General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho would have been better than Obama?
For those who think president Obama has not done a good job, I have a question. Who else who ran back in 2008 from the democratic party would have been better, and why? Assume that everything else would be the same, such as the same congress, republicans winning the House in 2010, etc.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)I can't think of anyone who would have done a better job than the fine job President Obama has done, given the conditions in which he has to work.
Someone will mention Kucinich shortly. That despite his inability to win even a single primary election.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)MineralMan
(146,320 posts)geomon666
(7,512 posts)He didn't ask who would win. He asked who would do a better job.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)I hadn't thought of that, of course. Kucinich was never really in the race, though. Someone has to win to become President, so really the only ones to consider are those who had a chance of that. Each election is its own thing.
brooklynite
(94,657 posts)...having the "right" positions is worthless if you can't get them implemented.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)Maybe someone who knows him better than I do can answer. He wasn't a factor long enough for me to look that closely.
He has a beautiful wife, though. That's an asset for a presidential candidate, for sure.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)so many posts here constantly 'splainin' why Obama can't get anything done because of Republicans, how we need a 60 vote majority, blahblahblah this, that, and the other things?
Not having the "right" positions is far more worthless if you can't get them implemented.
And having totally wrong positions, and getting them implemented, is worse than worthless, less than zero destructive.
A great place to start from as a leader is being honest, being aware of the right things to do, and doing your absolute best to try to do the right things. Because doing the wrong thing is just...wrong. I believe we'd still have that huge majority in the House we lost in 2010, probably a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and Medicare for all if Rep. Kucinich had been elected in 2008.
by Dennis Kucinich
October 31, 2002
Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States.
There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
http://www.progressive.org/node/1424
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who wins, and anyone who opposes Wall St. Corruption, our illegal wars and supports our Social Safety nets and a National Health Care system will not receive corrupt, Corporate money.
But the question wasn't who CAN win, but who would have been better, which I take it means on the issues important to Democrats.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)What could he have done to make things better than they are now?
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)I liked him as a member of Congress. I'm sad that he's not there any longer. I never saw him as a viable Presidential candidate, though. He simply wasn't.
In 2008, it was going to be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Obama won. I doubt if Hillary would have done a better job, either.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)MineralMan
(146,320 posts)I can't remember.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)a John Edwards southern type without a lot of skeletons in the closet
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)He might be one in 2016, though. We'll see, sometime early in 2015, when candidates begin their initial exploratory campaigns.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)southern governor, nice family etc.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)Things will begin to play out after the mid-term elections this year, which is where my efforts are going. I'll think about 2016, starting on November 12, 2014. Until then, I'm only marginally interested in 2016.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)hopefully with a Democratic majority in both houses of congress
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)It's impossible to know who would have been "better". We only know Obama's words and deeds and he will be measured by them.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)I expect that history will treat him very well, indeed. I also expect that you will not agree.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)on some ridicule.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)How's that sound?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)including his love of wall street, spying, and torturers. How's that sound?
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)I'll praise him for his actual accomplishments that moved things forward. No President gets 100% praise from me, and I don't expect success on every issue. So far, I've never seen that happen, and don't expect to, either.
I'm an incrementalist, by nature. Experience has taught me to expect incremental improvements, not universal success. Your mileage may differ.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Yours isn't an excellent answer either.
Seems to me that if so many can't stand this president, they should be able to say who else that ran back in 2008 could have done better under the same circumstances.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)All we can do is project our expectations. Fallacy 2: People who are critical of some of Obama's positions "can't stand this president".
Andy823
(11,495 posts)No we can't know who would have done better, but for those who constantly condemn everything the president does, who blame him no matter what, and those who seem to think he has accomplished "nothing" since being elected, I would just like to know if they think someone else would have been able to do better.
As for your second point, there are a few on this site that do fit into that group, they just can't stand the guy for whatever reason. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, they know who they are.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's like saying OxyClean must be the best detergent the world has ever seen, because Billy mays convinced you to buy it Salesmanship and product performance are completely unrelated.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Al Gore
More than a few others.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)Kerry's?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Joe Lieberman?
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)The OP asked who'd be better from the Democratic side.
