Clinton faces promise, risk of being seen as 3rd Obama term

[webfact]

Clinton faces promise, risk of being seen as 3rd Obama term
By LISA LERER and KEN THOMAS

NORWALK, Iowa (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Iowa to give voters an intimate glance of who she'd be as president. What they got instead was a glimpse into the complicated relationship between the current inhabitant of the White House and the woman who hopes to follow in his path.

On a two-day swing through Iowa, the opening act of her 2016 campaign, Clinton embraced two of the most politically fraught planks of President Barack Obama's legacy: the health care law and the push for an immigration overhaul. But even as she cast herself as continuing the Obama administration's domestic policies, Clinton carefully drew a subtle contrast between her leadership and that of the president.

"I want to fix our political system. I want to get things done," she told small business owners, sitting between cardboard fruit cartons at a produce company warehouse in Norwalk. "We have to start breaking down the divisions that have paralyzed our politics."

The roundtable with small business owners reflected the pull-and-tug that Clinton will face as she attempts to extend Democrats' control over the White House to three straight terms, should she win the nomination.

It won't be easy: Historically, Americans have rewarded change after a party controls the presidency for two straight terms — Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were the only presidents to maintain control for three terms during the past half-century.

Her success will depend, at least in part, on how she walks the fine line between praising Obama enough to maintain the support of his loyal coalition, particularly the black and millennial voters who overwhelmingly backed his candidacy, and putting enough distance to woo independents frustrated with Washington partisanship.

Just days into her early campaign, that strategy is already on display.

While Clinton's kickoff video was an upbeat appeal to inherit the diverse coalition that twice elected Obama, at events in Iowa she took a more downbeat tone, describing the middle-class dream as slipping away from many Americans.

"Unfortunately the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top," Clinton said on Wednesday. "We need to reshuffle the cards and begin to play a different hand."

And she's cast herself as consensus builder, eager to seek political agreement, a gentle rebuke of the harsh partisanship that's characterized the Obama era. "We've learned a lot in the last few years," she said. "We're all just going to have to get around the table and get back to work."

In a remark Tuesday that could have come from a Republican, she said: "We've got to figure out in our country how to get back on the right track." Indeed, her campaign highlighted the comment in a press release later in the day.

Yet, she also vowed to "defend all those important changes" in the health care law and lamented the lack of immigration legislation, saying the U.S. is "turning down people who really want to work" — two key priorities of the Obama administration that Clinton, as secretary of state, had little hand in advocating.

Such comments are catnip for Republicans, who see Obama as the nightmare haunting her presidential dreams.

In polling conducted by CNN last month, 57 percent of Americans said their "perfect candidate" would be someone who changed most policies of the Obama administration. Already, Republicans are stressing the deep ties between the two, describing Clinton's candidacy as a "third Obama term." Shortly before Clinton entered the race on Sunday, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush released a video message deriding the "Obama-Clinton foreign policy."

On foreign policy, Clinton has magnified the differences between her positions and those of the president she served. She expressed public disagreement with the administration's early position against arming the Syrian opposition. Earlier this month, Clinton voiced cautious support for Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, though she remarked that the "devil was in the details." Previously, she said she was skeptical that Iran would abide by any deal struck with the U.S.

So far, the relationship with Obama has loomed far larger in Clinton's early campaign than an even more intimate tie. Former President Bill Clinton did not appear in her launch video and stayed in New York while his wife embarked on her road trip to Iowa. On Tuesday, he made no mention of her candidacy at a fundraiser for a health organization in New York City.

Obama, too, has kept largely mum about the details of Clinton's campaign, describing her to reporters simply as someone who would be "an excellent president."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-04-16

[jamesjohnsonthird]

People vote with their pocketbooks.

She needs to convince us we get 8 more years of this:

[thaibeachlovers]

Balancing act, can't split from Obama as will alienate those that love him, can't embrace him as will risk losing all those that hate Obama.

[kingalfred]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

[thaibeachlovers]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

So, like when the Dems controlled all 3 in Obama's first term. That didn't work out too well, did it .

At least, if the GOP controlled all three, they might bring out a budget.

[ezzra]

Her age, health condition, proximity to Obama, nagging issues from her privies posts,

and the fact that the last time she ran, an unknown black senator, with no name

and no clout in the political arena has pushed her aside to win, all that will be stacked

heavily against her.....

[Jingthing]

Her age, health condition, proximity to Obama, nagging issues from her privies posts,

and the fact that the last time she ran, an unknown black senator, with no name

and no clout in the political arena has pushed her aside to win, all that will be stacked

heavily against her.....

Funny the polls don't indicate that at all.

But it is still early.

