Obama = Bush

Hillary Clinton goes after Barack Obama again on the issue of specifics:

ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Speaking in Eugene, Ore., Sen. Hillary Clinton went further than she has before drawing a comparison between Sen. Barack Obama and President Bush, saying he gave a lot of "speeches" too, but lacked "specifics."

"Some of you might may remember that President Bush in 2000 ran as a compassionate conservative. It sounded great. Who could argue with that?" she said. "I never knew what it meant. He sure didn’t enlighten us about what it meant. But he gave a lot of speeches about how he was going to be a compassionate conservative. Well, because we didn’t have the specifics to tie him down because we didn’t say 'What exactly does that mean?' It turns out he was neither compassionate nor conservative. He was uncompassionate and radical."

As I've said ad nauseam this idea that Obama doesn't have specific policy proposals is BS. But Clinton's now moved on to a new form of BS about George W. Bush. The point about Bush and policy details isn't that he was vague in 2000 it's that when you looked up his policy proposals you could see that they were really, really, really right-wing. There is, by contrast, nothing in Obama's policy proposals that hints at secret rightwingery. Instead, you'll find few major policy differences between Clinton and Obama, though you will find that Obama's health care plan is less far-reaching than Clinton's. Even on this front, however, Obama and Clinton are light-years closer to each other than either is to Bush or McCain.

Comments

It's almost as if Clinton is willing to present a deliberately distorted picture of her opponent for political jockeying reasons.

Posted by Bill | April 7, 2008 12:02 PM

Again, Hillary's insight is astonishing. I hope the rest of us out here in Fantasyland will come to our senses that.....um.....Obama is George Bush.....ahem....yeah.

Not to be too descriptive, but every time I read Hillary's comments the vomit creeps up and tickles the back of my throat.....algh....there it is again.

Posted by Timothy Lovestedt | April 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Bush neither can jump nor has game. Obama he isn't.

Posted by phil | April 7, 2008 12:06 PM

What the heck is this about, more Samantha Power?

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/7/headlines#4

April 7, 2008

Obama Adviser: Keep 80,000 Troops in Iraq 'Til Late 2010

In other campaign news, the New York Sun reports a key adviser to Senator Barack Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep up to 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010. Colin Kahl's plan is at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within sixteen months of taking office. Kahl serves as the day-to-day coordinator of Obama's working group on Iraq but denied the paper represents the campaign's Iraq position.

Posted by Jennifer | April 7, 2008 12:09 PM

By fall, McCain and the Reps will be painting Obama as the continuation of Bush.

Posted by Viskovitz | April 7, 2008 12:24 PM

By fall, McCain and the Reps will be painting Obama as the continuation of Bush. This will help.

Posted by Viskovitz | April 7, 2008 12:24 PM

Jennifer, Obama takes over in 2009. If he begins withdrawing troops as he's proposed, one to two brigades a month, we're still likely to have that many troops there in late 2010. There's absolutely nothing new there.

Don't expect the Sun to, you know, actually do something resembling journalism.

Posted by Jake | April 7, 2008 12:25 PM

Instead, you'll find few major policy differences between Clinton and Obama, though you will find that Obama's health care plan is less far-reaching than Clinton's. Even on this front, however, Obama and Clinton are light-years closer to each other than either is to Bush or McCain.

This myth is an unfortunate result of Krugman being right, but also being more an economist than a politician.

On straight up economic substance, Obama's plan is significantly closer to Clinton's plan than to McCain's. Substance alone , however, does not account for politics. Obama's attacks on Clinton's health care plan and Obama's flat out lies about his own plan--it's not a universal plan in any sense of the word, and the claim that it covers more people than Clinton's is every bit as absurd as the most absurd Republican talking points on taxes and deregulation--make it a near certainty that if Obama's elected no plan will be passed or, if one is passed, it will fail miserably because the people implementing it won't understand or care about health care policy at all.

If there's one thing the politics of recent years should have taught us it's that people who don't believe in a government program tend to make that program fail when they try to implement it. Obama and his advisers simply don't believe in meaningful health care reform, and any reform they try to put in place will be doomed to failure, only making future true reforms that much more difficult to achieve.

Sometimes it's unfortunate that Krugman's as apolitical an economic policy wonk as he is. He forgets that the substance of a plan is not its most politically potent feature.

