Hillary to Supporters: She'll Ratchet Up the Experience Argument

While I happen to agree at present that Barack Obama does not have sufficient experience to be President, I think it's pretty obvious voters around the country aren't sold on the concept.

At a fundraiser in Boston today, Hillary told her supporters:

"We're going to emphasize more and more the experience gap," Clinton told several hundred supporters who had paid at least $500 to attend a Boston fundraiser. "You'll hear a lot about it the next eight days."

The New York senator said the posters voters are bringing to her events indicate that the issue of experience is coming to the forefront.

"When I first started, it was 'You Go Girl,' 'Women Making History,' all about the pioneering nature of my candidacy," Clinton said. Recently, she said, the signs had changed. "In Houston last night, it was, 'We Want Experience, Not An Experiment,' and 'The White House Is No Place for Training Wheels,'" she said.

Can this work now? I'm not convinced. Perhaps, if John McCain, who has begun making the same argument about Obama, keeps hitting the experience factor this week, it might resonate. [More...]

I wish there was a different term than "experience." For people who believe in amorphous change, lack of experience too often aligns with lack of contamination by "the system" and is seen as a plus.

But, this is the system we have. It's not going to change in the next four years. We have three branches of Government, and the President, in order to implement his or her agenda, has to be able to move it through Congress. (Unless she or he is going to be like Bush and play unitary executive.)

I think a better word for inexperience is "lack of accomplishments." Hillary needs to focus on bringing out her accomplishments during her six years as Senator, and contrasting it to Obama's, without stating the obvious, that she's been there twice as long as him. People will connect the dots.

There's no question Obama did a good job as a state Senator in Illinois. I believe him that he was an effective community organizer. But I don't think either of those equips him or anyone to be President of the United States.

Right now, no one in the MSM is contrasting their accomplishments. Some bloggers are trying, by researching on Thomas and the candidates' presidential and senate websites, but it would be a whole lot easier if both Hillary and Obama would release fact sheets showing the legislation they sponsored or co-sponsored and the work they did (besides casting a vote) to get that legislation passed. I'd like to see a similar statement for opposition legislation they believe they played a significant role in defeating. The war in Iraq is just one issue. Voters need to know all of their record to make an informed choice.

Most bloggers have day jobs. For the MSM and campaign staffs, this is their day job. And they are not doing what we need them to do.

I hope in the next week leading up to Texas and Ohio, we hear more about the accomplishments and failures of each candidate, not just accusations and rebuttals about "experience."

Update: In thinking this through some more, I believe there one "experience" related argument Hillary can convincingly make -- and that's that Obama hasn't been around long enough to have the clout to get his agenda through Congress. She has far more experience, especially from the years of Bill Clinton's presidency, in how to do that. Obama can hire all the best policy people to help him draft his policies and form his position on issues, but that doesn't mean Congress is going to go for them. He just doesn't have the street cred.

One other point: We have had a majority in Congress since January of 2007, and we're still in Iraq, still stymied over FISA and warrantless wiretapping and still without universal health care. Just having a Democratic President isn't going to eliminate Republican opposition to our policies and make them become law. We need someone who can beat back Republican opposition, not just compromise with them. She needs to convince Democrats that she's more likely to be successful at getting the Democratic agenda implemented over Republican opposition.

You can call for change until the cows come home, and it's not going to happen unless you have the clout to make it happen.

(Comments now over 200, this thread is closing.)

< Louis Farrakhan: Obama Is the Hope of the World | The Obama Garb Flap >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What I have trouble with is this: (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:21:43 AM EST
    If he was an effective legislator, and a good community organizer, how come the Rezko housing projects in his own district were falling apart and had problem, and he didn't know about them, or didn't do anything?

    Something is missing here.  I am sorry, but I just see him as a career politician.

    I hope I don't get in trouble for going OT (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:55:59 AM EST
    but this something that I've thought she needed to bring up a long time ago. Especially when he started with this meme of having better judgment. Chicago is a big city but at the neighborhood level it is like a small town.

    I know who is cheating on who, who got pregnant, who committed a crime, who was a victim of one, who crashed their car over the weekend, who is moving out, yadda, yadda, yadda and I don't even know 99.9% of these people in my neighborhood. So I do not buy that Obama didn't know what Rezko was doing in his own district especially since they were friends for 17-20 years.

