Dana Milbank: 'Would We Be Better Off Under a President Hillary Clinton?'

Newsbusters.org:

After a stinging defeat at the polls Tuesday, liberal media members are rethinking the horse they backed in 2008, what with the economy struggling, unemployment near 10 percent, and the Democrats suffering their worst loss in a midterm election since before most of these so-called journalists were born.

It was therefore not at all surprising to see Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank waxing nostalgic in his Sunday piece about whether or not we'd all be much better off if Hillary Clinton had been elected president two years ago:

Would unemployment have been lower under a President Hillary? Would the Democrats have lost fewer seats on Tuesday? It's impossible to know. But what can be said with confidence is 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.

Milbank's loyalty is touching, isn't it? So's his imagination:

Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children's coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.

Hillary Clinton settle on comprehensive healthcare reform? Really? Is that what we saw her do when her husband was president and her arrogance on Capitol Hill ignited an uprising that led to Gingrich and Company taking over Congress in 1995?

Regretting the vote. Guess Obama-mania really is over.