Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, as we now know, began falling apart the moment her husband compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson back in South Carolina. Its final death rattle may well end up being her latest gambit - comparing him to George W. Bush.
Twice in the last three days, she's tarred Obama with the Bush brush, suggesting her rival is just as untested and, potentially, just as dangerous as the man now occupying the Oval Office.
First, on Saturday, she told an audience at the Cincinnati State Technical and Community College that voters in 2000 fell for Bush's promises of change -- "and the American people got shafted". For good measure, she said the Obama campaign's latest mailers, on health care and NAFTA, were "right out of the Karl Rove playbook".
Then, in her foreign policy address at George Washington University today, she couched the same argument in the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, the AIDS crisis and the Darfur genocide. "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," she said. "We can't let that happen again."
Why is this a campaign strategy doomed to failure? Because she underestimates Obama - and her own propensity to enrage the electorate - at her peril. And because, when it comes to experience and wisdom in foreign policy matters, she is hardly on the side of the angels herself.
Back in January, when Bill Clinton tried to insinuate that Obama, like Jesse Jackson before him, was just another black guy making vigorous but ultimately futile inroads into the power of the Democratic Party establishment, it instantly lost Hillary the black vote, not just in South Carolina but across the country.
Now, she is essentially insulting the intelligence of millions of Democratic voters who have already cast their ballots for Obama, and insulting millions more who, up to now, have thought of her as the better candidate but want no part of demonizing her rival, in whom they see much to be attracted to also.
Clearly, Hillary is in mega-negative mode because she can think of no other way to keep fighting as her presidential aspirations evaporate before her eyes. But it's also worth unpacking some of statements, because they are more broadly revealing of who she really is.
1. Obama is untested, just like Bush was. Actually, Bush wasn't all that untested. We knew he was calling himself a compassionate conservative who had no interest in "nation-building". But we also knew that, as governor of Texas, he had pandered to corporate interests and the Christian right like there was no tomorrow. He had signed the execution warrants of Gary Graham and Karla Faye Tucker, and almost 150 others, in a mockery of his claim to be either compassionate or "pro-life". He might have acted dumb on the Middle East in his debates with Al Gore, but he was already starting to associate with the neo-cons of the Project for the New American Century - Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Perle - and had told some people on the campaign trail that he intended to "finish the job" his father had started with Iraq.
Where is Obama's similar record of saying one thing and doing another? If it exists, she hasn't exposed it yet.
2. Bush promised change too. The only change I recall Bush promising was to "restore honor and dignity to the White House", which was a coded way of saying he wouldn't drop his pants in or near the Oval Office to pizza-delivering female interns. As far as we know, this is one promise Dubya has managed to keep.
3. Experience and wisdom. What exactly is Hillary talking about here? She was wrong on Iraq. Just in the past week, she was spectacularly wrong on Kosovo. She blew health-care reform in 1993-94. I'm not saying she is without achievements, but a little perspective, and humility, might be in order here.
4. Shame on you, Barack Obama! Shame on him for saying what exactly? That Hillary has talked about garnishing wages to make her health-care mandates work -- absolutely true. And that Hillary was a fan of NAFTA -- at least until she tried to make out that she wasn't for electoral purposes. NAFTA' s an interesting one, because Hillary is really trying to rewrite history -- by pretending that the original 1994 trade deal somehow had more to do with President George H. W. Bush than with her husband, and that he and she both had reservations about it from the get-go. The truth is the Clintons were huge free-trade advocates -- against stiff opposition from their own party -- until Bill was humiliated at the 1999 WTO talks in Seattle, when 50,000 street protesters besieged his hotel (and everyone else's), closed down the official proceedings and forced the president into acknowledging that some aspects of corporate globalization might be problematic after all. If Obama is going after her on this issue, the only possible shame attached is hers.
The greatest damage Hillary is doing to herself is coming across as just another self-interested candidate willing to do and say anything to stay in the race. Her likeability has always been a weak spot. The more she lays into Obama, the more she risks coming out of this campaign not just defeated, but actively loathed.
Who said: "I'm a uniter; not a divider"?
