Bring It On!

The Bush-Clinton Parallel

May 11th, 2008 | by Omnipotent Poobah |

History sometimes cycles through repeating patterns that aren’t easily noticeable. Political history - obfuscated as it is by partisan squabbling and self-interest - is a particularly difficult place to notice them. Sure, there are plenty of polls, records galore, and election results to ponder, but George and Hillary the Twinsideological differences tend to make us think of politicians in opposing parties as completely different from one another.

As hard as it is to see, and as appalled as both would be to hear it, George Bush and Hillary Clinton are two of those politicians who are so alike they’re almost the same. From their membership in privileged political dynasties to their ability to effortlessly divide constituencies, they become more and more alike as time goes on. Both have squandered political capital like shore-leave sailors spending money on cheap hookers and booze. Both have an affinity for scorched earth policies and little tolerance for those mere mortals who question them. Compromise and easy forthrightness are anathema to them and the day either of them admits a mistake is the day the planet will reverse direction.

But their quixotic pursuit of unattainable goals, regardless of the cost to others, is perhaps their single most noticeable parallel.

George chases a phantom peace in Iraq, so convinced that only he can see the one true victory that he’s willing to take his party, the country, and the rest of the world down with him. He’ll brook no compromise regardless of any pesky facts that get in the way and insists that one day historians will see him as a cowboy prophet whose memory is to be revered and genuflected to. He’s a man accustomed to an easy life that’s given him a sense of entitlement that produces a hubris-filled cloud so big it covers the whole of the western hemisphere.

On many issues - except perhaps staying in Iraq - the two of them look like polar opposites. But look closer. See how Hillary chases the nomination even while the country is steadily turning against her? Doesn’t that smack of the Bushonian belief that anything is fair as long as she gets what she wants? What about her willingness to fling poop when the odds stack against her? Or what about her belief that she’s winning even as she loses? Just as George sees his prize right around the next corner, Hillary predicts that each new primary will put her over the top so she’ll be able to attend her own coronation in 2009. If the two of them live in bubbles, they are bubbles that have conjoined.

It’s time for one of them to break out of the George Bush mold. Since George is, well, George, it looks like Hillary is the one to make the move. Of course, she has the right to conduct her campaign any way she chooses, no matter how destructive the rest of us believe it is. However, it would be nice if she considered the needs of the country instead of the needs of Hillary for once. She can continue to pitch money (much of it her own) down a rat hole and continue to anger everyone in sight, but the result will be much the same as it’s been for Bush - she’ll become a pariah responsible to ruining her party and possibly creating an opening where even a doofus like McCain can win. She’ll have so thoroughly pissed on every person who might otherwise have been her friend that the terrible thunder of karma will rain down on her in apocalyptic fashion. If I was her, karma is the thing I’d fear most.

After all, look what it’s done to George.

See other fine hypertext products at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

  1. 8 Responses to “The Bush-Clinton Parallel”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on May 11, 2008 | Reply

    Hillary is, I think, less than 200 delegates behind and, while she cannot gain sufficient number of delegates to nail down the nomination, neither can Obama.

    Further, Obama seems to have a serious problem gaining the backing of working-class whites in this country. He also has a problem carrying large “blue” states like California, or New York, or, well, any of the big Blue states that he’ll need to win in the general election.

    This could be a problem come November.

    Perhaps Hillary is just trying to save the country from a McCain presidency after a campaign haunted by the ghosts of:

    Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views and contention that Obama is just saying what he needs to say in order to get elected,

    Tony Rezko,

    William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn,

    the endorsement of Obama’s presidency by Hamas,

    the republication of a Hamas manifesto in a bulletin at his Church of choice for 20 years and a choice that continues into the present,

    Robert Malley’s frequent contacts with Hamas while an adviser to Obama,

    et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad dern near infinitum.

    That’s a boatload of ties to terrorists, criminals, and radical leftist nut-cases to try to whistle past all the way into the White House.

  3. By rube cretin on May 11, 2008 | Reply

    Six months ago I did not think there was anyway the Dems could loose in November. Now I just don’t know. I am beginning to wonder about the folks who post these rants. What is their motive? Is it possible they recognize the validity of your comment and are already developing an excuse for a possible defeat this November?

    Unfortunately, the election will probably not make much difference since the nations economy is going to be in such a sorry state that it won’t really matter. My recommendation is that folks begin to take steps to take care of themselves, because national and state governments are about to become irrelevant to everyday needs.

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on May 11, 2008 | Reply


    Sounds like you’ve become a libertarian! ;-)

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on May 11, 2008 | Reply

    Hopefully people will come around to the realization that it isn’t up to government to meet their every-day needs. When you become a small government leave-me-the-fuck-alone libertarian, I’ll gladly welcome you into the fold. :-D

  6. By rube cretin on May 11, 2008 | Reply

    Thanks, but no. i don’t like labels. i only belong to one group. I’m a member of the Planet Earth Club. Hope this thing crashes fast, because if the decline is slow we will burn up everything and drive more species to extinction.

  7. By Jersey McJones on May 12, 2008 | Reply

    So Craig, apparently, trade policy has no effect on a national economy, so says the “conservative.” If one guy sells something to another guy than just by that we know it was all in good faith with good consequence - or at least all benign. What kind of *************(Mothers Day) is that? I don’t want the government to give me any ****** (Mothers Day) thing. I just want a nation that has a ****** (Mothers Day) trade policy that doesn’t price me out of the ******************** (Mothers Day) market. Shouldn’t a ******************************************** nation at least watch out for itself with trade policy beneficial to ITSELF? Is that too much to ask???

    Happy Mothers Day, gang.


  8. By Craig R. Harmon on May 12, 2008 | Reply


    Happy Mother’s Day! As far as markets are concerned, the less fiddling the government does in those, the better. Anything they do distorts the market. There are exceptions, trust-busting being a major one. For markets to operate effectively and efficiently, there must be true competition. Insuring competition and avoiding price-fixing are, in my opinion, valid and essential functions of government. I have no objection to a rational monetary policy, by which wide variations in economies can be tempered. Governments can and must keep track of things like fraudulent business practices, protect worker and consumer health and safety and the such but things like trade barriers and tariffs are no nos. People need to be able to determine for themselves the value of the things they want and how much they are willing to pay for them if the markets are to work. Therefore, price-fixing, tariffs, protectionism, etc. only distort the markets making them less efficient and drive prices up.

    Sorry, Jersey. If you’re worried about being priced out of the market, either provide a good or service that the consumer wants at the best possible price or find a niche market or a new product or service to provide. Consumers shouldn’t be forced to pay the price at which you can provide a good or service if a competitor can undercut you. If your quality is worth a greater price, there will be those who will pay it voluntarily but they should not be forced to pay more for your good or service if someone else can provide the same quality at a lower price.

    We’re in a global market now, Jersey. Trying to turn back the clock won’t work. If industries cannot trade freely with other countries from this country, they’ll leave this country for one where they CAN trade freely. We’re stuck with worker volatility and nothing Barack Obama or anyone else, thinks he can do will change that. The best we can do is provide education to facilitate workers changing to industries which we can best provide. The age of working in the same factory for 35 years is over, in my opinion, for good.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on May 12, 2008 | Reply

    But my comment wasn’t about these things. It was intended to be about government meddling in our lives, restricting our choices, going all nanny-ish on us, trying to direct and control our every-day lives. There’s a word for that: totalitarian. My comment wasn’t intended to be a comment upon market tampering.

Post a Comment