|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Would we be better off under a President Hillary Clinton?
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Candidate
|
| Contributor | Homegrown Democrat |
| Last Edited | Homegrown Democrat Nov 08, 2010 10:34pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Editorial |
| Author | Dana Milbank |
| Media | Newspaper - Washington Post |
| News Date | Monday, November 8, 2010 04:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | As I sat in the East Room last week watching a forlorn President Obama account for his shellacking, I listened with concern as he described the presidency as a "growth process" and suggested that the midterm setback was somehow inevitable. "You know, this is something that I think every president needs to go through," he said.
It brought to mind Hillary Clinton's 3 a.m. phone-call ad from the 2008 campaign, and her withering criticism of Obama: "When there is a crisis . . . there's no time for speeches or on-the-job training." I wondered whether Democrats would be in the fix they're in if they had chosen a different standard-bearer.
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. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