Posted by R Johnston | April 7, 2008 12:28 PM

It was Bush's bogus proposals that Al Gore was sighing about in the first debate. But nobody in the media gave a shit which made Paul Krugman shrill.

Posted by Mike | April 7, 2008 12:29 PM

While this is a logically ridiculous argument on her behalf, it holds water with the "low-information voter" (which is who she appeals to).

My dad is a former Reagan Democrat who is now a big Bill Clinton fan. He's tied his wagon to her last name, and when I talk to him, he's long mentioned this "point". Hillary isn't really trying to convince some flaky Obama supporters with this line. It's more designed to galvanize her supporters against Obama before they all bail out of her slow-motion trainwreck, and to get the press talking about the issue, and to force Obama to get more specific and less "unite-y" in his speeches.

It's basically to argue that since Obama is talking about unity and compassion, he must be the same as GWB. The next logical step is to say, "Well, then Hillary seemingly doesn't intend to try to unite people"; that she's sort of arguing that she's a divider, even; but Hillary supporters aren't very reliable when it comes to logic. It's the same logic that convinces people that tax cuts are going to pay for themselves, so let's keep cutting taxes ad nauseum.

What's funny is that Obama has long been specific about things in his speeches, and in debates he's never really avoided details, either. But hardcore Clinton supporters at this point in the game don't listen to or watch his speeches, and the low-info voters she's somehow kept probably don't even watch her speeches; they just get Obama's rhetorical sound-bytes and then something like this on the nightly news, and say to themselves, "Hey, she's right!"

As a side note, his rhetoric about the tone of campaigns, the "mentality that got us into Iraq in the first place", is very specific, from a certain perspective. It's suggesting we take a step back and evaluate ourselves, especially when it comes to the way politicians such as Hillary Clinton conduct themselves in campaigns. Studying a specific such as that lends us to draw conclusions about how that is related to the way a president would govern. She's basically arguing that you can only be specific on the "micro-" level, even though it's generally understood that it's the "macro-" level that produces a lot of the problems we have in the first place. (You know, like when Hillary killed health care in the 90s because it wasn't exactly like her plan, or when she insisted that intervention in Bosnia be post-poned so that the political capital would be available for Hillarycare).

Posted by socctty | April 7, 2008 12:33 PM

As far as I am concerned the healthcare plans by Obama and Clinton are not universal in the strict sense of the term. It should also be noted that both plans include an employer mandates meaning that employers are required to obtain insurance for their employees. More people will be impacted by this type of mandate than the individual mandates that everyone has been arguing about.

Posted by Micheline | April 7, 2008 12:40 PM

This is another version of the incompetence dodge in Iraq.

The problem with Iraq wasn't a lapse in strategic thinking-- it was that Bush's team couldn't do the job right!

The problem with George W. Bush isn't that his policies are really shitty-- it's that he's under-specific when describing them!

Anyone who thinks that the Bush administration's primary issue is under-specificity needs to take more naps.

Posted by Yossarian | April 7, 2008 12:45 PM

Attack on Obama aside, it's nice that she manages to both attack Bush and defend conservatism in the same breath. This is exactly the sort of thing that's going to give Matt Stoller a heart attack before he's 40.

Say it with me, folks: George Bush is a conservative. Say it over and over and over again; excusing conservatism while damning Bush is pointless. Bush isn't running!

Posted by jhupp | April 7, 2008 12:48 PM

Jennifer - on the topic you brought up, that reflect Obama's long-stated idea that he'll surround himself not only with people he agrees with but with people he doesn't agree with as well. Sure, that sounds like a convenient cop-out, except he's been saying it long before Samantha Power called out the Monster. It's almost as if - gasp! - Obama isn't writing blank policy checks for his advisors to cash, and is actually involved in decision-making! What a novel idea.

Perhaps if Senator Clinton had involved herself more in her campaign's strategy and message, and surrounded herself with people who weren't yes-men, then she would be the nominee by now.

Posted by socctty | April 7, 2008 12:49 PM

Another reason (#332, it seems), as a resident of New York State and a life-long Democrat, I will work to unseat Hillary in '12, in the Democratic Primaries, if she seeks reelection.

Really, looking back on, say, 52 years of Democratic races, can anyone point to a sleezier campaign? Humphrey in '72 was pretty bad. Carter in '80 was pathetic. But this has to trump 'em all. Submit your Hall-o'-Famers.

