Obama: McCain Would be Better than Bush

April 21st, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

In what will undoubtedly result in criticism from the Hillary Clinton campaign and, especially, from liberal bloggers (who support her, and perhaps even liberal pro-Obama supporters), Senator Barack Obama said that a John McCain presidency, wouldn’t be ‘as bad’ as George W. Bush’s presidency was and is.

“You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain,” Obama told a cheering crowd in Pennsylvania last Sunday. “And all three of us would be better than George Bush.”

Of course, there are still some hardcore Bush defenders out there, but Bush is – generally – quite unpopular. Obama’s comment, then, is something of a compliment for McCain; he seems to believe that no matter what happens, the ‘horrible’ years of Bush are over and gone with.

But there is a problem: the Democratic Party is clearly trying to portray McCain as a second George W. Bush. That’s, of course, also the major strength the Democrats have this year; they’re not the party of Bush. If Democratic candidates themselves openly admit the truth – that McCain is no Bush – they basically hurt themselves and their own chances.

Interestingly enough, Obama himself is constantly making the case that McCain = Bush as well. Earlier he said: “We cannot afford a third George Bush term and that’s what John McCain is offering — a third Bush term.”

His more recent comments, however, indicate that he knows the truth; McCain and Bush belong to the same party, and both are quite hawkish, but that’s where the similarities end.

Red State:

 Ooops. The Politico’s Ben Smith describes this as a “break with the core of the Democratic Party’s strategy.” But you know, it’s tough when the “core Democratic Party strategy” is to convince the public of something that even Democratic candidates don’t believe.

Back to the drawing board. And try to be honest this time…

The Democratic Daily:

 Way to go Barack, nothing like undermining the efforts of the entire Democratic party…

And then Pamela quotes Hillary Clinton who – as we are used from American politicians – reacts with a cheap shot:

“Sen. Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush. Now, Sen. McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction, but Sen. McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years.

“Sen. McCain thinks it is okay to keep our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. Is that better than George Bush?

 Audience: No!

What’s really sad is that Democrats aren’t even embarrassed by their constant repetition of an empty talking point. She also had better points, of course:

“Sen. McCain will continue the failed economic policies of George Bush that have brought us deficit and increasing debt. Is that better than George Bush?

Audience: No!

“Sen. McCain does not have a health care plan that will cover every American. In fact, we will have more and more uninsured Americans. Is that better than George Bush?

Audience: No!

Tennessee Guerrilla Woman:

 I swear there are days when the words out of Obama’s mouth lead me to believe that the presidential wannabe could have been hand-picked to bring down the Democratic Party by no one other than Karl Rove himself.

Here’s yet more evidence that Barack Obama is anything but a team player

The Anonymous Liberal:

“When is a gaffe not a gaffe?” Answer: when it offends no one, is unquestionably true, and saying it actually makes you seem like a better, more honest person than your opponent.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Oops! He Did It Again « QC Examiner
    April 21st, 2008 at 14:36
    #1
Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.