Do you think the country would have been better off if Hilary Clinton would have won the election instead of Obama?

I think that we would have been better. I mean she seemed to have more control and everything, she seemed like she was ready to do what she was going to do, Obama was just focused on seeing what people wanted and telling us that he was going to give it to us without measuring the consequences that it could bring. For example, Hilary was not going to give millions of dollars to places who said they needed it and stop the money from increasing for SSI. I just think that Hilary just was better expirianced and new what she could promise and what where her limits. While Obama was just saying what he was going to give this and do that without seeing that the goverment can only do so much.

No. I personally think people are too hard on Obama. No one would be able to fix everything overnight.

Obama ..deff not clinton..woah.

Personally I really don’t think we would be better off. I think we would be worse or the same. I really don’t think presidents make much of a difference tho.. I mean yeah they do have control over a lot of important stuff. But its not like they can stop world hunger, or make world peace.

Hard to say. Obama’s problem seems to be that Republicans are so bent on undermining his presidency that they do not care how much damage they have to do to the country to get their way. In the past there was a certain amount of respect between the parties. The filibuster was a process that the minority party in the Senate could use it in extraordinary circumstances when they were so opposed to what the majority was doing that they wanted to slow things down and make their case to the American people. Now the filibuster is used on almost every bill even bills Republicans helped write or doing things that Republicans themselves had campaigned on just so President Obama won’t be successful.

Would the Republican minority do the same thing to Ms. Clinton? Hard to say. The Republicans fought pretty dirty against President Clinton but nothing like they are doing to president Obama.

I think she is too nuke happy and ready for a war. But Obama is too worried about other countries, then he is with USA. We would have better luck with Pee Wee Herman as president. Because the president is nothing but a hand puppet of congress.

i <3 Obama.

Social issues and the complexity of administration grow in proportion with population size. The test of big-nation leaders is more in their ability to recruit a star-studded team (and to project a pleasing image). As we look around the world, a range of leaders’ abilities is self-evident, yet we expect the administrators to be increasingly god-like in managing an ever-increasing number of complex issues. Small wonder our expectations take a battering. Obama and Hilary exhibit different leadership styles and skill-sets - these suit different times and situations however.

Most leaders are great at managing stable environments, but few are good in turbulent times. The implication of this is that as we go forward, the demands on the presidency will grow - and the candidates will look increasingly ‘challenged’. Things won’t improve until left and right learn to waste less time fighting over the relative value of an idea and spend more time actually making people’s lives better. Infighting doesn’t create opportunities for youth employment, for example. There are a lot of issues that ought to be taken out of party politics altogether, and made all-party issues that are rewarded by their success at grass-roots level across the nation and the wider world. Success in Washington might make a senator or representative look good, but in practice the benefit to the nation may be no better than a re-arrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic - it’s probably time we worked out a better way of defining what constitutes Success in a politician’s role.

Merging multinationals are devising increasingly novel management structures to deal with increased size. Nations aren’t, and therein lies a growing problem, because the conflict style of government is plainly increasingly inefficient once the national population reaches a certain level. Governments are too close to the problem to notice however, and too busy dealing with its consequences to ask the right questions.