think she would have made a very good president.
Post a Comment