my point was simply that you were atrributing the collapse of the USSR to Star Wars, which I think is mistaken as it was essentially a fait acompli before there ever was Star Wars and were saying that Obama was out of his depth ... he passing the legislation Hillary tried to pass and failed AND that the passage of that legislation has rendered government inoperative.
So, had HRC been president is it your point that she would not have sought comprehensive health care reform? Because, if she had (which she campaigned she would), she'd be sitting on the same brick of a government BO is sitting on.
On the drones, she seems about the same given the info that seems to be available concerning her time at State and her time as FLOTUS.
I know you are a big Hillary fan (and I hope Hillary pulls it off in 2016) but I fail to see the basis for an argument of how BO was out of his depths and the HRC would have somehow been more accomplished given the realities of the time:
global financial meltdown,
narrow window for comprehensive health care reform,
an arab spring driven by forces entirely outside of the US sphere of influence.
On the last one the point person was HRC. On the fist one the point person had been HRC in the past. The more centrist policies of Big Dog being a significant contributor to the middle one.
So this BO vs Hillary distinction doesn't match up with facts IMO.
Another overlooked factor (likely to be retested) is whether HRC would have one had she managed to get the nomination, and had she won, whether she would have had the coattails to align Congress as far left as BO managed. BOs 2008 coattails were MASSIVE. Her campaign against BO was, uh, less than flawless. Dems just assume she would have beat the old man, but everything would have been different, Palin never would have happened (the was strictly trying to do something to disrupt BO star power which HRC simply does not have) and so on.
BO simply managed to do what Hillary failed to do, but I don't see much in the way of distinctions beyond that.
| 
