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

[Mahavishnu]

LarryKingB­arelyAlive said:
"Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.
We have had enough of the gutter style tactics, dirty tricks and negativity from the Clinton smear machine." ********* Speaking of which... you have just declared that the Clinton campaign was behind this whole thing on the say-so of Drudge. Since when do intelligent people start buying the crap that right-winger throws out? Oh, that's right. Whenever it benefits their support of B.O. This is Drudge for Pete's sake!

[NotProvenGuilty]

100% Correct. Very good post, Mr. Gumbel. Captures my sentiments to a t.

[traveler501]

nonsense...first of all, the comparison to W is apt, and hopefully we will never find out just how much. second, Obama's campaign would have already hit its apogee if the media were not sustaining it ...yet another attribute he has in common with the W. back off...be fair, let the people decide.

[jerseywolf]

You say that the comparison to W is apt with nothing to back your argument except for the media approval shown to Obama. That's awfully weak.

[enoughalready13]

If Obama were treated by the press the same way everyone else was, he would not even be this far in the race. Now, that the momentum is behind him and everyone has egg on their face, they are still going to go with this sham despite evidence to the contrary....

Despite evidence to the contrary... sounds like the OJ SIMPSON trial all over again! Two year trial spending millions of taxpayer dollars only to have the verdict come back innocent in 17 minutes!!!! This is the same as the Obama mania - I will vote for my race without even LISTENING to logic.

[myhomeo]

I voted for Obama and I'm white

[MIHOP]

Blacks are 13%. While their vote is very important to Dems, they cannot, as a group, win a national election.

Your claim is silly.

The argument that women can dramtically impact a national election is much closer to the truth, and the comments of many women here suggest that they see this election as a referendum on gender. Which is sad.

[jessica23667]

If the Clinton's lost the black vote they have no one to blame but themselves for the Jesse Jackson comment in South Carolina. The Clinton's are not racist and Bill Clinton was popular within the black community. Remember that this primary was HRC's to lose; she was the front-runner coming into the primaries.

[olderdem]

Hillary was tested, but she failed the test. She voted for the war in Iraq, supported Bush's position on Iran, and supported NAFTA -- back when those were the popular positions.

Her "experience" has not served her judgment well.

[Memorye]

Obama will give you 2,500.00 for insurance. what will that do ? The Government will give you that money and the insurance company will take that money and raise your insurance another 2,500.00.

[mrqcguy]

Spot on...this says it better than anything I have read in a very long time!

[Memorye]

Thanks mrqcguy. People are not reading and learning. what is going on the people are hooked on a feeling. We all know feels come and go.

[Memorye]

mrcquy Thanks

Feelings come and go.

[SamThornton]

Come on, folks, where's the love?

Think about what a Hill 'n Bill act in the White House could do for The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and standup comedians all over the world.

If, as some curmudgeons claim, it doesn't make a tinker's doggonit who actually gets elected, then shouldn't we go for the best entertainment value possible? With the ideal comedy ticket of Giuliani-Huckabee now an impossible dream, and the last man standing in the GOP likely to spend the next four years chasing kids off the White House lawn, Hil, Bill, and Whatever should be a no-brainer. Literally.

First show: Hil 'n Bill invite Barack 'n Michelle to dinner -- and they never leave!

[LarryKingBarelyAlive]

Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.
We have had enough of the gutter style tactics, dirty tricks and negativity from the Clinton smear machine. This woman should be in the Republican Party.
She continually instructs her staff to engage in the most dirty, nasty and repulsive Campaigning imaginable.
During the last two months, senior Clinton staffers relentlessly played the race card, the experience card and they are now deploying the Karl Rove style smear tactics. Shame on you Hillary Clinton or should that read - Hillary Millhouse Nixon ?
We've already had Nixon in the White House - Why is Hillary Rodham Clinton behaving like Richard Nixon ?

The Obama photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya. The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.Politicians usually wear appropriate clothing when visiting Foreign Countries out of respect to local traditions. Hillary believes that Obama must behave perfectly all of the time, while she is able to instruct her hitmen to throw the mud non-stop. Last Friday they tried to anonymously distribute a memo documenting Obama's links to radical groups as reported on ABC News
( despite the fact that Bill Clinton had pardoned many such individuals during his tenure in the White House).

In other words - Obama is a Muslim terrorist and a black Muslim terrorist and criminal who can't be trusted. Hillary Clinton is the Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party and her staff take their lead from Karl Rove and Lee Attwater. She has no integrity or decency left.

Instead of digging for dirt on Obama - Hillary Clinton should be releasing her Income Tax Records immediately and also making the records of her Eight Years in the White House available to the public.
What's she hiding from the people ?
Proceeds from Uranium deal ? $20 Million from Frank Giustra ? Cash from Norman Hsu? Offshore accounts ?
Violations of Campaign Law that prevents staff working for 527's ? Senior insider Clinton fundraisers run the American Leadership Project.

