George W. Obama?

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.

Comments

[musselmanm]

No matter how much Hillary squeels and squirms about NAFTA, I remember, you remember, we all remember pleading with Clinton not to sign the proposal.
She cannot get out from under what I remember clearly.
Plus I just watched the praise come from her mouth on older news footage.
Goodbye Hillary

[josephjsalas]

It's called the Council on Foreign Relations.
Check out the members on wiki. For it will
explain the dog and pony show in Washington
over the past few decades. HINT: names include
Clinton(s)­,Bush,Joli­e,Brokow,B­eaty,Harmo­n,
A portion of the Kennedy's,­Cheyney,..­..

THEY'VE BEEN PLAYING GOD! NAFTA=TREASON!

[claudiam]

I am tired of the Clinton's and their nasty/hateful campaigning. They just don't get it. This is another example of why we need to "Turn The Page" and move onto something/someone else who actually has a chance making some changes. A new beginning, what a concept! Am I the only one who can see the anger and feel like I am being disciplined by my mother?

[kitov]

The "I am truly honored" comment by Sen. Clinton at the last debate with all the lights on and cameras running was the signal that the slime machine was about to go full tilt.
Obama's attacks? They're what used to be called issues. Clinton's response - to pretend it's personal. The vast right-wing conspiriacy that Hillary saw arrayed against the Clinton Presidency was evoked in part by the way her team played the game. I have had enough of US-magazine style politics, and I want a President who will give us something more substantial.

[BinBaldwin]

Conservatives have been saying this same thing about the Clintons for 15 years. Glad to see you wake up . Now understand Obama is an Empty Suit

[willval13]

I think it's funny that comparing someone to George W Bush is now almost as insulating as comparing someone to Hitler...

[joselopez]

HILLARY, WHO VOTED FOR BUSH'S WAR?

WHO SPOKE OUT AGAINST BUSH'S WAR?

ENOUGH SAID!!!

[IMustKnow]

jose can you see by the dawn's early light?

Hillary did not vote for a war and neither did any in congress you loon. I am tired of explaining this because those of you with the rose-colored glasses and pollyannish posts just do not get it.

[AZDemocrat500]

It is true, too often we vote for someone with this feel good theme and no substance. That is the reason we are in this situatation; deficits and coming crisis in our social programs. And you guys in the media have not been any help because style over substance is more important.

[Memorye]

spot on....The master should make it his business to show his slaves, that the
advancement of his individual interest, is at the same time an advancement
of theirs. Once they feel this, it will require little compulsion to
make them act as becomes them.

[pugnax]

Propaganda of desperation. Who will tell her when it's over?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401666.html

[bullseye]

ITS OVER, DONE, FINISHED.

[wrabbitt]

What if we had an election and no one voted? The founding fathers of America would roll over in their graves if they saw the sad state of politics today. No honest persons left? just lesser degrees of criminal!

[bookerone]

Sure he is another Bush. Look at the picture campain that they have been blaming on Clinton. This picture has been circulated by the right wing NEWSMAX.com for at least 2 months. Obama is just now pretending to have seen it. He must be running scared in Ohio.

[Dari]

Do you mean like the "mailers" that HRC got free TV time for, which have been out for, at least, the last 3 primary states????

Regardless of who mysteriously sent to Drudge, the following REALLY explains the inherent danger of the picture:

I just read the BEST assessment of the TRUE damage of this from Ellen Hamm:

"...However, I am now fearful for Obama as he becomes the frontrunner. Pictures like this, as mild as they are, inflame hate.

What happens when hate is inflamed? Bullets fly.

Whomever is doing this should be careful, because if Hillary's campaign is sending this they should be prosecuted for hate crimes. Not because they are hating, but they should know that America can be dangerous.

Her experience as First Lady should inform her actions. There is no justification for her to inflame this underbelly of violence."

[MikeL1]

I couldn't agree with you more, my friend. Winning an election shouldn't be so serious as 2 put someone's life in danger. She's a sad case.

