Obama’s First Year: Would Hillary Have Been that Different?

            Is the presidency of Barack Obama really all that different from the one Hillary Clinton would have had? 

            That question might not be all that important in the grand scheme of things as the president completes his first year in office next week.  But it is one that many who wildly supported Obama should be asking themselves. 

            The hypothetical comparisons, while entirely speculative, are not all that encouraging for those who really thought “CHANGE” meant things would be far different with Obama as president than they would with Hillary leading the way.

            Let’s start with the idea of bipartisanship.  It sounded so good during the campaign.  Obama came across to many voters, especially his most ardent supporters, as the kind of guy who could bring well-meaning folks with differing viewpoints together.  His biography, especially his tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review, suggested he was a master at breaking down defenses by offering humility instead of machismo.

            And, to his credit, he tried, perhaps more than Hillary would have tried.  But let’s not forget that for all the supposed hatred that surrounded her political persona, Hillary was greatly respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle during her eight years in the U.S. Senate.  She probably had a better bipartisan track record there than Obama had amassed in his shorter four-year stint.

            But let me not digress, because whatever skills either of the two has in this area, they would both probably have been met with the rigid opposition the Republicans have thrown at Obama. 

           To state the matter simply and directly, the Republican Party has been a complete embarrassment to the concept of bipartisan governance for the last year.  It has taken on the strategy best espoused by its de facto leader, Rush Limbaugh, of seeking to assure that Obama fails.  (“I hope he fails,” Limbaugh famously told his radio listeners in the first weeks of Obama’s term.)

             The result has been the emergence of a unified party that not only votes against any meaningful Obama initiative but seeks to throw roadblocks in front of those initiatives at every opportunity.  The Senate filibuster is the best example of this strategy. 

             Think about it: Other than for judicial nominations, when has the minority party in the Senate ever used the 60-vote requirement so consistently as we have seen the Republican minority use it this last year?

            Suddenly, a “tyranny-of-the-minority” rule controls the flow of business in the “less democratic” of the two Congressional houses.  (Senate seats are not apportioned by population as they are in the House.)  And the Republican leadership is enforcing that rule with remarkable efficiency.

             The result is a far less appealing health care/health insurance reform bill than would have been adopted with simple majority rule.  And because the will of the Senate must be satisfied for any bill to be passed, the health care “change” that we will see enacted early this year will be far less dramatic (and far more appealing to the vested interests in the status quo) than it would otherwise have been.

             Would Hillary have had any less success on this issue?  Would she have been any less effective at working with all 100 Senators?

             Ponder that one while we move to foreign policy.

             Obama won the Nobel Prize.  Good for him.  Hillary certainly would not have gotten that honor bestowed upon her (this early, at least).  But what did that award have to do with actual accomplishments?  The answer, in all honesty, is very little, as Obama himself humbly acknowledged in accepting the prize.

             But what Obama didn’t acknowledge is that not only didn’t he deserve the award, but he was, at the time he accepted it, as much in lockstep with George W. Bush (a president who, it may safely be assumed, would never be considered for any kind of peace prize) as Hillary Clinton would ever have been.

             Would Hillary be doing anymore than Obama in Iraq?  Not likely.  Both would have accepted the Bush deal to have all combat forces withdrawn in 2011.  Would Hillary be doing anymore than Obama in Afghanistan?  Probably not.  She has the same hawkish tendencies he has shown, tendencies that Obama hides better, but the facts speak for themselves: Obama has doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan since he took office, has continued the drone missile attacks in Pakistan, and has been just as belligerent in his actions (if not his words) as Hillary would have been in all his foreign policy decisions.

             Still not convinced?  Let’s consider a few other “change” opportunities Obama has had on his plate.

             Homeland security was an area that cried for change.  Better intelligence coordination would have prevented the Christmas bomber fiasco, as Obama himself has finally admitted.  Would Hillary have been any less vigilant than Obama and his charges in that effort?  And could Hillary have selected a more tone deaf cabinet Secretary than Janet (“the system worked”) Napolitano?  Shades of “Brownie” without the flood, thank God.

             What about gay rights?  Surely Obama, the first minority president could have repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell” by now.  Any doubt Hillary would have been any slower in doing so?

             And then there’s the economy.  Let’s see, we have Larry Summers running it, in a new position especially created for him.  Summers is a bright guy, no doubt, but isn’t he the same fellow who was Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary?  Bill Geithner is also supposed to be a bright guy, although most of us are still looking for clues to verify it.  Would Hillary have chosen any less “change-oriented” folks to direct the nation’s economy?

             And who, exactly, has the Obama domestic policy team helped?  We’ve had bailouts for the banks, for the big auto makers, and for the wall street tycoons, but the little folks, the ones who really need change, are still struggling, still trying to figure out why the harder they work, the more behind they get.

             Would Hillary have done any less for them?

             Bottom line, did we get what we bargained for?  I’m just asking.