Poor Hillary Clinton: She wants desperately to distance herself from President Obama when it comes to fighting ISIS. Yet her approach is every bit as lame as the one that’s driven his polls through the floor — because it’s almost exactly the same.

On Sunday, she said America isn’t “winning” against the Islamic State — and suggested Obama isn’t “doing everything we need to do.”

She even echoed Churchill: “We have to fight them in air. We have to fight them on the ground. And we have to fight on the Internet.”

Wait, what?

Yes, Clinton’s taking aim at Web companies like Facebook and Twitter for letting jihadis market themselves.

Social-media firms, she said, “cannot permit the recruitment and the actual direction of attacks or the celebration of violence” by ISIS. (Then again, she also blamed the Benghazi attack on an Internet video.)

In fact, many social-media companies already have anti-terror policies. Yet this was about the only new idea she has for fighting the group. The rest of her approach just mimics Obama.

For instance, Clinton:

• Backs Obama’s air campaign targeting ISIS’s oil facilities and leadership — though that hasn’t seemed to work.
• Would rely, as Obama does, on a small group of special-op forces, but thinks combat troops “would make things worse.”
• Refuses to say we’re at war with ISIS — only that we’re in a “conflict.”
• Won’t admit the war, er, “conflict,” is against “radical Islamic terrorists.”
• Thinks a key problem is Islamophobia.
• Changes the subject by claiming trivial gun-law changes can make a meaningful difference in keeping Americans safe.

Last month, Gallup showed 64 percent of American adults are down on Obama’s approach to ISIS — and just 30 percent in favor. And that was before the ISIS-linked San Bernardino and Paris attacks.

If Clinton really wants to distance herself from the hapless prez, she’s got to truly move past his “strategy” — and offer something new.