I overheard a disturbing conversation this week. An individual who is a conservative and who voted for the opponents of Barack Obama in both of his elections commented: “I don’t like Hillary, but I would rather have her as president than Barack Obama.” I get what the man was trying to say. After all, by comparison the family pet would seem to make a better president than Barack Obama has, but Americans should not be fooled. The family pet would also be better than Hillary Clinton as president. There is no discernible difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Put Obama in an ugly pantsuit and you have Hillary. Put Hillary in a pair of golfing shoes and you have Obama.
Because of his low and still declining approval ratings, Barack Obama has become a political pariah Democratic candidates refuse to touch with the proverbial ten-foot pole. In fact, Hillary is just the latest in a long line of Democrats who would rather not be associated with the president. While I don’t blame Hillary or the other Democrats who are assiduously avoiding America’s golfer-in-chief, Americans should not be fooled into thinking that Mrs. Clinton is actually an acceptable alternative to Barack Obama. I understand that the Obama presidency has been so bad that any alternative now seems good by comparison, but Americans need to look at the facts. Their personal feuds notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are two peas in a pod politically. In fact, when it comes to leftwing politics they could be fraternal twins. These two off-the-chart liberals differ only in sex and race.
This column reviews a few things that Americans should remember about Hillary Clinton when they step into a voting booth. For example, Hillary was Barack Obama’s Secretary of State for four years. In this position she practically groveled in praising the president for his handling of the Osama bin Laden killing. It was as if he had personally delivered the coups de grace with no help from the Navy Seals. Further, she gave the president cover on the worst of his self-made foreign-policy disasters: Benghazi. If you are looking for differences between Hillary and Obama, you are going to need a microscope, one that is well-calibrated.
Those who consider Hillary a fitting alternative to Barack Obama should remember that she supported his grand-standing decision to send Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson, Missouri; an act of blatant political pandering that lent instant credibility to criminals who were looting and rioting and have since burned down much of that beleaguered town’s business district. Consequently, like her political twin in the White House Hillary Clinton must accept some of the blame for the destructive anarchy that took place in Ferguson. In fact, business leaders in Ferguson would do well to tally up the cost of rebuilding and send the invoice to Obama and Hillary. They could also send the bill to Al Sharpton, but since he owes $4.5 million in back taxes, he isn’t likely to pay. Reverend Al takes, he doesn’t give.
In the run-up to the mid-term elections, Hillary strongly urged Democrats to run on Obamacare—the Obama induced political disaster they wanted most to avoid. The fact that Hillary would still support Obamacare when it has become an albatross around the neck of her party shows that, like the president, she is completely out of touch with her party and the American public. Also like Obama she cares nothing about what Americans think of the disaster that is inappropriately named the Affordable Care Act. Like Obama, Hillary is a leftwing elitist who thinks she knows better than everyday Americans what they need and should—in her view—want. Before then community organizer, Barack Obama, could even spell ACA, Hillary Clinton had almost undermined her husband’s presidency with her blind insistence on pushing a poorly-thought-out system of national healthcare on Congress. If there could be a worse healthcare plan than Obamacare, it would be Hillarycare.
One of the things you sometimes hear conservatives say is that Hillary would be more willing to exert America’s military strength as part of her foreign policy than Obama is or has been. Liberals say the same thing, except when they say it they are criticizing Hillary, not applauding her. For those conservatives who find comfort in their image of Hillary as stronger on military matters than Obama, I would suggest they review the events surrounding the Benghazi tragedy. Benghazi is as much a failure of Hillary Clinton as it is of Barack Obama. They both have blood on their hands in this tragic and embarrassing debacle.
There is one additional way in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are political twins. Obama relied on the historic possibility of becoming America’s first black president to help secure his election. Hillary is relying on a similar phenomenon—the historic possibility of becoming America’s first female president. Unfortunately for Hillary, but fortunately for our country, one of the hard lessons many have learned from Obama’s disastrous presidency is that just being black or a woman is not enough. More important than the historical significance of having a black or a female president is the practical need to have a good president. Race and sex may mean something to Americans, but they mean nothing to our enemies.
Some Americans have been willing to give Barack Obama a pass in spite of his persistent failings as president because of his race. I am sure there are those who would give President Hillary Clinton a pass because of her gender, but do not count America’s enemies among them. America’s enemies give no passes, especially to American presidents. As they have shown with Barack Obama, when they sense weakness, they attack. Just ask the terrorists who killed our embassy personnel in Benghazi and have gotten away with it or the ISIS militants who have turned Iraq into a terrorist state about going easy on America because we elected a black president.
Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama in a pantsuit and Barack Obama is Hillary Clinton in a business suit. These two radical liberals differ only in sex and race. Beyond these two factors there are hardly any discernible differences between Obama and Hillary. Perhaps the way they are most alike though is that they are both bad for America. Their radical liberal agenda has proven disastrous during the Obama years. Four more years of elitist statism in domestic policy and weakness in foreign policy may be all it takes to completely transform America into a second rate nation economically and militarily; a nation more vulnerable to its enemies than at any time since July 4, 1776.