Enron has been a five-letter expletive among liberals for years, the hammer to their anti-Bush sickle. However, Obama’s connection to Goldman Sachs, and in turn Goldman Sachs SEC charges, may make Bush’s Enron connection look no more catastrophic than Clinton’s “definition of is” moment – a slip, a poor choice, but in the end, nothing but a soundbite among the Arkansas charmer’s sweaty legacy.

The Washington Examiner pointed out today that Bush’s evil Enron contributions pale like milk money when compared to Obama’s donations from Goldman Sachs, his apparent new villain in the war against poor public opinion.

Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

Goldman Sachs put their money where Obama’s mouth is.

Seven times more is actually being generous.

But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama’s $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees.

But that’s not exactly all of it. Not by a long shot. Goldman Sachs also loves a woman in a pantsuit. Obama’s cabinet member Hillary Clinton is also a Goldman Sachs sweetheart with $415,595.63 (inflation adjusted) in contributions, her winnings three times that of Enron’s donations to Bush.

When Goldman Sachs makes friend, they put their whole bank account into it. And they wanted to be friends with Obama, in the end giving him 10 times more than Enron ever gave Bush.

The Democrats have already outlined the playbook in situations such as these. In January 2002, TIME Magazine explained it like this in their “Bush’s Enron Problem” article:

The Democrats will have the company-he-keeps, guilt-by-association thing on their side, and with all the shareholder lawsuits, federal judges threatening to seize the execs’ gilded parachutes and divvy them up among the poor, and general whiff of rich man’s cover-up about the whole affair, they’ll have a class warfare card to play this spring.

Change “2002” to “2010” and “Bush” to “Obama” and “Democrats” to “Republicans”, will the media’s meme stay the same? Unlikely. Though that doesn’t disguise the fact that if Enron was Bush’s problem, then Goldman Sachs is Obama’s cancer. Though Goldman Sachs makes for a much lengthier profanity, fiscal conservatives – many united in the Tea Party movement – may find it rolls off the tongue quite gracefully.

In January 2001, the Associated Press published the headline, “Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis”, which can now be easily adapted to fit well in the Goldman Sachs Sec charges. Maybe something like… “Obama-backing Goldman Sachs makes big money off crisis.”

It has a nice ring to it.