    Hillary should have been pounding him on his poor judgment and getting tangled up with a character like Rezko. A "community organizer" should know what is going on in the community and who are the people that are preying on it.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by muffie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:45:57 AM EST
    lived in Hyde Park, which contains mostly students at the University of Chicago and upper-middle to upper class African Americans.  It's fairly isolated from the surrounding communities, where any low-income housing would be.  He would be unlikely to know about the sort of details you mention in other neighborhoods miles away.

    This doesn't ring true to me because (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:48:27 AM EST
    Obama associated with Rezko for 17 years and represented the district in IL State Senate.  

    My (none / 0) (#31)
    by muffie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:03:52 AM EST
    point was just that he would have been unlikely to hear about the problems as local neighborhood gossip.  I'm not responding here in any way to the claims that he should have heard about problems from his constituents in some other fashion.

    Or from Rezko. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:10:50 AM EST
    That isn't true and for you (none / 0) (#189)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    to contend that he wouldn't know who the slumlord in his district is then you're saying all of the activists and community groups in the area must be incompetent to complain about the buildings.

    I'd give you that since Obama would just be par for the course then. But I won't give you that the people who lived in 11 buildings in Obama's district that were owned by Rezko didn't complain. And if they complained they complained to community groups and elected officials.

    Even now 7 block from his mansion there is at least one Rezko building. So not only was he deaf to the situation he must have had some huge cataracts to not have seen the 11 buildings in his neighborhood.


    Could you list (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST
    the complaints that are being served by tenants towards Rezko?

    How many residential buildings did he own?

    Since you seem to know quite a bit about it I would like to know the details.


    Not true (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:28:19 AM EST
    Hyde Park is on the South Side, surrounded by ghettos. The neighborhood has special organizations and committees that are watchdogs for what is going on in the poorer neighborhoods, because Hyde Park is an oasis in a sea of low-income districts. The crime from the ghettos impacts Hyde Park and the University of Chicago very significantly.  The residents are not immune to it as you suggest. So, no excuses for Obama on this one.

    Thank you. I wonder what causes people to (none / 0) (#183)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    be so blindly loyal that they loose their thinking skills and become so duplicitous.

    When he was driving around looking to buy his mansion and he did the walk through with Rezko before putting in his bid for the house, I wonder if he ever said;"Nice house, eh Tony? Hey, BTW I've been meaning to ask you for at least ten years. You ever gonna fix that building of yours 6 blocks down the street?" or at least "Tony when you gonna fix up all of these 11 buildings of yours in my district?"

    The reality of the situation is that even though the south side of Chicago that he represented had a lot of hope Barry Potter didn't wave his magic wand and create any meaningful change in the area.


    I am sure that didn't stop him.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ineedalife on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:03:50 AM EST
    from taking credit for anything good going on while he represented them.

    Any legislator has staff that is attuned to local events and gossip. You damn well know that if an event in his district is on the evening news in Chicago he knows about it.


    Nothing stops Obama from stepping on people (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08:52 AM EST
    I agree re: Rezko (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:01:27 AM EST
    and the housing.  I paid very close attention to the Obama campaign early on and wondered where the 'testimonials' are from that time.  There are none.  There is no group of folks who have come out and said, "yes, he helped me."  There are no single women with kids talking about how he got their heat turned back on or garbage picked up.

    I think Clinton has found a very good way to highlight Obama's lack of experience.  In Ohio yesterday, she said something about, "how is he going to make legislators who are entrenched in their own special interests change their minds?  Is he just going to wave his magic wand?"

    She has a sharp sense of humor, and I think more speeches like this will serve her well--and have the benefit of drawing the listener's attention to the fact that she is experienced enough to know how things work.


    Experience vs Experiment (none / 0) (#176)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22:48 AM EST
    I wish (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:52:09 AM EST
    she'd really hammer on a point that Obama keeps making: that he is "the One" who can reach across the aisle and get some bipartisanship happening. When you actually look at his record in the Senate, there is no evidence of him ever having done that. On the contrary, Hillary is the one who has actually worked with Republicans - including the very people who tried to oust Bill when he was President. I wish she would point this out strongly to people, because it seems to be one of his central themes. This is definitely one instance where she has the actual experience of rolling up her sleeve and actually accomplishing what Obama claims he can accomplish, but has shown no signs of doing.