[Memorye]

Feelings come and go.The master should make it his business to show his slaves, that the
advancement of his individual interest, is at the same time an advancement
of theirs. Once they feel this, it will require little compulsion to
make them act as becomes them.

[clevelandchick]

Clinton's campaign has not denied sending the picture, they haven't even distanced themselves from it but instead offered some lame retort about Hillary wearing African garb and not being 'ashamed' in a way of defense.

Hillary is done. I won't vote for her even if she does win the nomination after her behaviour this last week. Mocking voters and supporters of Barack? Mocking the grassroots? Forget it, she's shown how monumentally unintelligent she really is.

You don't mock half of the voters and the grassroots and then expect them to vote for you in November. After witnessing her actions of the last week, I'm actually more afraid of her being in the White House than McCain. I'd rather have crazy than stupid.

[JamesRandolph]

Ridiculous to compare Obama to W. Among many differences is the generational one: W is a classic Baby Boomer, while Obama is a classic Generation Joneser (Generation Jones is between Boomers and Xers). You can see the way their generational identities affect their political stances, and these two guys are very different.

[TomInJax]

Wait. I got it! She's doing Barack a favor by going negative, republican style. Yeah that's the ticket!

She's... She's... just trying to toughen him up for the McBush machine. Yeah that's it!

Seriously though this post is dead on and I couldn't have said it better.

You know it's funny but usually when a candidate goes negative on another candidate it seems most people go into defense mode and fell the need to defend the position of their candidate. All I see is the late great Ann Richards ghost saying, "Poor Hillary." It kind of makes me sad because I backed her like most did a year ago, but have been converted because the type of bullshit that has transpired over the last several days is exactly what this country does not need more of.

And this whole line of crap about how words don't matter. Pulleeasee!!!! Not only do the words matter, but the person delivering them needs to be believed. And guess what. Millions believe him. And trust him. Hillary. Not so much anymore.

For crying out loud, I need to be inspired at this point. I need to feel hope. The nation rebuked Reagonomics and, "A thousand Points of Light," for Bill Clinton who did a lot of great things, but threw them all out the door by lying about a blow job. That made the road tough for Gore and gave the Repubs the window to steal the White house, and now here we are at a cross-roads, an historical cross-roads in our nations history were she can make just as big a difference as Barack, not to mention atone for the sins of the past.
But what does Hillary do? She decides to play same old tired game that got us into this mess.

Shame on you Hillary Clinton! Shame on you!

[1dogs2]

Take a deep breath, Hilary fans. Take a long look at her conduct over the past 3 or 4 days: one furious rant over campaign pamphets that state what is essentially true in the disrespectful tone of an almost out-of-control mother chastising a little boy; one rant in which her verbal language, body language and tone of voice dripped with contempt for her opponent and insulted his supporters' intelligence (many of whom, by the way, are highly educated people); and repeated comparisons between her opponent and W. In her desperation, she has become totally tone-deaf. (If you've heard her sing, you know THAT's true.) What she appears not to understand is that this is precisely the kind of politics that has driven people to Obama.

At least she will have no one but herself (and maybe her husband) to blame when her implosion is complete. It is too bad that the damage she has done to herself will diminish her future career. Some of us have memories that can and do remember events for longer than 5 minutes.

[vsign]

What scares me for America is that Obama is really a coward.

It scares me that his followers don't know how to judge his character and don't understand that character is the first thing they should judge.

I'm scared everyone is getting so brainwashed and the media doesn't tell the public what is happening. This is a false prophet. Be careful!

[MIHOP]

Still WRONG.

As if facing Hillary, the DLC-backed Dem Party power structure, Republican smear machine, special interests weren't enough, the guy FACES DEATH THREATS EVERY DAY!!!

Open your eyes. The guy has flaws, no doubt, but cowardice ain't near the list...

[theJuanStar]

What scares me is your logic. It scares me that Hillary followers forget the scandals of the Clintons. It scares me that her followers don't find it odd that the woman that stole files from Vince Foster's office after his suicide, is running her campaign. It scares me that her followers want a person that can't run a campaign, running our country. Most of all it scares me that people like you think that millions of people are stupid to follow someone without some investigation. Barack is not a prophet, he has never claimed to be.

