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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"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." But isn't that her real personality? In fact, isn't that the Bill Clinton way?
"just as untested"
Bush is tested. He failed.
Next week's headline for The Onion: "Hillary: Bill wasn't qualified to be President"
I can't keep up with Hillary's attacks. He's xeroxing! He's wearing a turban! He's smoke and mirrors! He's Bush! It is frantic and unnerving.
...and don't forget: how proud she is to share a stage with him!
Exactly, it is not the character of someone I'd want in the White House. How would she act in the instance that Congress opposed any of her initiatives? Attack them for representing the expressed wishes of their districts?
The DNC will not let the MI and FL voters be disenfranchised.
__________
So they will change a decision they made basically to suit the Clintons, but will call it "enfranchisement". Sort of like Bush's "Clear Skies Act" in its Orwellean linguistic chutzpah. And let's remember that Hillary presumably agreed to this "disenfran
If the DNC were to try this, it would lose whatever shred of respect it still has among Democratic voters and the party will go down in flames. Then again, perhaps it is high time that happened so that a true alternative to the neo-cons can take its place.
If Hillary Clinton gives even a tiny shit about about her party and country, she will not try to bend the rules at this late date just to suit her ambition. It would make her a politician that is even more hated than George Bush. I would hope she decides to follow the rules her party already agreed to and accept the will of the voters, whatever the result. If she wins the nomination fair and square, she will have my support in the general election.
At least Obama was on the ballot in Florida, but if they give her the Michigan delegates when he wasn't even on the ballot that would be a total outrage. She was supposed to take her name off both states' ballots. This whole MI/FL deal was a way to steal some advantage.
How many Michigan Obama supporters stayed home because he wasn't on the ballot and they were told their vote wouldn't count anyway? Are we supposed to believe that Detroit wouldn't have turned out in droves for him, especially after Bill's behaviour in South Carolina? What about their enfranchisement?
How many in Michigan voted non committed?
I did!
Starboy...
They won't???
You have got to be kidding buddy.
They will do whatever they darn well please:(
As a Delegate to the 1984 Democratic National Convention I can tell you that MY VOTE never was duly recorded for the candidate I was elected to represent.
So what makes you think that anything has changed?
Because Howard Dean runs the DNC now, not a Beltway insider.
I think the Clintons, and let's face it, both of them are running, most especially Bill Clinton in the background wanting to get back into the White House, believed the old style nineties politics was the way to go. She dutifully went along and had no innovative nor creative approach, preferring perhaps to slide in on her husband's coatails and that is exactly what she has done all her life. She is not smart, nor that intelligent. She shows a propensity to memorize facts and put them into little boxes on the shelf, but as for herself and her individual accomplishments? well she did serve on the board at Wal Mart all by herself, or was it?
She has done nothing as a Senator but bring in the pork for New York. She is way up there in the earmarks, as has been reported.
She is not a talent except perhaps the talent to spin, like Bill. She has been mimicking him all along.n They are a team and she is the surrogate. She is playing a game, the both of them are, and her recent strident, bizarre and scathing attacks may be perhaps the real Hillary we have never seen because, well because, she was always riding on her popular husband's coatails.
I have to say I agree. She gets too much credit for her "brillianc
Shame on you, Hillary Clinton! Your campaign's email to Drudge today accompanied by the Obama photo in African garb, carrying on the Muslim lie, was beneath contempt! Go home, and take Maggie Williams with you!
No third term!
No third term!!! Right on.
When Bush was asked about Obama's foreign policy views, he said he didn't know much about them except Obama wanted to "embrace Ahmadinejad" and "invade Pakistan." After McCain's victory in Wisconsin, he talked about Obama "bombing an ally."
So Hillary is basically xeroxing (or maybe they are plagiarizing her?) the GOP stance on Obama. That's how tone-deaf she is about Democrats. And how deep the denial is of her most hardcore supporters. How could anyone not see the weirdness of Hillary taking positions on foreign policy that are idential to the Republicans'?
On Iraq, she says she "hopes" to have the troops out within a year. In other words, don't hold her to it-- it's just a hope. "Withdrawing responsibly" mean "withdrawing slowly."
She says upon taking office she will meet with her Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security Advisor. But that's what all presidents do. Even Bush. It only sounds impressive to people who think that's "so presidential"-- though anybody who watched "West Wing" could have written that script.
Once again, Hillary disrespects and underestimates Obama-- and plays on the fears of the American people. Wrong party, Hillary.
Well done Andrew.
In the hypnotism that wants us to forget who we are and how we got here, it is good to refresh continually so that people can see the present situation. It takes a Brit sometimes.
To be Hillary Clinton now is not an easy gig. You must resolve to right the wrongs that occurred because of the Clinton administration. Not delivering the kind of fight in the nineties that would have precluded having a Telecom Bill the NAFTA was either Bill's fault or both their faults. Unfortunately, since she's claimed experience it means she wasn't "baking cookies" and was part of policy development.
So it leaves her with nothing left to say but, "Trust me now."
