Hillary lost the vote because she thought it would be smart to be "tough on terror" and support a pointless war. I guess it's great that we have a woman that's fierce, but reckless fierceness was not what we needed at that time, from anyone. She didn't want to fit the "Democrat stereotype" of looking "soft on terror," so she joined the GWB marching band along with Kerry and all the other Democratic insiders. That's not being pragmatic, that's either being corrupt, or being an idiot.
Maybe if the war hadn't been shown to have been a complete clusterfuck by that time (so much so that even Republicans could no longer deny it), we would have president Hillary.
The only advantage to Hillary is that she may have been better on health care, but she would have been worse in foreign policy.Obama is a milquetoast ENFJ diplomat. It's the one thing je deteste. It's why I voted Hillary in the Primary. She's not a milquetoast diplomat, and that pissed conservatives off too much.
Other than those two things, they have the exact same stances.
This is why the discussion in 2008 was about "temperament" or "who is more oppressed", not policy.
Undoubtedly. I also want leaders to make good decisions, though. She still seems to believe you can give the world freedom if you send enough troops in.On the other hand, Hillary would have been a stronger leader. Like a "nice" Putin.