As far as Obama beating her, there is nobody with the historic charisma of "early" Obama running this time or who even exists, on either side.

[oneday]

There are a number of ideologies the Democrats stand for that I am also for, but this bull-headed race towards socializing everything under the sun (health care fiasco) will be the death of us. This constant forgiveness of illegal immigrants certainly makes a shame out of what we expats have to do to get our GF's and actual wives to America. And nothing has been done about the deficit and worse yet, there seems to be no concern whatsoever to roll it back.

There are things the Republicans stand for that I do not like, but its time Republicans were back in office at least for one term to see what they can do to fix what the Democrats have screwed up.

[oneday]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

So, like when the Dems controlled all 3 in Obama's first term. That didn't work out too well, did it .

At least, if the GOP controlled all three, they might bring out a budget.

Absolutely correct. The Democrats seem to have no concern at all about the deficit. All they want to do is keep spending so they can keep getting elected.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

So, like when the Dems controlled all 3 in Obama's first term. That didn't work out too well, did it .

At least, if the GOP controlled all three, they might bring out a budget.

Absolutely correct. The Democrats seem to have no concern at all about the deficit. All they want to do is keep spending so they can keep getting elected.

The last Clinton balanced the budget and even had a surplus. No?

[thrilled]

National debt was 10 trillion when Bush left office.It went to 18 trillion in Obama's 8th year.Liberals like to spend.Under Clinton I could see it going up

8 million in 4 years.The U.S. Is bankrupt.It loves to spend money it don't have.The liberal congress loves spending the people's money.

With Republicans in control spending has slowed down.

[landslide]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

So, like when the Dems controlled all 3 in Obama's first term. That didn't work out too well, did it .

At least, if the GOP controlled all three, they might bring out a budget.

Absolutely correct. The Democrats seem to have no concern at all about the deficit. All they want to do is keep spending so they can keep getting elected.

The last Clinton balanced the budget and even had a surplus. No?

Bill Clinton faced a republican congress. To his credit, he had the ability to work across the aisle with the Republicans to get things done. Hillary does not have his political skills, nor his governing experience.

[Ulysses G.]

As far as Obama beating her, there is nobody with the historic charisma of "early" Obama running this time or who even exists, on either side.

Marco Rubio has more charisma, but he does not hide his ideology.

The reason Obama did so well is that no one knew what he was really about and most of the the press did little to vet him. I voted for him myself the first election, I am sad to say, but I could tell that he was arrogant from the beginning. I don't get that feeling about Marco Rubio at all.

[NeverSure]

The last Clinton balanced the budget and even had a surplus. No?

Not really. In his first term Clinton had a Republican Congress with the tough old bird Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House. Gingrich was a deficit hawk and to Clinton's credit he did have an ability to work across the aisle. Gingrich forced Clinton to adopt a balance budget without much animosity between the two.

In his second term the Dems ruled the roost and the country went into recession which Clinton left for GWB. Yes Dubya inherited a recession from Clinton and not long after was hit with 9/11. I'm not praising Dubya because I didn't like a lot of his policies.

During Clinton's presidency the country had a deficit for the last four years, and entered a recession toward the end.

FactCheck.org

Edited April 16, 2015 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

National debt was 10 trillion when Bush left office.It went to 18 trillion in Obama's 8th year.Liberals like to spend.Under Clinton I could see it going up

8 million in 4 years.The U.S. Is bankrupt.It loves to spend money it don't have.The liberal congress loves spending the people's money.

With Republicans in control spending has slowed down.

Actually the deficit may have about doubled under Obama because he still has just short of 2 years left.

Certainly it will have gone up by about the same amount as it did during all of the rest of the US presidents combined for more than 200 years. The deficit was just about 10 trillion dollars when Obama took office and it's more that 18 trillion today, and some people think he knows how to run an economy.

[Pinot]

Hillary is a slam dunk. Will America take an extension of the Obama presidency over another Bush administration?

I shudder at the thought of a teapublican presidency.

THE most important reason to elect a Democratic President is the selection of the next Supreme Court Justices. This Supreme Court with the Citizens United decision, gave the United States to the corporations. Corporations are people, right? These right wing justices have been the worst thing that's ever happened to America. It started with giving the Presidency to George W., and has just gone down hill since then. (DELETED). Those replacements will determine the course of America for the next 30 years. Those new justices needs to be thoughtful, fair and decide laws, not make them.

Edited April 16, 2015 by seedy
predict the future ?

[wabothai]

No matter who is in the white house, nothing will change for the good.

Will she stand behind, US out of Middle East? No.

Will she start a friendly relationship with Iran? No.

