clinton: the new bush
by Ryan Porter
Published: April 18, 2008
Remember back in elementary school when girls would chase the boys on whom they had crushes? They would tease the boys and play rough with them in an unsophisticated attempt to hide their true feelings. Those were tough times. Getting beat up by a girl, as you can imagine, does wonders for a boy’s psyche. But then we grow up and grow out of that phase…or so we thought.
George W. Bush: welcome back to elementary school.
For years now Bush has had to endure the taunts, the verbal jabs, and the annual State of the Union eye-rolling from Senator Hilary Clinton. She insists that the Bush administration is responsible for everything wrong in America today from the national deficit to…let’s say PMS (I’m sure it was mentioned somewhere along the campaign trail). On more than one occasion she has touted herself as the best presidential candidate to “clean up after” him.
Obviously she does these things because she genuinely disagrees with the president, right? It has seemed that way for the last seven years, but recent events have revealed the true nature of her attacks. In fact, Clinton does not detest Bush but is merely using these tactics to hide her true esteem for the president just like one might find on the playground.
The first evidence of this secret admiration came when Clinton released her “3 AM” television commercial. The ad alluded to a security threat and featured sleeping children in an effort to prey on parents’ desire to keep their children safe. Basically she was using fear and terrorism as a way to scare up votes by assuring voters that she is the candidate who will keep them safe. Sound familiar? In 2004 Bush basically ran his campaign on the motto, “Vote for us or the terrorists will get you” and subsequent psychological studies suggest that this tactic was effective. The Clinton campaign was certainly aware of the research and chose to emulate the Bush strategy.
More recently, Clinton has been talking about how she would manage the war in Iraq. In a speech delivered at Haverford College, covered by CNN, she guaranteed Pennsylvanians that she, “… will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days of becoming president, regardless of what her military advisers say about the situation on the ground at the time.” Ignoring the experts? Pushing a policy without regard for the input of advisers? In a CNN debate last June Clinton attacked the Bush administration for not talking to people with whom they did not agree, but it sounds like that is how she plans on running her administration if elected, thus again, following in Bush’s footsteps.
Later in the same speech Clinton affirmed that she would bring the troops home even if it meant that Iraq would be left destabilized. Basically she is prepared to trade the welfare and potential stability of Iraq to further her own political agenda. If this scenario feels like déjà vu it is because the Bush administration made the same trade when first going into Iraq. In 1994 Dick Cheney himself recognized the risks of a U.S. invasion of Iraq predicting, among other things, that it would create of “quagmire” in the region. Clearly the Bush administration knew the risks and was also prepared to trade the welfare and stability of Iraq to further their own political agenda. Clinton see, Clinton do.
Apparently the Senator does not differ from the current administration as much as she claims to. And the similarities do not stop there. Clinton is viewed by many as dishonest, self-serving and secretive: three labels commonly applied to the Bush administration. Certainly the two have different opinions as far as policy goes, but it seems that she is more Bush-like than she would have the American people realize.
For voters who want to see significant political change (despite the term being beat into the ground over the past year) the decision is practically made for you. If you are tired of Bush’s policies, don’t vote Republican. If you disenchanted with the fear mongering, the lack of transparency and the go-it-alone mentality, don’t vote Clinton.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
April 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I’m curious, is Clinton’s strategy in Iraq not nearly the exact same as Obama’s? But, I can’t keep up with candidate positions very well.
Interesting comparison. That’s really rather clever and funny.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
the entry. beautiful.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:29 am
freaking brilliant. I’d like to see someone try to stick up for hillary given your arguments.