    NAFTA (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:45:32 AM EST
    The Clintons reached across the aisle for NAFTA and the other trade agreements. For media megamergers.

    Go back and look at who supported NAFTA. The problem is that's not the kind of experience in bipartisanship that most Dems are looking for.


    Obama has crossed the aisle many times (none / 0) (#180)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    and voted with Republicans to fund a war he "opposed" when he couldn't vote.

    Since Obama (none / 0) (#184)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    seems to be running his campaign a la Bill Clinton in 1992, that's probably a good preview of what Obama will bring us... and since he's already on board with compromising with Republicans, we probably can actually expect much MORE of this than WJC gave us... and all the while, I'm sure Obama will be complimenting Ronald Reagan.

    Watch for it.


    Uh... (none / 0) (#112)
    by tbetz on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:43:28 AM EST
    These pretty damned good bills, where Obama reached across the aisle, were signed into law:

    American Fuels Act to Reduce US Dependence on Foreign Oil (Harkin, Obama, Lugar)
    Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006
    The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
    The 2007 Government Ethics Bill (DeMint)

    Don't these count?


    Stockholm Syndrome (none / 0) (#152)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    Since when is working with Republicans a good thing? Jesus.

    Since Obama (none / 0) (#186)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    started boasting about how he's so good at it.

    The problem with old pols (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:36:23 AM EST
    I think that one thing the Clinton camp misses is how the key campaign message relates to the voters.

    When Obama says "hope," that is something that his supporters walk away with. When Clinton says "experience" or "solutions" that is something she walks away with. That is not an effective counter in itself (though important things to communicate).

    The key here, is she needs to sell voters on something they can walk away from the rallies and advertisements, and without any research, my preference is "confidence." Confidence that your president has the right experience, confidence that the government will create solutions that work for Americans.

    The key is to create a substantive rational attachment with Americans who want to attack America's problems. Hope might get you thinking, but confidence is what gets the work done right. "Hope you can believe in," versus "confidence you can trust." (Plays against Obama's overconfidence as well)

    I wish she would resurrect Harry Truman's old slogan in a way, "a fair deal." Oftentimes, Americans do not want "their problems solved" (as she phrased it today, very old school) by a President or government.  They do seem to want a government that creates conditions for them to solve their own problems, a fair deal. Her foreclosure moratorium is just such an idea, a chance for homeowners to get a fair deal. But I rarely find any indication she states or positions her proposal this way.

    Honestly, she wants to resurrect programs that Truman's administration failed to achieve, starting with universal health care. Clinton's program would only need a few tweaks to really bring the whole message together. She talked about Harry Truman and health care, but he was also an advocate for civil rights long before Kennedy (who Obama has wrapped around himself). She wants to be known as a fighter (and we want her to fight), so why not remind people of Give-em-hell Harry Truman by claiming his mantle as her own (as she fights from way behind).

    That would really make this about party or personality (which is how I see it). Obama's whole program is not built from a political philosophy, it is more like a post-structural collage of poll-tested hot button issues (the Clintons, Iraq War, and, more recently, NAFTA, being at the top of his list). So we have one candidate who pitches himself as the unique means to build an electoral  coalition around opposition to both political parties' policies from the past 20 years.  

    One candidate who pitches herself as the defender of long-standing Democratic legacy and policies who wants to build a coalition around unfinished work to give Americans a fair deal in a global world. Clinton's program could be characterized as the legacies of a fondly remembered Democrat (by both Dems, Inds, and Reps) and a Democratic party that created the affluent fifties.

    Give-em-hell Hillary! B$tches get stuff done!

    lots of good stuff here, but not all (none / 0) (#28)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:50:00 AM EST
    Shall I give you the snarky Obamaite rejoinder to your last points?

    "Building a bridge to the 1950s".


    Can Obama do that... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:11:42 AM EST
    effectively, without also disparaging the Democratic party's core values?

    That was the point of Clinton's attack on his mailers. Obama didn't criticize her proposals, he criticized the program of universal health care.