[Suprshrink]

You listen to tabloids and conspiracy theories. You forget that the Republicans were clearly trying to de-rail Clinton's presidency. And because of people like you they were able to stack congress with other Republicans and impeach a president for a non-crime. $57 million were spent investigating the Clintons and nothing could be uncovered. However, you choose to believe that accusations = truth.

[shockedNawed]

Oh, yeah, Right!...He only plays one in the movies.

I'd rather NOT play an 'extra' in his movie, though.

[MIHOP]

A Coward? He LIVES WITH DEATH THREATS EVERY DAY!

[hank48188]

I think his wife said that, a black man can be killed at any time in America.

[daveny]

Oh, of course, everyone who supports him is an irrational ignoramous cult member... That's the only possible reason for someone to disagree with you!

This is what's so disgusting and repulsive about the most hard-core Hillary supporters on here... just constant attack and denigration of anyone who disagrees, because apparently rationality is in the eye of the beholder.

If you want people to think you're actually the reasonable one, and not the "klinton kool-aid drinker" you clearly are, you might want to try making your points with actual arguments, actual facts, and actual lines you came up with yourself!

[athy]

What scares me the most about this election is that journalists are not asking candidates (because they may not have thought of it, were not allowed to ask, so overworked they had no time to ask, I don't know the answer here) many important questions that we need answered before we support a candidate.
Will some journalist please ask the candidate -What on earth was Obama thinking when he chose Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZB ) as one of his foreign policy advisors??? http://www.nysun.com/article/71123

ZB was one of main people responsible for convincing the US govt to arm the mujaheddin.

Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZB) endorsed Obama for presidentt. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con
tent/artic­le/2007/08­/24/AR2007­082402127.
html
Lastyear,(ZB) was interviewed in http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.h
tml

During the 1960’s and 1970’s he (ZB) was so focused on fighting the evil Russian empire that he completely ignored the existence of radical Islamic fundamentalism. He gave poor advice to President Carter. The ramifications of his (ZB)being so blind-sided helped to nurture the evolution and expansion of Osama Bin Ladin’s (and others) terrorist groups. In 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan.
http://www.counterpunch.or
g/brzezinski.html
Thank you...

[daveny]

Gotta agree with you there -- I think a lot of the people he has are good, but Brezinski I have a LOT of issues with.

Ultimately, you have to have some trust in the judgement of the president, though -- to know when advice is good, and when it's bad. Remember, JFK and LBJ were surrounded by a lot of the same military and foreign policy people -- the former rejected their demands on the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, averting a nuclear war, while Johnson let them goad him into pouring troops into vietnam to avoid looking "weak" on communism!

[Dari]

This brings to the fore a necessary discussion which has, up until now, has been missing from the media coverage.

Are “experience” and “sound judgment” mutually inclusive?

I believe that for each portion of Senator Clinton’s 5 prong attack (or throw everything out and pray something will stick), it also gives each of us an opportunity to view some of her positions – or lack therein.

Which of HRC’s actions demonstrate experience or sound judgment?

Clinton’s Experience:

- Her vote to go to war with Iraq without any exit strategy AND without any apology for her vote to those families who have lost loved ones due to her vote.
After +7 years of having an administration that is NEVER wrong, are the American people wanting to elect anyone who cannot say that they were wrong; that they made a mistake? In this regard, Senator Clinton resembles our current President Bush.

- Her vote for No Child Left Behind

- Since none of the candidates have any experience governing a state except Mike Huckabee, it is noteworthy to view how each candidate has run their campaign which gives some insight to their abilities to run their administration. Senator Clinton had to “loan with interest” her campaign $5 MILLION from their joint account and since, there has been numerous reports of ‘high flying’ spending including the $25,000 stay at the Bellagio.

Would Senator Clinton, continue to mirror President Bush by appointing those who are loyal to her, as Bush did, and not those best equipped to actually get the job done as she has done in her campaign?