HILLARY WAS A STRONG SUPPORTER OF NAFTA & FREE TRADE - DESPITE HER RECENT FIBS.

[Momenta]

Name-calling? Opportunistic image shifts from inevitable to underdog; from sensitive to attacking? Promoting fear by claiming that only she can handle our "two wars" (one of which she unwisely authorized)? Refusing to admit mistakes? Blaming others for her poorly managed campaign? Seems like she is following Karl Rove's play book.

[ntmessage]

Contrary to the blog here, the factual similarities between Bush and Obama are eerie.

1. Obama is untested, just like Bush was: The Bush record was obscured by the media and most in America did not know how he would react to certain situations. Most of the points you make regarding Bush were generally known by the average American only after the election. Obama either has no record as you state or we just don’t know what he will do. In either case the similarities are dead on. Do you want to take another chance for another eight years of a President without much of a documented record?
2. Bush promised change too. This comment is a rationalization to support the incorrect view. The restore dignity rhetoric is a euphemism for change. The thing was, Clinton had some of the highest rating of any President, ever. The Obama campaign purposely to unknowingly psychotically attack Clinton for Bush issues. The same Bush who’s campaign that is Xeroxed by Obama.
3. Experience and wisdom. You continue to cherry pick without context one or two items without the facts. Everyone knows that cowardly democrats gave into the Health Care Lobby, including the Harry and Louis Ads. She lead on this and as President will succeed.
4. Shame on you, Barack Obama! : This is exactly the sleazy politics that Bush used. Say one thing for the camera and doing another in the trenches. There were two things she objected to, one you obviously forgot to mention one of them demonstrating the cherry picking and out of context issue rhetoric. 1) On the stage its yes we can but the underhand Obama is sending Harry and Louis ads to people, just like the Pubs in 1993 – Obama is doing it exactly the same way! This type of attack was developed by Atwater on Health Care and perfected by Bush and Rove. 2.) NAFTA pandering, since Obama does not have a record he can say anything he wants. To any constituency for their vote. Hillary says she wants to improve NAFTA because the real issue with it was the Bush Administrations lack of enforcement for the last eight years. After ten years some Bills need improvement since Bush was gaming and trying to get around the facts. Pinning this in Hillary is just like Bush.

Hillary has every right to put on a vigorous campaign. The shame is all rightfully Obama’s.

[ylpatriot]

Uh HUH .... She makes a good point .... and God Help US if He is Elected and its TRUE ???

He is scary to me ... tooo much blah blah ...and too many voting for him for all the "wrong Reasons".

[kalimuzo]

HUH????. Anyway, Hillary will mandate coverage incase you dont know what that means, it means it is taken out of your check just like FICA. How is that a smear, it is what she says and he added even for people that cant afford it. Trust me I do not want the Govt. telling me what I can afford

[AWest]

Vigorous campaign? As vigorous, and with the same tactics, as Bush and co. That's the kind of vigor we don't need.

She's done a great job at what, exactly? Any accomplishments of note? Or just disasterous failures? Obama's hugely experienced compared to Hillary - or, Bill when he was elected, for that matter (governor of Arkansas, no disrespect, is not exactly the world stage). All she's accomplished with this campaign is tarnishing what tattered Clinton legacy remained.

Aren't we all tired of people trying to sell us a line to get elected? Or, in her case, a new line every week? Where's the character?

[BBackSoon]

So your saying that since the Obama campaign has learned and is applying the lessons of modern campaigning that this is like Bush? Well I for one think this is a good thing. We had two failed Democratic campaigns that had learned nothing about how to get elected. I guess from a good moral standpoint one should not lower themselves to the level of a Repug but that as we have seen does not win elections! Remember Kerry not answering the Swift Boating?

How do we know for sure what Hillary will do? Sure she has a record, but there is a bunch of it I don’t like. She is so dependent on focus groups and poles that she is unable to act until she has triangulated. Now I don’t want a ‘Damn the Truth, full speed ahead!’ kind of president we have now, but I would like to have someone that makes a stand based on facts and only changes their mind when they really believe it is the right thing for the country.

Let us hope that this matter will be settled soon so we can all unite to beat the Repugs. You saw Bush say that he believes that the American people will back a Repug. Sounds like the fix is in and we need to get behind our candidate and fight like hell!

If that doesn’t work it is time for the revolution.

[AC500]

The difference is in the history of the two men ... both political and personal.

[VisionForChange]

I think it's a last ditch attempt by Hillary to plug the unrepairable chasm in her sinking ship. The way she growled at Obama the other day reminded me of one of those Third World howling fascist dictators like Mobuto or Idi Amin who would do anything to cling on to power.

I really felt sorry for her. It saddened my heart to see an accomplished lady like Hillary resort to cheap, undignified offensive tactics to dampen the Obama swell. I think Clinton had been groomed by special-interest group for more than a decade to succeed Bush. But that seems to have failed. As a consequence her camp has become rabid to humiliate and dismember Obama with all kinds of outrageous false allegations. The race and religion cards are being played every now and then to dent Obama's popularity among mainstream Americans. The race and religion card smear campaign will hit the bottom of human decency as March 4 draws nearer.