    In many ways, at the end of the Cold War, we needed another Fair Deal for the American middle and working classes. President Clinton got it half done, and then embroiled in impeachment and international conflicts. Just thinking on the fly, but there may be a way to frame a new "fair deal" that makes it hard for Obama to attack Clinton without attacking the Democratic party also.


    oh, I am not saying Obama would say it (none / 0) (#38)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:31:31 AM EST
    rather it seems like an obvious meme that her critics might latch onto.
    Y'know, Hillary would never say "cult-leader" but her supporters manage to get it out there.

    I dont know what you mean about the mailers. His attack was on the mandates - one aspect of her program that she, rather misleadingly, equates with universality, but which to many people seems coercive - at least until affordable insurance really is available to all.

    But let me be clear. I though most of your piece was really excellent. I agree with the "fair deal" meme - it could be very effective. Maybe it could be reformulated a bit - but with the goal of emphasizing, in some way, that it is forward looking. I think that is kinda important. Change is in the air, y'know. :)


    NPR called Obama People Scientologists Today (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by catfish on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:34:10 AM EST
    If you listened to "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" the host said they made a joke last week about Obama fans and got so much angry mail that the joke was unfunny. He said that's exactly the response they get from Scientologists when they joke about them.

    The cult thing is NOT coming from the Hillary campaign.


    You are probably right (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:55:48 AM EST
    I am just trying to think it through (for what it is worth...zilch!) I appreciate your comments.

    But, for me, when Obama decries the Clinton legacy, he also disparages the Democratic legacy (albeit, Clinton was a DLC Democrat). Many Democrats do not equate his attacks on Clinton as attacks on the Democratic party. Also, many of these people seem to be the young and the conservative crossovers who see nothing wrong with hating on the Clintons.

    So, embracing Truman, so to speak, adds a layer that makes it more difficult for Obama to carry that anti-Clinton attack without pissing off partisan Democrats who like the New Deal-Fair Deal-Great Society legacies (Social Security, Veteran Benefits, and Medicare/Medicaid). Too complicated probably, certainly in the minds of establishment political strategists.


    I would change one thing too... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:01:58 AM EST
    creating the affluence of the twentieth century...

    The economic data does not lie: Democrats make wealth, Republicans redistribute it to the rich. It is a consistent pattern of presidential politics throughout the twentieth century.


    there ya go (none / 0) (#46)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:18:27 AM EST
    Bill built the bridge to the 21st century.
    Now build the prosperity of the 21st century.
    Based on an updated version of the "fair deal".

    Thats the kind of larger vision in which the specific programs need to be packaged. It gives a defining and sustaining purpose to the campaign and the subsequent administration.


    Ted Kennedy et al.? (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:12:36 AM EST
    I don't see (none / 0) (#130)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    I don't see the long-standing legacy. I see DLC. I see Republican-Lite.

    I think the saddest part of H. Clinton's campaign is the attack on the concept of "hope." That's telling people that there is no hope.

    That's a losing strategy, especially in 2008. She should have coopted hope early on instead of opposing it.


    Obama is a centrist (none / 0) (#190)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    and all centrists aren't members of the DLC.
    Obama's Republican-lite credentials are obvious in his health care plan.
    Obama has proven he will lie and do anything to win the nomination.

    As long as she doesn't use the word experience (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by catfish on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:29:47 AM EST
    The word experience is inadequate. It's more like seasoned vs. green. Her mocking of today really captured the nature of his inexperience: that just unifying everybody would magically make the world perfect. It was hilarious and made me laugh from deep in the gut every time I played it.

    I'm with you on this one... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Rainsong on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:38:39 AM EST
     I enjoyed the 'Reality Check'
    Go Hillary

    This is OT, but... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:57:01 AM EST
    Geraldine Ferraro has written an excellent OpEd piece about Super Delegates in the NYT.  Just FYI.

    Great piece... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:07:22 AM EST
    Thanks for sharing that.

    I had a thought earlier and decided what I want to see in the convention is for the Superdels to hold their votes on the first round (if they can do that) and then release all the pledged delegates on the second round and have nonstop speeches and debates by the candidates and their supporters until there's a clear winner.

    How freaking exciting could that be?

    Probably only for everyone except me.

    Heck, I got chills watching the Santos speech at the convention on the West Wing.


    argh (none / 0) (#53)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:08:19 AM EST
    past my bedtime...

    That should read: "That probably wouldn't be exciting for anyone except me."


