I'm an aging American voter with zero special knowledge, and these are just my thoughts. Probably most of you will disagree, but I love you anyway.
No one can know the future, but we can look at the past and compare it with the present in order to help decide what might happen. Hillary Clinton's most substantial action at the national level was her attempt as health-care reform, so that would be relevant. Also, there is no question that of all the candidates, the one who has been attacked the most strongly by the right wing is Hillary Clinton, so that is another point worth of consideration. The third critical piece of information is her vote on the Iraq War resolution. I think if you meditate on all three of those points, the result is not really all that frightening vis à vis a Hillary presidency.
First, healthcare reform: as I recall the situation in 1993-1994, not only was there opposition from congressional Republicans to everything that emanated from the Clinton Whitehouse, but there was also opposition from congressional Democrats. In fact, the odor of that opposition is quite reminiscient of the odor of the "netroot" opposition that is filling Daily Kos. Not only does it smell of opposition to centrism as a political plan of attack ("triangulation" as it is known here), but it also smells of good old fear. It represents a different approach that has broad appeal, but that doesn't depend on victory for the Left or the Right. This is rather frightening if you are (1) entrenched, as was the Democratic Congress when Bill Clinton was elected (fear of change), or (2) committed to the Left defeating, punishing, and humiliating the Right, as appears to be the case for many Kossacks. In any case, I don't think that it's possible to deny the impact of the lack of congressional support on Hillary's healthcare proposals. Basically, the good old boys in Congress had already decided it would be dead on arrival, did little to support it, and it died.
Why did this happen? Well, as I said, it's partially due to the then-Congress's attitude toward the uppity Clintons. It is also due, I think, to the Clintons' position as Washington outsiders, who had a major attitude problem in that they thought that since they were the president, congressional Democrats should just do what they said. Obviously, these two attitudes created a kind of negative synergy that made matters even worse.
But assuming that Hillary will put together a healthcare proposal if elected, as she says and as she has already sketched out, does anyone think that the same dynamic will come about this time? It is very unlikely, since she will have served as a senator and has ongoing relationships with members of both parties on Capitol Hill. This time, she will build bridges regarding the healthcare proposal before it is submitted to Congress, and this time, a Democratic congress will be receptive. Not to mention that the healthcare situation in the country is even more dire than it was 15 years ago.
It is probably true that other Democratic candidates would also succeed in putting an improved healthcare plan before the congress, and it's also true that single-payer, government run, socialized medicine would be far better than what any of them, including Hillary, has proposed so far, but the facts are that (1) Hillary will propose a considerably improved healthcare system with universal coverage, and (2) there is a strong probability that it will pass this time.
Second, the Hillary haters will be out in force once again. In fact, they have already begun, and it's infected many a Kossack, based on what I've read in diaries. But there is a very important fact about the intensive anti-Hillary attacks during 1993-2001: they didn't work. Sure, they spun people up, and if you have Republicans controlling Congress, there will be expensive public humiliations. But where's the new evidence? Where are the new offenses? More law-office billing records? Another Whitewater? It's hard to believe that it could be worse than it was in the 90's, and since it didn't work then, I don't see how it could work now. Even if someone gets suspicious DNA off of one of her dresses, I think most people in America other than committed Hillary-haters will just yawn. We've all been there and done that way more than we ever want to again.
Once again, it is true that we probably won't see the kind of hate that we will undoubtedly see with Hillary in the Whitehouse if one of the other Democratic candidates gets elected. But once again, I see this as an irrelevance; just part of the background noise. There's no there there.
Third, the vote on the Iraq War. This was truly stupid. It was a mistake. She should have read all of the intelligence before she voted. However, there is no way that she can undo the Iraq War. It's a done deed. We are there, and we have responsibilities to the Iraqis and to their neighbors. I hope that whoever is elected, we can get out of there quickly and unconditionally. But just take a look at recent American history. Under both Democratic and Republican presidents and congresses, we've maintained the Korean DMZ, the Cuban embargo, and the large American presence in Germany, for many decades. People are dying because of those things, and those who survive do so in misery because of our inaction. There is a kind of inertia to these military/political installations that is easy to ignore. Sadly, I think it highly likely that, whoever is elected--even if it is Barack Obama or John Edwards, for example--that there will be a semi-permanent American military presence of some kind in Iraq. This has nothing to do with Hillary, Barack, or John; it has to do with a very long-standing quirk of the American psyche. The different Democratic condidates are saying somewhat different things about Iraq, and so are the Republican ones, for that matter. But if history repeats itself, as it usually does, then the biggest difference isn't so much about who will get us out of Iraq, but rather which candidate is the most realistic about what will happen there. Therefore, a Hillary presidency will probably have an effect on Iraq that is probably no different from what we would see with any Democrat in the Whitehouse. That's my pessimistic opinion, I hope I'm wrong.
Bottom line: I'm not afraid of President Hillary, especially with a two-house Democratic majority. Shoot, it wouldn't even scare me to have Pelosi & Reid continue on in their jobs. Could we do better? Maybe. Probably. But that would be so much better than the mess we would be in have dissension and internecine squabbling among Democrats allowed a lesser victory at the polls (or even a defeat). I simply don't know what I'd do if another Republican was president, or if Democrats lost one of the houses of Congress. I'll vote for whoever the Democratic condidate is, and if it's Hillary, that would be just fine. So, I'm calm in the face of the Hillary stampede.
Greg Shenaut