IMO, either of those two would have picked up on the nation's not-so-subtle demands for change from wars for profit without end and welfare for Wall Street.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)Given the same conditions Obama faced, I doubt there would have been much difference at all. Circumstances often shape a presidency, and circumstances were far, far from ideal for major changes. I'm pleasantly surprised at the changes that did take place, given the circumstances, especially after the 2010 election.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You may be right, I don't know. I do know I hope that they would have.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)The problem with going after them has to do with the continuity of government. Prosecuting a President and members of an administration is something that no President would take on, I believe. Such a prosecution would create a crisis in government that might never be recovered from.
Presidents have broad discretionary powers, especially with regard to military operations. To prosecute a former President or Vice President or cabinet members for such things just isn't something that any President is likely to do. Politically, it would be disastrous in a country so equally divided politically as the United States.
So, no, I don't believe anyone capable of being elected President would initiate any such prosecution. It has never happened, and is unlikely ever to happen. Reality is real.
Would such a prosecution be deserved? Certainly. Would it succeed? Almost certainly not. Would it cause extreme disruption in our political system? Absolutely it would. So, it hasn't been done and won't be done. No President will ever do it. We are too closely divided in this country for such a thing to happen, and I don't see that changing in any of our lifetimes.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I asked who would have better who "RAN" in 2008.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Of those who ran in 2008, I like Mike Gravel.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)So, I stood near him when it comes to how the nation should run.
Sen. Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
In the process, Gravel helped end Vietnam War.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)By now I'm convinced that US foreign policy is indelibly fixed, regardless of what administration is fronting for it.
Uncle Joe
(58,378 posts)as his running mate.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Wish they had.
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)The same craziness would have been saddled on any other non-Republican.. this President has handled it as best as could have been with what he had to work with.. All the wishful thinking aside of some one with God like powers who could "crush" the machine that had been put in place.. I am amazed at all President Obama has been able to accomplish..
riqster
(13,986 posts)Carter, Clinton, Obama...Teapubbies think they have some sort of divine right to the White House, and attack any Dem who wins it.
Obama was not and is not my fave, but he has done an admirable job in the face of an extreme and constant Repub barrage.
Iggo
(47,561 posts)And you're right. Assuming we had the same fucked up result of the '10 mid-terms, we'd have the same gridlock we have now.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)What could he have one that would have made things better today?
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)or be nothing more than a ceremonial one term president.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)President to do, and Democrats would have maintained their majority in the House in 2010 and thereafter, and would probably have elected and maintained a 60 vote majority in the Senate. 2010 was the key; we lost our shot at an FDR type Democratic dynasty because Obama is simply too conservative, and did not attempt to tackle the issues that were important to dear to the hearts of a Democratic base that was hungry for progressive change after the fascist horrors of the Bush years.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/most-independent-voters-arent-really
We wanted to see a strong attempt at undoing the damage of the Bush years. We got lots of rhetoric instead and futility instead. People were disappointed because they did not see much of an attempt made to solve the real problems that they wanted to get solved. When we saw that our concerns were only going to be minimally addressed, we lost enthusiasm. And the stupid voters among us, as stupid voters will always do when they don't get instant gratification, did not vote. Bad strategy, bad policy, terrible long game by Democrats. They should have all crushed republicans into submissive compliance on day one, instead of asking them to the prom, and then acting so surprised when republicans raped them after the dance.
Just read progressive posts on DU between 2009 - 2010, and you will get a clear picture of why we were slaughtered in the 2010 election, an event that led to what has been, to a large degree, a type of lame duck presidency for Obama.
I'm a lifetime country girl, and one thing every country raised person knows better than anything else:
You gotta make hay while the sun shines if you want to survive.
If you don't make hay before the rain, your hay is useless for feeding the critters or selling for cash, and all you have left is straw that's only good for mulch or bedding.
Now, I'm not saying that Obama hasn't gotten anything of value at all done, he's been pretty good on some civil rights issues, and I am grateful for this. It's just that Kucinich would have done so much more. Kucinich would have made an attempt to subjugate Wall St., and neutralize some of their power.
And, we'd have Medicare for all right now, and private health insurance casinos would be out of business.
.
One of the biggest differences between Obama and Kucinich is that Kucinich is streetwise, and Obama is so naive he actually thought he would be able to work with republicans. Seriously duh. And Kucinich would never have appointed republicans and conservatives to anything, or let holdover republicans hang around and sabotage him. etc, etc,
Anyway, no use crying over spilled milk; it's useless. The problem is, most Democratic voters don't learn their lesson, and are propagandized into voting for whoever the 1% wants them to nominate, so we'll have another Third Way or New Democrat or DLC or whatever the hell they'll be calling themselves President next time around, except if some dumbass Democrats get disgusted and just give up and not vote, giving us a republican President, which will make the 1% even happier than a Third Way President.