Will she protect the Palestinians? No.

Will she put Bush and his cronies in jail? No.

Will she get rid of nukes?

Will she force Israel to do so? No.

Will she radically change foreign policy? No

Will she control the NSA? No

Will she make dinner for Billy? No.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

National debt was 10 trillion when Bush left office.It went to 18 trillion in Obama's 8th year.Liberals like to spend.Under Clinton I could see it going up

8 million in 4 years.The U.S. Is bankrupt.It loves to spend money it don't have.The liberal congress loves spending the people's money.

With Republicans in control spending has slowed down.

Bush left a debt 10 trillion + 6 years interest and he left us/Obama a crumbling economy near a tragic depression.

Remember the banking, housing, jobs, stock market crisis? Retirees were jumping off roofs! It wasn't pretty when Obama came into office.

The republicans broke the piggy bank and blame Obama.

Lets give George W about 90% of the debt. OK?

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

Please stay on topic.

[Publicus]

From the OP: On foreign policy, Clinton has magnified the differences between her positions and those of the president she served.

There will be a new sheriff in town on foreign policy after the 2016 election and the people who will like it least will be the CCP Boyz in Beijing, the Ayatollahs in Iran, ISIS, Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama....the European Union Nato allies won't like having to ante up on their military forces either, while the ME kingdoms will have to enter the post Sykes-Picot world.

The USA crackpots who are certain the Muslim Brotherhood has been running the White House will have nothing any more to crap carp about while it's also pretty likely Bibi won't have to sit in front of a fireplace in the Oval Office that is cold or dark.

The boyz in Bangkok who wear the brass hats won't like it either as HRC as SecState spent more time on East Asia than any other region, the former LOS is a defense treaty ally of the United States, and HRC views East Asia (accurately) as the center of politico-economic and geostrategic importance in the new century.

Domestic issues will indeed decide the election as they always do, yet this time foreign policy and national security are twice as high on voters' agenda than in any previous election (to include 2004). HRC knows voters want a prez who is going to terrorize the terrorists abroad in addition to keeping them at bay from US shores.

HRC's top defense and foreign policy advisers point out sharply that "Syria is the Rwanda of this administration." Anne-Marie Slaughter, Policy Director while HRC was SecState, has made clear that, "The President was wrong three years ago when he refused to arm the Syrian rebellion against Bashar Al-Assad. He’s been wrong ever since in refusing to bomb air bases that enable Assad to drop barrel bombs on his own people. And he was wrong to let a terrorist threat in that war-torn country morph into ISIS."

Slaughter, who is president and CEO of the New America Foundation and former dean of the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs said it's "on the record" that that in 2012 SecState Clinton, SecDef Panetta, CIA Director Patraeus had strongly and persistently urged Prez Obama to arm Syria's 'moderate' rebels but were dismissed as the president's re-election campaign got underway.

Washington talk is that the tough-minded workaholic Slaughter is a leading candidate to return to DepState as top bit dog and that former Pentagon number two and budget strainer Rudy deLeon might get a promotion and another tour of duty there, as might another Pentagon former number two Bob Work who is strategic mastermind of the new AirSea Battle Doctrine that is loudly criticized by Beijing, Iran, Russia and who has equally radical new strategies for nuclear missile armed subs. Richard Holbrook protege Vikram Singh a former deputy at the Pentagon and at DepState is HRC's politico-military adviser for South Asia and SE Asia and might be expected to have the same charge at a HRC National Security Council.

Last year the balancer and current campaign chairman John Podesta as CEO of the Center for American Progress produced jointly with the Shanghai Institute for International Studies the strategy document U.S.-China Relations: Toward a New Model of Major Power Relationship, which calls on CCP Chairman Xi Jinping to ante up on his long promised "new type of major powers relations."

It's still the prevailing view that HRC's vote for the Iraq war was the single most decisive factor that cost her the Democratic party nomination in 2008, so, while HRC has said little publicly of the persistent assertion, she is at last pursuing her own foreign policy priorities and initiatives independently of any previous president, in-the-background counterfeit Bill included.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Publicus

[yourthaiguy]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

So, like when the Dems controlled all 3 in Obama's first term. That didn't work out too well, did it .

At least, if the GOP controlled all three, they might bring out a budget.

Absolutely correct. The Democrats seem to have no concern at all about the deficit. All they want to do is keep spending so they can keep getting elected.