(a) Barack Obama
(b) George W. Bush
(c) both of the above
(d) neither of the above
The Clinton campaign has made the calculation to go negative in order to keep the youthful and independent Obama supporters from showing up.
But there is more. In the perfect cold calculus of a politician, Clinton realizes that she has more to fear from an Obama victory in the general election than is at stake with the nomination. If she loses the nomination and Obama then loses the general, she will be in a position to run in four years. If Obama wins the general, she is less likely to have a shot. So going ugly serves both as her best shot at the nomination and undermines Obama for the general. It is as they say, a can’t lose strategy. Well, only the public loses anyway.
Andrew Gumbel said: " Twice in the last three days, she's tarred Obama with the Bush brush, suggesting her rival is just as untested and, potentially, just as dangerous as the man now occupying the Oval Office." Well, Andrew... WE actually have NO way of knowing that is NOT true, and WE don't know for a Fact that is not so...
Barack runs for President his first term in US Senate... (Videotape, January 22, 2006): MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of "04, after your election, I said, "There"s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?" Obama: "Absolutely."
Clearly, Barack puts his political ambition ahead of his State, Country and Troops.... Character/ Integrity TEST = Failed... At least 3 times Barack's Campaign has played the Race Card, when NO mention of Race, or skin color was made... Character/ Integrity TEST = Failed... Michelle said people with black skin need to wake up and Vote for the first BLACK President... In Nevada, Barack himself said the Rules for Caucusing clearly favored him... Character/ Integrity TEST = Failed...
Excelon, the largest nuclear operator in the United States helped bankroll Obama's Campaign into the US Senate after he watered down a Bill to REQUIRE Nuclear Power Plant Operators to report leaks... (Like the 2 or more LEAKS in Obama's Home State they failed to report to the State) Obama's Campaign Manager is a former Excelon Public Relations Consultant... Obama's watered down Bill died in Committee...
Tested = FAILED
Obama is the "Feel Good" candidate this year for Democrats.
Fact is that Obama is not Hillary. Obama will NOT be able to start on Jan 21 and go from zero to 100mph in 10 seconds flat...he has to learn the ropes.
Hillary will not have to...
Folks forget Bill Clinton here!
Bill Clinton is not running to be president of the United States
I think so many people are turned off by that thought. The thought of Bill Clinton back in the Oval office again, doesn't set well many of people, me included.
Take a look at the latest polls from her home state, New York:
Senator Clinton's Job Approval Dips in Home State
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/02/21/as-democratic-race-tightens-senator-clintons-job-approval-dips-in-home-state/
Although her popularity is still high, it dropped 8 points in the last month. A few more months of success like that and she might have to start worrying about her seat in the Senate. The polls also showed that in head to head match-ups against McCain, Obama outperforms Clinton by 10 points! In her home state!
I think perhaps it would have been inappropriate for Andrew Gumbel to say that Hillary Clinton is currently loathed, but that's not what he said. The New York State poll shows that his warning is probably right on target.
A leader is more than to do things right; a leader must do the right thing!
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.
Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
His plan would only affect the 6% of Americans who make more than $97,500 per year. The beauty of his solution is that it would totally take the wind out of the sails of the right wing attempts to privatize and neuter social security. It would also defuse their attempts to lower benefits.
As far as FISA is concerned, both Clinton and Obama were campaigning near DC when the last vote came up. Obama voted against giving the telecoms immunity but Clinton skipped the vote. Of course he has to say "he'd make sure we have the tools we need to fight the terrorists and keep us safe". If he doesn't cover his back like that then he gets torn apart by his opponents. His words get purposefully distorted even when he includes such clarifications. Without them, it would be impossible for him to campaign successfully.
If you are truly concerned about Obama's stance on civil liberties, please read this Q&A he did with the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
You might also find comfort in the endorsement of Obama by 80 lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay detainees:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html
I think that if you do make the effort to explore the specific details of Obama's proposals, you will start agreeing with his more die hard supporters that he will work with us to change how things are done in Washington. But he can't do it alone. He needs our help and I hope you'll be willing to pitch in.
