Panic!

I didn't get to watch the debate Saturday, but the Times reported that Clinton responded to a question about her likability this way:

"In 2000, we unfortunately ended up with a president who people said they wanted to have a beer with, who said he wanted to be a uniter not a divider — who said that he had his intuition and, you know, really come into the White House and transform the country,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And you know, at least I think there are the majority of Americans who think that was not the right choice."

She just said the same thing, almost word for word to Matt Lauer.

Clinton has an argument to make about experience and is correct that voters should consider her knowledge of what it's like to be in the White House. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is for her to compare the excitement surrounding Obama in 2008 to any interest in Dubya in 2000. This is a desperate tactic. Obama is nothing like Bush. True, he is not very experienced, but I haven't heard one person ever make the argument that Obama would be likely to make the same mistakes as Bush.

One more thing, and I know this is going to sound like Obama's argument, but as he frequently, and correctly points out, Bill Clinton in 1992, had about as much experience as Dubya in 2000.

Reports say that Clinton's campaign is panicking. That may be an overstatement, but making comparisons between Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2000 certainly sound like panic.