Are you high!!?? Republicans don't like to spend????? The spend like Drunken Sailors the second they are elected, run up the deficit (Reagan tripled it..."Deficit's dont matter"- Dick Cheney 2006) and then BLAME the incoming Dem admin for it when they are tossed out of office. The majority of Obama's decifict increase when he took office was due to the fact he added the cost of Bush's 2 wars and Medicare Part D (not coincidently paid for) BACK onto the books where they should have been all along. Look again and you'll see Obama has cut the deficit by 2/3 since he's been elected. To say Republicans are fiscally conservative is assinine. Do your homework and you'll see the US economy CONSISTANTLY done better under Democratic administrations than Republican ones. If Clinton runs on the issues at hand she wins hands down in 2016. The list of clown car republicans running for POTUS reads like a who's who of corporate weasels who all take thier marching orders from a handful of billionaires who are bent at keeping all the power and profit to the top 1%. Clinton is by no means the perfect candidate but she's hands down better than ANY of the far right neo-cons running against her.

[yourthaiguy]

Hillary is a slam dunk. Will America take an extension of the Obama presidency over another Bush administration?

I shudder at the thought of a teapublican presidency.

THE most important reason to elect a Democratic President is the selection of the next Supreme Court Justices. This Supreme Court with the Citizens United decision, gave the United States to the corporations. Corporations are people, right? These right wing justices have been the worst thing that's ever happened to America. It started with giving the Presidency to George W., and has just gone down hill since then. (DELETED). Those replacements will determine the course of America for the next 30 years. Those new justices needs to be thoughtful, fair and decide laws, not make them.

100% spot on... Citizens United the worst SCOTUS call in history and absolutely responsible for allowing the US congress to be bought and paid for. Term limits on SCOTUS and repeal of CU would be s start...

[yourthaiguy]

As far as Obama beating her, there is nobody with the historic charisma of "early" Obama running this time or who even exists, on either side.

Marco Rubio has more charisma, but he does not hide his ideology.

The reason Obama did so well is that no one knew what he was really about and most of the the press did little to vet him. I voted for him myself the first election, I am sad to say, but I could tell that he was arrogant from the beginning. I don't get that feeling about Marco Rubio at all.

Agreed. He does have more Charisma than most in this field. However, he's another flip floping corporate shill for his billionaire donors. He can get away with that during an off year election but not during a presidential election. He's also not ready for prime time. He'll soon discover that the press will know what brand of toilet paper he wipes his ass with and every single topic he's flipped on will be used against him, not only by the dems but his fellow republican POTUS candidates. The problem with being a Republican candidate today is you have to wed yourself to the far right Tea party ideology which works locally in north florida but fails miserably on the national stage. Too late brother, your married to it. Romney discovered the same thing.

[yourthaiguy]

National debt was 10 trillion when Bush left office.It went to 18 trillion in Obama's 8th year.Liberals like to spend.Under Clinton I could see it going up

8 million in 4 years.The U.S. Is bankrupt.It loves to spend money it don't have.The liberal congress loves spending the people's money.

With Republicans in control spending has slowed down.

Actually the deficit may have about doubled under Obama because he still has just short of 2 years left.

Certainly it will have gone up by about the same amount as it did during all of the rest of the US presidents combined for more than 200 years. The deficit was just about 10 trillion dollars when Obama took office and it's more that 18 trillion today, and some people think he knows how to run an economy.

compared to what? The worst economic turdpile in over 60 years that GW handed him? Since he's taken office? 12 million Jobs added, Unemployment down from 10.2 to 5.5%, US auto industry saved, pulled us out of 2 unwinable wars, uninsured rates at the lowest in 30 years and declining, Dow tripled, corporate profits up 270%, decifit cut by 2/3.. Republicans WISH they had numbers like that.

[MaxYakov]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

So, like when the Dems controlled all 3 in Obama's first term. That didn't work out too well, did it .

At least, if the GOP controlled all three, they might bring out a budget.

Absolutely correct. The Democrats seem to have no concern at all about the deficit. All they want to do is keep spending so they can keep getting elected.

The last Clinton balanced the budget and even had a surplus. No?

Hopefully he will have been the "last Clinton". Anyway, according to this Business Insider and CBO report, it resulted in a 6 Trillion deficit over eight years.

[thaibeachlovers]

Not likely to be anything like an Obama admin. But how many Americans would want a Cruz or Paul 1st term and more to the point , a complete Republican control of all gov? Lunatics really would be in control of the mad house!

So, like when the Dems controlled all 3 in Obama's first term. That didn't work out too well, did it .

At least, if the GOP controlled all three, they might bring out a budget.

Absolutely correct. The Democrats seem to have no concern at all about the deficit. All they want to do is keep spending so they can keep getting elected.

The last Clinton balanced the budget and even had a surplus. No?

Only because he lost Congress and had to work with the GOP. He had the sense to realign his policies, unlike Obama who is making no compromise with the GOP controlled Congress.

