Yes, that may be ideal.  But to those who say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have made a better president than President Obama, I would advise further reflection.

First, Madame Clinton, as Secretary of States, has been away from the claws of the now Republican-dominated Congress.

Second, anti-tax extremists would fight taxation, no matter who is President.

Third, the majority of Republicans live in States where their ancestors had slaves do the work in an inexpensive manner.  It would therefore be perfectly reasonable to assume that, deep in their psyche, there may remain a false sense of entitlement, which could help explain why so many are anti-tax extremists and oppose what they call “big government.”

Fourth, financially, matters would have been the same.  When former President Bush realized that the US was no longer solvent, the Democrats came to the rescue.  This is the story of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).  As President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have inherited the burdensome debt left by President Bush.

Fifth, we must into account the interaction between the electorate and a president.  In this respect, matters become complicated.  According to the theory of communication, what ‘A’ says is usually different, to a lesser or greater extent, than what ‘B’ hears because ‘B’ has expectations that may distort the message.  In other words, between ‘A’ and ‘B,’ noise may interfere.

Finally, as Marshall McLuhan put it, the “medium is the message.”  

It could be that the naysayers who are currently obstructing proper stewardship of the nation may have been more lenient had Madame Clinton been President, but I doubt it.  Given that the main issue is taxation, or, according to Republican orthodoxy, making sure the poor and the middle-class pay the bulk of the bill, the presidency would not have been easier on Madame Clinton than on President Obama.  The problem is with the electorate, not with the incumbent.

These robotic Republican naysayers are simply preventing the President from helping his people so they, the Republicans, can say that President Obama has not helped his people.  They have nothing to pin on the President, whose presidency has so far been flawless. They must therefore be very “creative.”  If this is their way of conducting a campaign, shame on them!  Doesn’t this remind you of Nixonian games and Reagan‘s Willie Horton ads?

My best opinion would therefore be that no one can say that current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have been a better president than President Clinton.  Both are intellectually superior to former President Bush, which is a criticism not so much of the former President, as of the electorate.

But Hillary Clinton has been and remains an extraordinary Secretary of State.  Moreover, she and President Obama work well together and both care for the people.  Had it not been for the work she did years ago to bring health-care reforms, I believe there would have been greater opposition to President Obama’s effort and accomplishments in this regard.

So an Obama-Clinton ticket would be just fine.

Holiday music

(click to hear music)

* * *

December 13, 2011