Posted by maxgowan | April 7, 2008 12:52 PM

I think Clinton subscribes to the baby-toy theory of politics.

With babies, you can put a toy away for a relatively brief period of time and then give it to them again, and they will treat it as a new toy. With Clinton, she seems to think she can shelve a debunked argument for a while, then bring it back and the media and public will treat it as new.

So, I look forward to hearing about her dodging sniper fire as First Lady again, probably about 4-6 weeks from now.

Posted by DTM | April 7, 2008 1:08 PM

"Obama and his advisers simply don't believe in meaningful health care reform, and any reform they try to put in place will be doomed to failure, only making future true reforms that much more difficult to achieve."

Ya know, given that Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for taking the best chance at meaningful health care reform in a generation and turning into a clusterbleep of historic proportions...I've always found it weird that not only does she not get much criticism for such a ginormous failure, but that she's still looked at as someone who is or can be an affective advocate for health care reform.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | April 7, 2008 1:11 PM

"light-years closer" is a bad metaphor.

Posted by Quiddity | April 7, 2008 1:24 PM

Needless to say, MattY ignores the more important issue regarding their policies: very few people are calling any of the candidates on all the hugely obvious gaps and downsides in those policies.

And, almost no one (aside from a very few questioners at townhalls) is publicly taking the candidates to task for those hugely obvious gaps and downsides in those policies.

As an example, Obama recently promised an "honest conversation" and went on to mislead. Not only that, but he sounded like someone trying to get a fellow cop to go on the take. No one called him on it then, but when (not if) someone publicly points out his lies and gets it on video he's not going to look very good at all.

Posted by TLB | April 7, 2008 1:35 PM

So is Clinton trying to sell the idea that because Obama is promising change and unity that somehow he is a closet radical right-winger a la GeorgeW!? Sheesh, I guess they already tried to accuse him of being a Reaganite, do they really expect anybody to buy this sort of stuff? Does it not just strain Clinton's credibility further (if that's possible) and make her look more desperate?

Posted by jbentley | April 7, 2008 1:41 PM

R. Johnston,

How can a projection of the breadth of coverage to be achieved in the future by hypothetical, as-yet-unimplemented health insurance programs be a "flat-out lie"?

Do you not see how it is possible that Obama's plan could cover more people than Clinton's? Just because Clinton's plan mandates coverage, it doesn't mean that everyone will follow the mandate. Consider auto insurance. It is required by law in all states that all drivers purchase auto insurance, yet approximately 15 million people do not do so. Most of them ignore the requirement because coverage is too expensive. If tens of millions of people ignore the mandate under Clinton's plan, there will not be anything close to "universal" coverage.

The differences between the candidates' plans are philosophical. Clinton believes the best way to ensure coverage of everyone is to mandate the purchase of coverage. Obama believes the best way to ensure coverage is to subsidize it so that is affordable to everyone. Ultimately, these differences are insignificant, as the candidates' plans are merely starting points, and it is Congress that would hammer out any plan. Neither candidate can credibly attack the other as "off the reservation" because of this difference in approach.

Posted by Brian | April 7, 2008 1:47 PM

Hillary Clinton has no credibility when comparing Barack Obama to George W. Bush. She lost all credibility when she voted for Bush's war.

And regarding specifics, what was she doing during all of the debates with Obama? Sleeping? Was she not listening to his specifics on healthcare, for example? She seemed to respond to those specifics and call him out on them. How can she criticize his lack of specificity yet engage in a detailed debate about the specifics of his plan?

Posted by SMN | April 7, 2008 1:55 PM

I don't want to set off the Obam-bats but Hillary is not suggesting that Obama is a " closet radical right-winger a la GeorgeW" but that all we have to go by is his rhetoric. Since he has no track record of actually promoting progressive programs as a Senator we don't really know what is priorities will be if elected President. As a freshman backbench Senator the only issue that he has shown leadership on has been in promoting his candidacy.

Posted by phg | April 7, 2008 2:08 PM

The explanations help - thanks. Obama must get us out of Iraq and fast.

Posted by Jennifer | April 7, 2008 3:01 PM

"Since he has no track record of actually promoting progressive programs as a Senator we don't really know what is priorities will be if elected President."

Compared to Hillary's track record of completely screwing up health care reform and being disasterously (though not uncommonly) wrong on the Iraq War?