Yes, Obama's proposals are very nice (Healthcare excepted, which is a disaster in waiting) but he probably didn't have much to do with writing them and sure can't explain them clearly during debates.
Proposals are nice, but they prove nothing.
Obama does have very good hypocrite credentials, however.
Well, saying one thing and doing another is Obama’s stock in trade:
Obama says he's bringing a new style of politics to America, but the only style he’s practiced so far is dirty double-dealing old-style Chicago backroom politics;
-He became Senator, “not so much by levelling the playing field, but by clearing it” Ask Alice Palmer, longtime progressive activist from Chicago’s South Side, about how she feels about Obama forcing her off the ballot so he could easily win an election.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
-Or read: Race Man
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton. “Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.”
Sean Wilentz, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
-Obama says he’s going to be a breath of fresh air for America’s foreign relations, but “Doubts about Barack Obama's presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January. That startling fact, first uncovered by Steve Clemons, who blogs on the Washington Note, prompted acid comment in Europe about the Illinois senator's failure to visit the continent since assuming the committee post, and even speculation that he had never traveled there except for a short stopover in London….. Ritch points out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change -- and of course, the undermining of the foundations of the Atlantic alliance by the Bush administration. There is, indeed, almost no issue of current global interest that would have fallen outside the subcommittee's purview.” http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/
Obama is telling Ohio voters, many of who blame NAFTA for their economic woes, that he is anti-NAFTA, going so far as to suggest he will cancel US participation in NAFTA, but then his camp sent a top Obama advisor, Austan Goolsbee, to tell the Canadian government that Obama’s speeches railing against NAFTA were just campaign rhetoric, and they shouldn’t think Obama really means to do anything major about NAFTA.
Actually – where does Obama have a record of saying one thing and doing that thing, exactly?
Woodstock goes to Altamont!
I hope he shreds their eyes out....
Actually, hardly anyone even knew who this guy was when he "daringly" opposed the Iraq war as a state representative from a liberal area in Illinois. His constituency supported his viewpoint, but as soon as he found himself on the national stage in 2004 he repudiated it just to be safe and electable. Of course his devoted apostles have created an excuse for him about that, one that makes him sound saintly instead of opportunistic.
Her campaign style is very "Bushie". Lies, innuendo, rewriting history and in the case of her husband a feeble stab at racism.
Voters should just say no to Madame Clinton.
The comparison didn't stick then, and it won't now, especially when this attack is one of many various ploys to win votes.
Though an Obama supporter, I AM troubled by how much the MSM goes after Clinton. She is doing what she thinks she needs to do to win, yet somehow the media always makes her out to be cold and calculating and bitchy. Sure, she's not the warmest of women, but if she were a man doing these things no one would bat an eye.
As if the far left in the Democratic Party doesn't already loathe her and use Karl Rove-style tactics and talking points to vilify her.
If you would do your research into the "questions" and issues you pose, you might actually find that there are numerous instances of Barack Obama saying one thing and doing something else: his campaigan contributions, for one. He says that he doesn't take PAC and special interest money. Really? Not according to public financing records. And what about trade? He has supported numerous free trade deals in the Senate. Iraq? Oh, he was against it while he was an Illinois Senator, but once elected to the U.S. Senate, his record is a less than principled. He voting against at least two amendments to establish timelines for withdrawal and one amendment that would have urged the president to begin withdrawing troops. He also was conveniently "absent" when it came time to vote for "No Confidence" against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and to implement recommendations of the 911 Commission. On consumer issues -- which go again to his "words" that he won't be influenced by lobbyists and special interests? He voted in favor of the Class Action Fairness Act -- a deceptively-titled bill that limits class action lawsuits against corporations, like Enron, thus making it increasingly difficult for consumers to file these lawsuits. And he voted to give huge tax breaks to the gas and oil industry ($14.5 billion) via the 2005 Energy Bill -- Dick Cheney's "bill." Both of these bills were heavily-lobbied by huge corporate and business interests.
Hillary Clinton isn't perfect. Those of us who support her know that. But Barack Obama's bald-faced lies make it very difficult to believe he is truly a "change agent."