But I think Obama's string of victories have strengthened his image and perhaps he is on way!

[Tankan]

George W Clinton!

Hillary Clinton is every bit as much a rookie as everyone else, it's just her egotistical arrogance that leads her to think she's not!

[57andfemale]

If being First Lady makes you competent to be the commander-in-chief, then let's elect Laura Bush. If those years of experience are critical, then let's see the papers from the Clinton library so we can hold her accountable, at last.

What is eerie: Hillary is as secretive as GWB, unwilling to shine any light on her actions, her history, or the potential conflicts of interest with Bill's library donors and foundation donors.

She is incapable of admitting a mistake. She is incapable of seeing or listening beyond her small, insular group of yes-men (and women). She's already in bunker mentality, and she hasn't even secured the nomination. She has the same sense of entitlement Bush had in 2000. She is disturbingly willing to give Republicans what they want, time and time again.

She rewrites history, to be sure: The Clintons were vocal advocates for NAFTA, to the horror of the democrats who elected them. While she is enraged that Obama is not bowing to her change of heart on free trade as she neared the primary season, she feels she is entitled to attack him for any kind of minor change in policy he has made. The truth is, the free trade policies of the Clintons have been enormous failures and have contributed to our economic ills; and if being First Lady is her experience, then she needs to own it. She's not even honestly denying it -- she's rewriting the narrative, a la Karl Rove.

Hillary thinks cluster bombs in civilian areas make her a good commander-in-chief.

She doesn't even say how she will accomplish the policies she has proposed. She just belittles the leadership skills of Obama that can achieve legislative success. How is she going to do it? With her own personal "hard work"? How does that even compute? You need to be able to help people understand why your policies are good for them. She gets up, announces her (albeit good) intentions, and it just flabbergasted that everyone doesn't fall in line. It's disturbing.

I ask you this: look honestly at Obama's accomplishments. Imagine if he wasn't running for president and had another 14 years of public service until he was 60 years old. Would the list of true accomplishments, achieved on his own while being held publicly accountable, dwarf her alleged 35 years of experience? The answer is clear.

I find Hillary more frighteningly like Bush. Would she be willing to show us her "strength" with more unnecessary wars? Would her political future be more important to her? I don't know. These things are always untested, in any president. But from her behavior in this campaign, her gross mismanagement, her reliance on bad advisors whose advice she ultimately responsible for, makes me less and less confident in her ability to lead this nation.

[dawlishgal]

It isn't as though Bill Clinton's support of NAFTA (after he promised he wouldn't) and Hillary's failure with her secretive, crony-driven health care task-force were two separate things, not when it comes to the impact on our labor force.

With his success in pushing NAFTA and her failure to get healthcare for all or most (or, for that matter, ANY) Americans, they managed to shove our workers into a situation in which they are forced to compete in a world labor market with people from places (ie everywhere else) in which potential employees have government­-sponsored healthcare. In other words, places in which employers are not expected to pony up the high costs of taking care of employees' health problems. Talk about a level-playing field...the Clintons came in with a bulldozer and ruined it for our workers. No matter how many pay cuts pur workers take, and how many givebacks they agree to, employers would still rather take their jobs to places where they are not expected to pay the high costs of healthcare.

I don't know why none of the candidates ever talks about that double whammy perpetrated by the Clintons. He could have said, "No healthcare; no NAFTA," but he didn't. She could have fought harder to her plan, but instead she sat on her hands while big healthcare corporations killed it with a high-cost ad campaign full of lies. Then she turned around and accepted more in campaign contributions from these same corporations than any other candidate, including Republicans.

[57andfemale]

She doesn't really fight. She attacks anyone who is too "stupid" or "naive" to accept her pronouncements as obvious truth. She can't really negotiate, she can't see what needs to be sacrificed, what needs to be fought for, with any wisdom. I really never thought she was this bad. With each passing day, she sinks lower in my (many years of) esteem. That's when I was naive. But not anymore.

[elkabong]

Hillary Clinton's governing philosophy is basically "top-down" ("give ME your tired, your poor...", your troubles and your woes and I"LL take care of them). Barack Obama's governing philosophy is "bottom-up" ("YOU are the change YOU have been seeking." "Yes WE can"). Obama's is the only way that works. Well, Hillary's works too, if you like the corporate plutocracy.

For whatever reason (distraction, relative comfort, training, inherent lazyness, inherent authoritar­ianism...) most people feel that once they leave the voting booth, their job is done (if they even bother to vote) when, at the very least, they should have their representatives on speed dial!

People want to make a difference if you make them feel they can. We've had plenty of "leaders"who know how to pull the levers and meet with lobyists in Washington. We almost never get leaders who inspire the people to demand their visions be realized.

The best reason to vote for Obama is that he reminds us that we are the change we have been seeking.

[vbond]

"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 likability 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."

Too late.

Already there, on both counts.