    Sharp zinger at end of it (none / 0) (#199)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    reminds me of her ability to think fast, too -- she was fun to watch, a lot more fun than Mondale. :-) Ferraro could get to the core of an argument quickly, as she does here, with the contradictions in the anti-super-delegate side of the debate. Btw, her book, especially on her campaign as the first woman on a major-party ticket, is telling for today.

    Anything that ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:35:31 AM EST
    gets her free media will help.

    Experience matters (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:49:56 AM EST
    Over dinner last night, the 3 Democratic women were voting for Hillary. And the reason, experience over Obama. They felt he had not done his time in the Senate to prove himself and they did not know enough about him. They felt that Hillary had done her 6 years first before going for President.  That was my opinion too but that is what I heard from them. And of course, one Republican for McCain who would not vote for a Dem.

    In my house (none / 0) (#114)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    Three women. One woman who wanted Edwards and was offended by H. Clinton's campaign and is going with Obama. One young woman who disliked the bogus video protection act that H. Clinton promoted a year or two back. One young woman who liked Obama over the other candidates.

    How has Hillary been (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by ivs814 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    racist?  And don't bring up SC when everyone knows that that card was played by Obama masterfully.  He & Michelle injected race when it suited them and then the media amplified the distortion beyond belief.  You shouldn't be able to call someone the "first black president" one day because of all they did to help your community and then the next day trash them because they have the audacity to run again the first viable AA.  At least you shouldn't be able to with a straight face!

    Remember Jeralyn... there must be a reason (none / 0) (#1)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:20:49 AM EST
    If she's going to hammer the experience argument even further, it probably indicates that Mark Penn and company have focus tested or seen movement in the internals that tell them it could get some traction.

    I could not imagine they would insist on making the same mistake again so it's more likely (to me) that the experience argument wins her some votes as opposed to hurting.

    Who knows?  Maybe Obama would have surged even higher and the blowout wins would have been greater had she not been talking about experience.

    I will reserve my judgement on this until I hear her policy speech tommorrow.  The tone will be key.

    The debate on Tuesday will be fireworks I predict.
    They cannot be lovey-dovey anymore, not after this weekend.

    yes, listen to the genius Penn... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:43:56 AM EST
    .. good idea.

    It's amazing that anyone believes the Penn line on wisconsin. "If it weren't for me, we would have lost by even more"


    Be amazed (none / 0) (#13)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:50:01 AM EST
    I am just open minded to all possibilities and not afraid to express that on a blog.

    I give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.  When and if Clinton loses this campaign I will let it rip on Mark Penn because then there will be no doubt he was an idiot.


    almost forgot (none / 0) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:59:41 AM EST
    The Clinton camp is split.  Penn is not the only strategist.  Half of them apparently wanted her to be positive and keep highlighting experience, others wanted her to go negative and really bring Obama down a peg or two.

    Who do you think won that argument this weekend?


    Is this (none / 0) (#117)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    part of the ten-state strategy?

    She is in a real bind due to her (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:30:07 AM EST
    AUMF and Kyle-Lieberman votes.  Except for those votes, I'd say she would do better to emphasize judgment.  

    don't forget her judgement on the... (none / 0) (#9)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:44:53 AM EST
    .. the bankruptcy bill.

    She might have also opposed NAFTA in private, but its another washington-esque equivocation that Obama can slam her on repeatedly in Ohio.


    not if he values the truth (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:04:58 AM EST
    She missed the vote on the bill because it happened the day that Bill Clinton was having heart surgery.

    She issued an official statement on the bill before it passed:

    "This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives."

    She also voted for every amendment to the bill that would have added consumer protections to it, and voted against cloture, trying to keep the bill from passage.

    If Obama tries to bring this up as some kind of moral failure on Clinton's part he'll have his head handed to him, and rightly so.


    This is (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:33:28 AM EST
    the most disturbing thing about Obama. He has no problem telling lies and manipulating the truth.  How will that character flaw affect his presidency?  He's no paragon of virtue and the fact that his supporters misrepresent him as such is nauseating to me.

    here is the link... (none / 0) (#45)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:03:20 AM EST
    ... to the

    cloture vote

    She is on the wrong side.


    I see from your link that (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by rebecca on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    both of them voted nay.  So if she's on the wrong side than so is Obama.  

