Hillary would not have been elected in 2004, according to my astrological system, which indicates at the least that the tides would not have favored her. People with a Saturn Return coming are rarely elected; although a few get elected and then die, get saddled with a horrible war, or in the rare best-case scenario are not re-elected. Bush himself was one of those, but Hillary would have been more-directly affected. In addition, the incumbent was favored to win in 2004. 2008 was a good year for her, but Obama stole her chance. He could have waited until 2016.
Could rhymes with should, and I get the impression that you wish Obama HAD waited until 2016. Which brings up the interesting question of why Obama DIDN"T wait until 2016. I have a theory about that.
There have been a number of theories (some of which verging on birtherism) that show Barack Obama has having a background and upbringing tied to the CIA, but most conservatively, Stanley Dunham, Barack Obama's maternal grandfather DOES seem to have been OSS and later CIA Station Chief in Beirut during the 1940s and 1950s. And I am reasonably certain of this because the father of one of my professors was in the OSS and served with and was good friends with Stanley Dunham. And during Barack Obama's adolescence, Barack was raised by his maternal grandfather and grandmother in Hawaii after they retired from intelliegence work.
In 2008, the CIA had a problem and it was a serious one. Bill Clinton had attempted to downgrade and possibly even abolish the CIA by moving much of it's functions over to the FBI. While the Bush Administration for it's part made it quite clear that it wanted the CIA to tell it what it wanted to hear in the Mideast and hew to a neo-conservative line, which the CIA did in 2003 but rebelled against in it's 2007 intelligence estimate, which was highly critical of the Iraq War. John McCain would have been a continuation of the Bush Administration.
So faced with two alternatives that could be institutionally devastating to the CIA, the CIA perhaps chose a third, by encouraging an earnest freshman Senator from Illinois that under other circumstances it might have wanted to build into a senior Senatorial asset as his career progressed, to run for President. And Obama has delivered for the CIA by building the CIA into what is effectively another branch of the military. That's what his policy of appointing a former CIA Director to be Defence Secretary and General Petraeus to be DCI was all about. And expanding the CIA into drone warfare. Now that the CIA's position is improved, having someone sympathetic in the White House may not be the issue that it was 8 years ago.
I doubt most people today see Hillary as warlike, just because she voted for the Iraq War in 2002. But in 2004, having voted for it and supported it too long would have been a distinct liability for nomination. Democrats wanted an anti-war politician, and even though Kerry voted for the war too, he was famous for opposing the war in Vietnam and came out strongly against the Iraq war. Hillary's resume was still weak in 2004 too. She had no chance. Today, a stronger more-warlike candidate is more-likely to win, because of the fears aroused by the IS, Russia and the migrations. An activist foreign policy is needed today, whereas it was seen as destructive in 2004.
So you think that this country has at least one more Mideast war in it. Maybe so. Americans have a hard time saying no to getting involved in wars.
Frankly, this is one time when an activist foreign policy is NOT needed and in fact may be quite dangerous. Now is a time when we need to question some of our basic assumptions that made sense in 1945 but now may be dangerous. Such as carrying the defence needs of Europe and Japan and allowing them to remain largely disarmed at our expense. Because fiscally and militarily the US needs strong allies now and dosen't have them the US is in a position in which it is likely to get in over it's head in the Mideast and North Africa. Too many commitments and not enough resources to meet those commitments. And no desire on the part of Americans for the kind of REAL war sacrifices that a draft and higher taxes would entail. Jihadis know very well now that the maximum number of troops the US can field at any one time is 185,000, even including rotated National Guard units. Probably a lot less due to sequestration and attrition of the National Guard since the Iraq War. So how activist a foreign policy and at what cost are Americans REALLY willing to support? And for how long?
Voters in the Republican race are interested in the race, because of the media hype about Trump. It is a more exciting primary. This could change if Trump wraps it up tomorrow while Sanders gets stronger. The likelihood is that the Republican race will get less interesting and the Democratic race more interesting in the next 3 months. This won't matter in the general election. By opposing TPP, Hillary may have blunted the impact of such support she gave as first lady to free trade. Ohio is one of the two most critical and closest swing states in the nation. It is too close to call every year, and too hard to call based on generalizations like you have stated.
Originally Posted by pbrower2a
Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio
And he's still got his Flo-da connections. Natch.