[Publicus]

In the promise versus risk category HRC is positioned very strongly in North Carolina.

HRC leads JEB in NC by 7% which is well outside the margin of error (John Ellis Bush).

NC is in the eastern time zone so it's among the first states to report its voting results, and if HRC goes ahead to win the state on Nov 8th 2016 it will very likely indicate a Democratic party election sweep nationally, as it did when Barack Obama won the state in 2008.

Clinton leads Bush head-to-head in N.C.

Hillary Clinton emerges as the closest thing to a front-runner among all potential 2016 presidential candidates of either party in the latest North Carolina Elon University Poll.

The poll found Clinton winning a potential contest with Bush: 45.7 percent to 40.2 percent among registered voters, and 46.2 percent to 37.9 percent among residents.

http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/top-news/elon-poll-clinton-leads-bush-head-to-head-in-n-c-at-the-moment-1.442129

Barack Obama narrowly won NC in 2008, the first time in the past ten presidential elections a D has won the state since Jimmy Carter did it in 1976, while Romney narrowly won it in 2012. The only two times NC has voted D for president in the past ten presidential elections, the D won nationally.

The poll showed NC Republicans favor Dr. Ben Carson for the R party nomination for prez so let's hope they all go out to vote on primary voting day next year. (If the R party nationally nominates Bush they will have gone to the John.)

The respected and reliable NC Elton poll also found that for the first time same-sex marriage is supported by more people than oppose it, with 53% of Independent voters in the state expressing the strongest support of it.

[JakeSully]

The GOP agenda quite simply is supporting:

The super rich's quest of more greed (more money, more power)

War

Religion

Racism

They want to cut social security, obamacare, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, pell grants and taxes on the rich. Let the poor and middle class pay a higher tax instead as their god given fair tax to serve the rich. Who cares if the poor, the middle class, the upper middle class starve?

If there is anyone with a brain, who can think for themselves and if they don't have half a million dollars in the bank, it's obvious who you should be voting for, but still 62 million people still voted for the other side last time around.. I digress.. sometimes you can't teach people not to be stupid..

[gudtymchuk]

Demi policies of the last 6 years under Obama and likely to continue under an HRC administration. Yes, it is about the economy, stupid.

US work participation at a 36 year low. 92 million dropped out of the work force. Some will vote.

Median household income down 7.3%. Some will vote.

Obamacare - 42% favor. 52% oppose. Some will vote.

Immigration - 39% say immigration is going in the right direction. 60% say going in the wrong direction. Some will vote.

In 2012 Released illegal immigrants charged with 16,226 violent crimes. Some victims will vote.

Just a smidgeon of domestic issues, etc, etc, etc.... I wouldn't bet the farm on a Hillary Slam Dunk.

[Publicus]

Demi policies of the last 6 years under Obama and likely to continue under an HRC administration. Yes, it is about the economy, stupid.

US work participation at a 36 year low. 92 million dropped out of the work force. Some will vote.

Median household income down 7.3%. Some will vote.

Obamacare - 42% favor. 52% oppose. Some will vote.

Immigration - 39% say immigration is going in the right direction. 60% say going in the wrong direction. Some will vote.

In 2012 Released illegal immigrants charged with 16,226 violent crimes. Some victims will vote.

Just a smidgeon of domestic issues, etc, etc, etc.... I wouldn't bet the farm on a Hillary Slam Dunk.

I wouldn't bet the farm on a Hillary Slam Dunk.

HRC is not as tall as Barack so he's the slam dunk guy on the team and he led the league in scoring in 2008 and again in 2012 while in both years Hillary led the leagues in assists.

The money is decidedly on Hillary to be best all around scorer next year and MVP besides. Barack is retiring after next season so he'll definitely be providing the assists for Hillary as she will go on to lead the team for the next several years. It only goes to prove the league has plenty of room for players who are both small and white.

The Rs meanwhile continue to play in the bush leagues where they are notorious chokers and big time fukc ups.

The Rs also have to pray harder and harder each season cause nobody wants their dustbowl of a farm that has been ravaged by political climate change. The down and out Rs are looking at yet more drought next year. They say however war is good for business so that again is their only and big plan.

Hillary is at 13/10 in the shade while the Bush Leaguers are 4/1 still laboring under a hot sun. It's even worse for Walker, Rubio, Paul, Christie in that order, all of whose wells are dust dry empty.

The Rs are only now beginning to realize HRC crossed over from the womens league some considerable time ago.

http://www.thespread.com/sports-betting-articles/041415-2016-us-presidential-election-odds-to-win-hillary-clinton-favored-to-become-next-president