    They both voted nay.  So 69-31 means that the cloture move passed right?  Therefore they were both on the right side trying to stop the vote for cloture and keep the filibuster alive.  Maybe you should read your links before you make claims.  


    Hehehe. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    JOR has done that before.

    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:10:21 AM EST
    Please tell me Sirota's and Markos's lies aren't going to be adopted on this blog?

    Senator Obama has apparently (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:53:21 AM EST
    expressed diametrically opposed opinions on NAFTA also.  Good polling, I suspect.

    I've seen quotes (none / 0) (#118)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    reprinted from her books and in articles about how NAFTA was good. Well, it (NAFTA and all the other trade agreements it symbolizes) was great for corporate profits, it was bad for American manufacturing and the jobs they provided.

    If H. Clinton wants to include her experience being the First Lady, she gets stuck with the bad legislation that her husband pushed through. She'll also be stuck with Bill's welfare reform and other laws he pushed during those eight years.


    Yup keep reading those (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ivs814 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    Obama flyers!!!  That's the point he is lying about her record.  On the one hand he wants to say that her experience in the White House was drinking tea and then he wants to say that she is responsible for NAFTA when anyone that read Carl Berstein's book knows; she was adamantly oppsed to NAFTA and called it Republican economics.  Just cause he sounds like a preacher doesn't mean everything his campaign tells you is gospel.  In fact, he is lying.

    facts (none / 0) (#132)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    Hmm... I guess you like to ignore historical facts.    You know, things like actual quotes from Clinton:
    According to NBC's Meet the Press, in 2004, Clinton said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."
    And another one:
    In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."
    And another one:
    Here's another direct quote from Hillary Clinton on NAFTA. The Associated Press reported on 3/6/96 that she said, "NAFTA is proving its worth" and later praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement."
    But yea... somewhere in there she thinks NAFTA is bad.  I just can't find it.  

    facts or BS? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    You didn't look very hard, from 2000:

    "What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn't get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed. The problem is we have to go back and figure out how we are going to fix that. [Working Families Party, 3/26/00]"


    Nafta the good and the bad (none / 0) (#173)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    Not all of NAFTA is bad.  I agree with Clinton that we need to revise some aspects of it, but I don't see the need to throw the baby with the bathwater.  Mexico has benefited and has suffered because of NAFTA.  The same for some of the other trade agreements.  We cannot go back to the days when we had a closed door policy, but we should ensure that American industries compete on a level plane field by requiring that other countries uphold good labor and safety practices.

    Obama agrees, too -- amend it (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    but where has he said to throw it out entirely?

    The experience argument (none / 0) (#4)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:34:49 AM EST
    has not worked very well so far and I do not think that it will. Everybody who cares to know that she has experience and he does not. If McCain keeps on bringing it up--it may help her, but she should focus on the fact that she will fight for us and try to raise the doubt that he will not. She can bring up the issue of experience some times but should not make it her main selling point. It does not seem that people are buying it.

    but this is hardly a new theme (none / 0) (#5)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:34:56 AM EST
    I kinda remember hearing something about "the experience candidate" haven't I?

    Being president is not being a legislator. Legislative experience is not seen, by the average person, as direct evidence of potential competence as president. Indirectly, yes - in the sense that you know how things work. But that strikes me as a threshold question, not a scale of acceptability.

    As has been said often, experinece, especially legislative experience, has not been seen in this campaign to count for very much at all. Joe Biden has 36 years in the Senate and it didnt earn him one delegate.

    People look to a president for vision. A direction they want to take the country. Showing off a facility with the grunt work of passing legislation qualifies you for a prize as super legislator, but it doesnt tranlate necessarily to the executive branch.

    I think the experience thing can be a strong supporting argument - to support a basic vision-message. Hillary is good at the laundry list of progressive items, but she hasn't been packaging it in an overarching vision.

    Obama gives people a larger vision - of citizen involvement to advance a common purpose and counteract special interests, a change from the standard ways of Washington etc. Hillary offers a competence at fighting within the established system. I don't mean this as a point for argumentation - its just a perception of how the two candidates come across.

    Listing her accomplishments, and highlighting how well she works in the system is fundamentally off key from a population that craves a shake-up in Washington.

