Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
i disagree completely. but thats fine. him and hillary would be the best if they could run against each other. I'd feel comfortable with either of them in office. something like Huckabee vs Obama ugh. but of course Obama will get the Dem nom, I wonder if Hillary challenged him if she'd have a chance.
|
We've had this (or similar discussions) many times but I still don't really have a clear picture of what you think would be so different if Hillary had won in 2008. I think the overwhelming majority of the policy decisions would have been the same. It still probably would have been Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as the chief economic advisors, for example, and Hillary and Obama just aren't that far apart ideologically. Overall I prefer Obama to Hillary, but I don't see how their administrations would have been all
that different.
Same goes for the Republicans. Would a Newt administration govern in a dramatically different way than a Romney administration or a Pawlenty administration? I doubt it.
The character, intelligence, and overall makeup of an individual candidate is important, but I think most voters dramatically overemphasize the importance of these things. I thought Bill Richardson was a moron, for example. If he had actually won the nomination in '08, however, I still would have voted for him because ideologically he lines up more with me than the Republicans do. That's also why its so stupid when liberals act like the world would end if Palin became president. Why would it? Sure she's a moron, but her administration would probably not be much different than most other Republican administrations.