I honestly think the attacks on Obama could be a heck of a lot more effective if Hillary, her campaign and her supporters could objectively examine her own weaknesses, so they could formulate criticisms that aren't so easily deflected.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | April 7, 2008 3:09 PM

This argument has been around a long time due to the fact that neither Obama, nor his supporters can point to all this change he has affected or exactly how all this change can happen just because he is elected. All we are told by Obama and his supporters (by design, I add) that he's for change. Sure, go look at his proposals you all hammer at us. WE do. We listen to his speeches. We don't see how this amazing change is going to happen because Obama gets elected and he hasn't told us. How about if your candidate actually goes out there and explains to the public what his policies actually are, just what kind of change he is espousing, and how he expects to affect this change? Or is that too much for him to do? Answer to the American people. Or is he just afraid that everyone will learn that his policies are not that driven towards change? Nor that remarkable?

If any of you are really concerned with Obama's candidacy beyond beating Clinton then these are issues that are going to keep coming up again and again and again. Get your man to answer just what kind of change he is discussing in regards to the policies that he proposes. Once he does - then that line of attack ends and those independents and Republicans willing to cross party lines increases.

Posted by Julene | April 7, 2008 3:18 PM

"Get your man to answer just what kind of change he is discussing in regards to the policies that he proposes. Once he does - then that line of attack ends..."

And Hillary supporters begin another line of attack that's just as silly.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | April 7, 2008 3:45 PM

1. It's change he's Effected; it's Effective advocate. Change he's "affected" would be any change that is happening or has happened that he has altered in some way; an "affective" advocate would be one who elicits emotions. Change he has brought into being is change he's "effected"; an "effective" advocate is one who has produced results.

Jebus, that drives me crazy!

2. What is the amazing change Hillary has effected? It's maybe a reasonable criticism of Obama, but it's been a reasonable criticism of all three of this year's leading Democratic contenders since day one. The counterargument has been and continues to be that the Democrats in 2008 are articulating visions for a way forward, and the Republicans are stuck talking about what Reagan did and what they used to do once upon a time (before they renounced their own minimal accomplishments in the name of evoking the mythic Reagan).

Seriously, Hillary tells us she's learned how to win in Washington because she's been there, but she hasn't actually told us how she wins in Washington. We really have no idea whether she knows or not, and we haven't seen it in action, either. The one exception is that the Clintons were able to stave off an attempted removal from office. But that was the product of ludicrous Republican overreach, not really strong Democratic political gamesmanship. Where are her big policy wins against hostile opposition? Show them to me, please, if you're going to use that as your line of attack on Obama. Implying contrast when there isn't one is dishonest.

The way the Democrat - either of them - will beat these attacks, as you seem to think Clinton is prepping Obama to do or exposing him as unable to do, is ... not to beat them. Neither of them is going to out-experience, out-patriot, or out-tough-guy John McCain in this election. Just no way, no how. McCain has the media wrapped in this message already, and the Republicans will push it all the way through November. We need to find other chinks in the armor.

Here's one: point out that all his experience has been experience in doing the wrong thing and never actually having any core principles. here's another: there has to be a difference between "patriotic" and "war-hungry," and tough guy rhetoric and being right usually point in opposite directions. A few more: overwhelming military might doesn't solve all the world's problems, and domestic policy matters, health care really is a problem, half-measures on climate change won't work, women's rights matter, "tough it out, losers" isn't an acceptable message on the financial crises that are and will continue to arise.

It's about Vision. We've got it, he doesn't.

Posted by jhupp | April 7, 2008 4:05 PM

"How about if your candidate actually goes out there and explains to the public what his policies actually are, just what kind of change he is espousing, and how he expects to affect this change?"

I'm sorry, but is this your first time on the internet? A basic google search can answer these questions. Not to mention the dozens of town halls he's held.

Here's one clip on him talking about McCain: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KNWSLdU-C1c

On the dollar decline: http://youtube.com/watch?v=l946g7Y8abU

Aw hell, here's part 1/10 (the remaining are under "More from" on the side) of a full town hall: http://youtube.com/watch?v=oL9umtxQJ7o

Honestly, I think his lack of time in Washington (and plenty of time as a public servant outside of Washington) is a plus. Mostly because he's the only one with any credibility to say things like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_McxTOc2KTA

"If any of you are really concerned with Obama's candidacy beyond beating Clinton"

Do you think people are just going to forget about him if he wins the nomination and let McCain cakewalk to Bush's 3rd term?