- If Senator Clinton is TRULY running on her 35 years of experience, why did her husband, former President Clinton ask that the White House records not be released until after 2012?

- Also, WHAT is Senator Clinton so concerned with that she refuses to disclose her/their tax returns until AFTER she secures the nomination?

- On foreign policy, I have concluded from listening to Senator Clinton and reading her platform, that IRONICALLY, her positions are MORE aligned with the Bush administration's approach - no talking with perceived enemies until they agree with the US's positions. After +7 years of this, it is unclear what difference there is.

What Senator Clinton’s choices call into question for me, is not 'how much' experience she has but instead, whether she exercises 'good' judgment?

Senator Clinton has made no effort to explain how she can simultaneously 'take on' lobbyists, when she too, takes their campaign donations; and in one of the debates justified this by saying that “they are people, too”.

Does this Senator delude herself that these ‘interests’ who have contributed to her campaign will not be expecting some ‘real’ return on their investment'?

What I believe that Senator Obama offers that Senator Clinton does not is sound judgment. He has not tied himself to lobbyists or their interests as both of the others have in the past and continue to do in the present.

Obama came to Washington and co-sponsored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which led to USAspending.gov, which keeps Americans better informed on government spending and makes earmarks more transparent.

Senator Obama, in concert with Senator Feingold and with the support of many newly elected junior senators initiated a bill S230 Lobbying and Ethics Reform 2007. Much of that found its way into law in S1 the Honesty Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

Actions do speak louder than words and ‘experience’ is not always an indicator of ‘good judgment’.

We ALL lose when campaigns go negative but it does beg the question of whether this decision was based on 'experience' or 'sound judgment'?

[MIHOP]

Hear, hear.

[Memorye]

What I believe that Senator Obama offers that Senator Clinton does not is sound judgment. He has not tied himself to lobbyists or their interests as both of the others have in the past and continue to do in the present.
Look at opensecrets.org. He will give us 2,500.00 and the insurance company will raise our insurance 2,500.00.

[IMustKnow]

Can you say Excelon? Can you say Tony Rezko?

[yowza1]

I think Republicans are writing to this site in order to try to undermine Hillary Clinton because her and her husbands goodness and excellence during and after Bill's presidency shows them to be the intellectual and moral midgets that they are. They keep foaming at the mouth about Hillary's and by implication Bill's supposed lacks and hidden agendas, when in fact they are projecting their own thinly disguised anti-human and antiquated "values" onto them. Recognize these snakes when they appear, they tend to vote for people like George Bush, Ross Perot and John McCain.

[Dari]

ROTF,LMAO!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!

UH, you might want to check my profile here and see my other posts, BEFORE you respond to a comment posted....

Just a suggestion...

[Witkacy]

You missed one significant thing: Clinton extended the condescending "experience" meme to the pledged delegate/s­uperdelega­te dichotomy she's been pimping, in saying that the Dem insiders have personal working relationships and thus deeper knowledge of the candidates, while the people have only superficial acquaintance with them via the MSM, and are thus far less able to judge each candidate on his/her merits. Here you have the naked, undemocratic face of DLC doctrine: your representative knows best, realpolitik - all the glad-handing, backwashing and such - rules; and your opinion, no matter your position in society and no matter how well-informed you might be, doesn't amount to that of a party pol, or lackey or consultant.

Though this Clinton campaign has been madcap (and donut-addled), she's been consistent at least in her condescending assumption that voters - Barack Obama supporters, above all - haven't ever cracked open books, or sought out reliable new sources online with regard to her record, her husband's record, or history itself--This woman, after all, regurgitated all the bullshit constituting Bush's casus belli, in the debate before Super Tuesday (bin Laden and Saddam; WMDs, etc.), as if whole forests hadn't gone towards very detailed volumes discrediting all those lies. I felt as if she'd deny Joseph Wilson's existence back in 2002, if she could have (and this from a woman screaming about "Karl Rove's playbook")...