The Washington Post’s political columnist Dana Milbank wrote an opinion piece last Sunday that is getting well-deserved attention from many different people, but mainly from old Hillary supporters. After the recent election results were tabulated and analyzed, it has been difficult not to wonder “what might have been.” Dana Milbank summed up his answer [Here] in his essay titled, “Would we be better off under a President Hillary Clinton?”
Milbank wrote that he began thinking of the question when he listened to the President’s press conference last week in which: [Here]
... a forlorn President Obama account[ed] 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.
Milbank recalled Hillary’s campaign ad about the 3:00 a.m. phone call. Remember this?: [Here]
When there is a crisis..., there’s no time for speeches or on- the-job training...
As Milbank suggested, there is really no way of knowing for certain if things would have been better or different under Hillary’s helm than under Obama’s but Milbank believes: [Here]
...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.
He reminds us that Obama’s enthusiastic and organized youth vote overwhelmed Clinton’s middle and working-class votes, particularly in the rust belt. Milbank points out that those white middle and working class votes were the very ones that deserted the Democratic Party last week. Who could possibly doubt that those votes would have stayed with Hillary and her Party if Hillary had steered us through the shoals for the last two years?
Milbank has interviewed Clinton advisors and is convinced that Hillary would have pulled the plug on the stalled and contentious comprehensive health care bill in favor of a few keenly needed and carefully selected features, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions and child insurance. She no doubt would also have coupled bailouts for the auto industry with help for ordinary Americans.
Milbank also believes that Hillary would have pressed for a mortgage foreclosure moratorium, which Obama has ruled out. Milbank also stated that Hillary was the first national figure to warn about the dangers of “new financial instruments,” those toxic assets made from chewed and chopped up mortgages. He writes that she first spoke about them in an Iowa speech in November, 2007 when no one was interested and it simply sounded wonkish.
Milbank listened carefully last week to President Obama in that Press Conference in the East Room of the White House. Obama asked how he could give the American people “confidence that I’m listening to them?”
Milbank replied: [Here]
The answer is simple: Do what Hillary would have done.