Right-o, jolly good show old chap...hmm
Thanks for that.
"The more she lays into Obama, the more she risks coming out of this campaign not just defeated, but actively loathed."
I'm sorry but I must take exception to this statement. Hillary was already actively loathed. This is why she is loosing, and it is why the Repigs want Hillary as the democratic nominee. They know the conservative base will go ballistic over her and they are only hoping for her to win. When you have a have an enraged Repig party, they are aggressive and take no prisoners. They display tremendous unity of purpose, which brings me to the final point.
The poor Dems, who are sitting on a golden opportunity with grandpa McCain, and a demoralized Repig base, unable to exercise any party unity. Hillary is becoming politically schizophrenic and there is no one willing to take her to probate court to make a determination she is willing and capable of hurting herself and others and therefore is INCOMPETENT and INCAPABLE of managing her own affairs. Therefore it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Hillary Clinton is a danger to herself as well as a danger and a menace to her party, the Democratic party, as well as to others, and she is due to be committed to the intensive care unit of the Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, located in Washington Heights, New York City, New York, for a period of ten months or until after the November 2008 presidential elections take place, whichever comes first
Further it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Democratic Party is hereby placed in receivership, to be run by a court appointed trustee to be paid from the funds previously collected by the Clinton campaign funds and held by the Elect this mad woman Hillary Clinton campaign committee, who shall over see internal political discipline, political organization, oversee all delegates super or otherwise and set all agendas for the Democratic Convention to be held in Denver Colorado, and be ultimately responsible for the peace and dignity of the members of the Democratic Party as well as the people of the United States.
LMFAO!
The Democratic party certainly does need a cour-appointed trustee, and perhaps a conservator as well. Even putting ideology aside they seem to be terminally incapable of judging and doing what is in both their own and the country's best interest.
They know that the Republicans are ruining our country, and the Dems act as if it's inevitable. Of course it is, if you acquiesce at every turn.
I don't understand why Clinton wants to compare Obama to Bush, when she's the one who bears the stunning likeness. The Clintons have more in common with the Bush family than they would care to acknowledge.
It's a crappy strategy, to say the least.
America's might is not so much in the military or the biggest economy but on its greatest creed, the constitution. This is the source of the power for the people and the commander in chief must hold this as sacred. Obama has been a constitutional law professor in the most conservative Chicago Law school for 11 yrs. Coupled with his right instincts and good judgment, he is head and shoulders above the remaining presidential candidates as commander in chief and leader of the free world.
amen
Now that's a stretch. There are plenty of great constitutional law professors all across the country. Are all of them wonderfully qualified to be the president?
Excellent take. These things don't necessarily show Obama to be the best candidate but these ARE her issues. She has lied. Indeed, calling her Bu$h-lite grows more accurate by the day.
This is really a laugh riot. Our author says Hillary Clinton's comparing Obama to Bush is the sign of a desperate campaign. Meanwhile, on the very same site, the Queen herself, A, Huffington is comparing Clinton to Bush. Is she a desperate Obama supporter? The same rules for everyone- separate rules for Clinton again!
I think the question is whether the comparisons are valid or not. For example, read Josh Green's piece in the Atlantic about the Solis Doyle shakeup. Among other things, Green concludes that "for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit...."
http://www
Also contrast her propensity to operate behind closed doors (see her health care fiasco or Cheney's energy policy) with Obama's commitment to transparency (e.g. after he takes office he wants to put the entire health care debate on C-Span -- does that sound like something Bush would do?).
As for the most frequently heard Bush/Obama comparison, I have a hard time believing anyone seriously thinks we should be afraid of Obama just because he'd be more fun to have a beer with.
It's not just the obvious difference in intelligence and curiosity about the surrounding world. Obama has shown a deep commitment to surrounding himself with diverse voices and perspectives (as opposed to Bush, who simply avoided the people he didn't want to hear from).
Well said.
It's a stretch, I know, but one could look slightly charitably at Clinton's scattershot tactics. I suppose the camp could justify itself by saying all these smears will be coming from the GOP anyway, so, if any of the charges have sticking potential, Hillary should reap the benefits before McCain.
Still, it's evidence of a highly uninspiring leadership style. I almost get the feeling Hillary has pretty much given up, but is dutifully trying out all the remaining tactics from her feuding advisors. That's why she's shifting her tone almost daily. Again, not a good sign of a strong leader.
That was exactly my feeling: she is desperate and too dispirited to actually make a decision to withdraw. So she is going through the motions of all the different advice she is being given by these highly paid advisors. One could almost feel sorry for her - almost.
I get a little tired of hearing that she is doing Obama some sort of favor because the points she is raising - dubious as some of them are - will come out anyway from the Republicans. But now the Repubs will have the satisfaction of prefacing their criticisms thusly, "As Obama's fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton pointed out [fill in the blank]"...
Yes, I agree. I'm just trying to imagine how Hillary rationalizes it. But she's probably way beyond rational at this point...
Q.E.D.
Well said. And in latin too!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