And finally, a hilarious part of a YouTube comment that sums up how baffled I get when I hear "just words":

"Just talk? What do you want him to do? Cartwheels? Breathe fire? Knit you a sweater? We're electing a president. He's a candidate. Candidates make speeches. That's all they do. It's how we get to know them..."

Posted by 55 | April 7, 2008 4:22 PM

The WSJ concluded that Obama has provided for a way to pay for every piece of new spending. To name just one difference between Obama and Dubya.

Just because Obama's had success giving inspirational speeches, and Clinton has had somewhat less success boring the fuck out of everyone (once the inevitability theory failed, which should be noted was not so *specific*), it does not thereby follow that, marketing aside, Obama is unspecific in what he's proposing.

Posted by David B. | April 7, 2008 4:44 PM

David B., could you provide a link? The most specific I've heard him get is talking about upping capital gains taxes and re-instituting PAYGO.

Posted by 55 | April 7, 2008 5:20 PM

"The WSJ concluded that Obama has provided for a way to pay for every piece of new spending. To name just one difference between Obama and Dubya."

This is moronic and tells me we will have no broader health care insurance or much of anything else than war and more soldiers. If Obama is saying this, he is lying.

Posted by Jennifer | April 7, 2008 5:54 PM

Obama: cut taxes for middle class; use pay as you go; add 100,000 troops; keep at least 80,000 troops for Iraq for at least 2 more years; add troops in Afghanistan; set up an expensive health care insurance program. Moronic, if this impresses the WSJ.

Posted by Jennifer | April 7, 2008 6:02 PM

Clinton needs to explain how it is that an important aspect of her life is her participation in a strongly right wing Christian political organization called "The Family" which has connections with right wing dictators and death squad commanders around the world.

If there's any connection between either candidate and Bush or being right wing, this is clearly it.

As for specifics, I've complained before that Obama has NO specifics concerning his foreign policy agenda. That's very clear from his speeches. He simply has no clue how to achieve what he has advocated for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, or the Palestinian situation.

However, Clinton doesn't have any specifics either for her foreign policy agenda. And her agenda is as much or more "hawkish" than Obama's. Besides which, she is tied to the AIPAC crowd and we know what that means.

And McCain is out in loony-tune land when it comes to his agenda, let alone specifics. He will be worse than Bush in terms of foreign policy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 7, 2008 6:04 PM

Obama on social security caps: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/

Couldn't find a link to the WSJ (may be behind subscriber walls.) Obama made this claim in one of the last two debates, if recollection serves. In any event, whether or not what Obama proposes gets passed, Bush's economic plan on its face didn't add up.

Jennifer, you're omitting letting the Bush tax cuts sunset, raising capital gains taxes, ending the carried interest loophole, and close outsourcing loopholes.

Posted by David B. | April 7, 2008 6:17 PM

Yep, you guessed it and are so far superior to me, I've never been on the internets before. Thanks for attacking a fellow Democrat as too stupid to participate or even voice an opinion on the election of a nominee of my party.

Posted by Julene | April 7, 2008 6:29 PM

It wasn't meant to be an attack, and I'm sorry it came off that way, it was just my response to what I believe is a totally illegitimate criticism. He DOES describe his policy positions for the world to see, online, in policy papers, in town halls, debates, interviews, etc. You can criticize those, but to say he never "explains to the public what his policies actually are" is unfair to any Obama supporter who likes him for his positions. Because the subtle insult is that we- the 13 million+ Americans who have voted for him- are all starry-eyed naive dreamers who fall for a pretty speech. Which isn't always the case.

Posted by 55 | April 7, 2008 8:41 PM

hilzoy, a real policy wonk, actually debunked the idea that Obama doesn't have an actual Senate record... back in 2006. Meanwhile, Clinton has to take credit for other people's accomplishments to be able to create the facade of a record. Even on her signature issue, health care, her legislative accomplishments are partly due to Obama.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

"But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind....

So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good."

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 12:40 AM

well at the risk of stating the obvious, as i guess we all are to some extent....the actuality of her criticism is rarely important. i think we're all pretty used to seeing reality get passed by. she's putting words and pseudofacts to people's unfounded perception that obama is just words or something to that effect. pretty simple and possibly wrangles you some.... absentminded voters. in the usa? naaaaah.

Posted by maeniel | April 8, 2008 7:13 AM