And the status quo will be maintained. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, the drillers will keep on drillin', the banksters will keep on robbing us, unions will keep getting busted, politicians will keep on privatizing, and corporations will take even more control of the government and our lives, there won't be a damn thing we can do about it except cry in our cheap Chinese plastic bowl of dollar store mac and cheese.
Sorry if I came off as a bit sanctimonious.
BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)Yet.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Yavin4
(35,445 posts)Look, no Democratic President is ever going to get cooperation from the Republicans unless it's to give away even more tax cuts to the wealthy. That means that a Democratic president will need unanimous support from other Democrats in order to get anything done other than ordering a ham sandwich. To get that unanimous support , Obama, Kucinich, Clinton, the Tooth Fairy, whomever, is going to have make compromises.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is not a dictatorship. In fact, our government was architected to prevent lots of quick change. A party wanting to stop a President in his tracks can do it if they shed any pretense of wanting to solve the country's problems. That is today's GOP.
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)A Dem president is not going to get cooperation from the Republicans, even where it makes sense to do so. So, a Dem president needs 100% support from his own party, and the Dems are not 100% united.
edhopper
(33,597 posts)was followed in 2008-2010, that the Republicans would have taken the House. Especially in financial regulation and a President who backed Medicare for all.
Your question is who would be better and then you say it wouldn't have mattered in any political outcome. Obviously with your criteria, it wouldn't.
How about the question of if it was someone else, would we have kept the House, gotten better financial regulation, a bigger stimulus targeted at infrastructure instead of tax cuts, got closer to single payer, etc...?
I am not saying another politician would have accomplished this, but the question to everyone is what would have happened different, not, who if everything stayed the same.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)2010 was a debacle caused by a Democratic party that was not different enough to inspire the moderates to vote. We all voted, but they didn't.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)The question was if the circumstance were the same. I am sure that the president could have gotten a lot more accomplished if things would have been different. The problem has been the republicans fight him on every issue he wants to fix. So if things were the same who else would have done better?
edhopper
(33,597 posts)The criteria of your question says no other Dem would be different anyway, so why ask.
If the question is another politician did the exact same thing as Obama? What is the point of that, it is a silly question.
The real question is would another Dem have acted differently and then get a different outcome.
If the President's or another Dem as president's action were different in 2008-2010 could we have kept the House/ if that had happened the circumstances would have been vastly different.
Basically, I am saying the way you frame the question is leading and pointless.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)1 - Obama was offered a transformational role, it is debatable if he did step up on the plate or not. I was not impressed, but I have to be fair and mention how crazy the opposition is. Although I must state, that I was really unhappy with how he negotiated during 2008-2010, and lambasted him in many of his deals.
2 - Obama had International Acceptance by virtue of who they perceived him to be. It has created a huge surge of good will to the American International Relations for the first few months of his Presidency. I do not know who else would have had that type of good will. Perhaps Clinton, Gore or Kerry may have had a similar reaction, though not in the same magnitude. The magnitude given to Obama, was that he was given the Peace Prize even before having even a year as President.
3 - ALL of the candidates, would not differ in regards to International Wars(Particularly Iraq). Much of these things would have been dependent on the conditions on the ground. Relationships however, I see Kerry, Richardson and Clinton doing better.
4 - Clinton, would have the same problems, and from the looks of things, they have very similar positions on policy. However, the one plus she had was that she had enough of a political structure in place, that she would have been able to fill her cabinet faster, and make government work more efficiently through using those under her to run key positions. Many of these positions were left to be run by their current heads, which were holdovers from the Bush era. That was a massive mistake.
4 - Gore, may be more progressive than Clinton and Obama. He also has garnered quite the following during that time, which showed his capacity as a teacher and crusader. He may have done well, and probably the mid-point between Clinton and Obama, where...
He would have more International Support than Clinton, but less than Obama, while having a better grasp on filling cabinet positions than Obama, but less than Clinton.
That though his running mate in 2000 was Lieberman, by 2008, Lieberman has already isolated himself, and was considered pro-war. He would not have been the running mate of Gore. However, this is besides the point, since at no time whatsoever did Gore run in 2008. So he is not even up for consideration.
5 - Kerry would have been a great pick. He was a known quantity, but it is a shame what they have done to him. He may have been able to push legislation further, but chances are, he would have been steam rolled. I am not certain about his negotiation style.
6 - Biden. A little bit of a loose cannon, but the thing I like about him, is that he tries to look at what may have been the best possible situation. I think Biden would be my guy.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)Not much better, mind you. But better.
Primarily because she would have known what to expect from the Republicans and wouldn't have tried to play nice-nice with them for the first four and a half years of her Presidency.
I voted for Hillary in the primaries in 2008, and although I would love to get the chance to vote for someone more liberal in 2016, I'm willing to vote for her again.
(John Edwards was actually better on the issues than either Clinton or Obama, but, unfortunately, he was a train wreck of a person and was probably just telling primary voters what he thought they wanted to hear)
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)You have said why you she would have been better, that's what I was looking for.
meathead
(63 posts)I like the thrust of his positions:
End Poverty in 30 Years
College for everyone
Energy Independence and Stopping Global warming
National Service (instead of Selective Service & drafts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)I don't think God himself could end poverty in 30 years.
I'm having a hard time envisaging the legislation, during the "worst recession since the Great Depression," that would have been passed through Congress to assure college for everyone.
Energy Independence and stopping global warming: Obama has done as well if not better than any previous president on this score, insofar as he has been able to affect these things from the White House, without Congress. So I don't see where there would have been any improvement whatsoever under Johnny.
We do not have a draft currently (and haven't for more than 40 years), so I'm not sure why this one is even there.
Lastly, I can't believe anyone is naive enough to think that John Edwards, with the conservative record he had during his relatively brief tenure in the Senate and no previous public service at any other time in his life, really meant to or could accomplish any of this. And then there's that stuff about lurid affairs while your wife is dying of cancer. Oh, and using people's campaign donations to pay for the mistress. Jeezus folks, THIMK.
I bet you thought he was going to make the two Americas into one, too.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Obama was undoubtedly the best leader the Democratic wing of the Business Party had to offer.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I can't think of an example in politics either here in the US or abroad where a leader of state has survived the kind of opposition the GOP has thrown at Obama these last 6 years.
The closest I can think of is Bill Clinton, but I think Clinton at least had a year or two where they weren't at full insane mode. Clinton also had 60% or so popularity on which to fall back.
They were on Obama from his 30th day in office with the whole Tea Party anti-stimulus garbage.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)claiming that any other democrat would have been treated the same way as Obama is wrong imo. I have never seen such open racism been thrown around as after the election in 2008. I doubt that Hillary as a woman would have fared better. A western white male Democrat might have been able to achieve more, but that is pure speculation. Still, the hate against Obama is more than that against Clinton was.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)But even without the racism issue I really don't think republicans would have been any better about trying to fix the mess they and Bush left this country in.
I think Hillary would have had a tough time also because of how much the republicans hate her. Rush Limbaugh would have had a field day trashing her on a daily basis, as much or more than he trashes president Obama.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Not of 2008 candidates, anyway.
The problem people seem to have is that they think that a president is some sort of omnipotent god-king who should be able to just rule by fiat instead of having to deal with political realities.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Without the help of congress any president is going to have a tough time make changes, and for the life of me I can't understand why some here won't admit to that.
edhopper
(33,597 posts)who would have been a better general than Napoleon?
Assuming Denver still would have lost the Super Bowl finals, who would have been a better quarterback than Manning?
Other questions from the What's The Point Dept.
What about prosecuting people from Wall Street and the Bush WH, we can't consider that?
What about giving in and allow the Bush Tax Cuts to stand?
Do you see how useless your question is?
You may have a point, but is it any more useless than all the posts by those who blame everything on the president, or say he has been a "do nothing" president since he was elected? Or it anymore useless than saying he should have gone for single payer no matter what even if it meant keeping health care the same as it was? Or anymore useless than the posts that never seem to realize without congress the president can not change the things they complain about all the time?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
You were making a commentary about what you see ass unfair criticism of Obama. Not trying for any real responses .
That's legitamite.
I am unhappy with some of what Obama did. As you can see from my replies. But the Dems in Congress were equally at fault.
Iggo
(47,561 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)America is doomed.
malaise
(269,103 posts)and by some distance. That said until there is systemic change every American President is a hawk on foreign policy. Obama is just less hawkish than Bush or indeed Bill Clinton.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)TBF
(32,081 posts)which only shows you just exactly how fucked working people are.