    Its one of the oldest lines in politics - the outsider coming in to shake up the system. This is very much a year for that, but Hillary keeps telling everyone how well she works within the current system.

    Which is what is so very, very amazing (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:44:06 AM EST
    about Barack Obama, a U.S. Senator, who urges people to vote for him because he can change it. What has he changed during his tenure in the U.S. Senate? What should voters look to in order to determine whether he will be able to change anything in D.C. in the future?

    Well, (none / 0) (#54)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:43:25 AM EST
    what has Clinton accomplished that has resulted in serious change? The problem for Clinton with this line is that, in the grand scheme of things, she really doesn't have much more experience than Obama.

    Look at Joe Biden and Chris Dodd; they have the progressive chops and have been in the Senate for a million years and it got them nowhere; they got beat in delegates by a guy who served one term in the Senate where his main legislative accomplishments were renaming a few post offices in his home state. John McCain won, not because of his experience, but because of his maverick reputation.

    It's generally true in American politics that the boring technocrat never wins. And Clinton isn't, by American poitics standards, even that much of a proven technocrat.


    andrewwwm (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:07:35 AM EST
    You know better than this.  What has Clinton changed?  Millions of children have health insurance now.  The National Guard has health insurance now.  Those are not inconsequential, are they?

    Compared to what Biden or Dodd or Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#94)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    has done, no, I don't think so. She's accomplished a bit more than Obama but both pale in comparison to the longtime Senators. It's the relative difference here that matters.

    Personally, I think that Clinton would be better served by more moments like at the end of her debate (shed the boring technocrat persona that Mark Penn seems to love) and change the emphasis to competence rather than experience.


    Clinton's period of "experience" (none / 0) (#121)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    in the Senate is precisely the period of George W. Bush in the White House.

    People who are voting in the Democratic primaries aren't happy with the last seven years, so whatever her positives and negatives, emphasizing her experience within the system during the last seven years is not a positive. The large amount of anger at Reid and Pelosi is due to their inability to stop the insanity of the Bush Administration. To keep emphasizing "I was there" is not a particularly good selling point. The ultimate followup is, "Why didn't you do something about Bush?"

    Fair or not, outside is in this year. There are better ways for H. Clinton to argue on behalf of herself, but the narrative is pretty much fixed and I see Texas and Ohio as her last stand.


    Answer the Question (none / 0) (#144)
    by plf1953 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM EST
    Ditto, my comment to Andrew re: responding to Oculus' question.

    Andrewwm, (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:56:55 AM EST
    In response to Oculus' question as to what has Obama "changed" during his tenure in Washington, you ask:

    what has Clinton accomplished that has resulted in serious change?

    Clinton is not the "change" candidate. Obama is. If your only response to questions about how Obama has exemplified change is to complain that HRC hasn't changed anything either, you highlight your candidate's lack of substance.


    Right then i look to her (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    experience getting health care passed, ohh wait that didn't go so well.  

    She has never done any of the stuff she is promising.  


    Bullsh*t! (none / 0) (#160)
    by plf1953 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04:07 AM EST
    I'm not going to engage you in your diversion.

    Answer the question about Obama or cease making assertions that he can effect change that he, so far, hasn't been able to do.


    Well, if she's not planning to do some change (none / 0) (#162)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:19 AM EST
    There is absolutely no reason in the world to vote for her.

    But, unfortunately, you're right, she's not the change candidate.  


    double standard (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    Clinton is not the "change" candidate. Obama is.

    I love how Obama's candidacy is the eyes of Clinton supporters, by its nature requires him to have to be better the Hillary on every mark.

    She can reuse lines but it isn't ok for him. She can claim she has the experience do to things she has never done, but he has to have done them.  She can attack him on Health care and Nafta, but if he does it he is Karl Rove. Clinton logic.


    "Change" = Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by plf1953 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    "Change" is the central premise of Obama's candidacy ...

    So, yes, Obama has to be better at articulating this, at least, than Hillary.

    Yet neither he nor you, apparently, can describe what he has done, or can or will do to effect change.

    As I suspected, "change" is a an empty promise.


    "Change" is like (none / 0) (#203)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    "new and improved" ... meaningless, but it often works.

    Power to the sheeple!


    Answer the Question (none / 0) (#140)
    by plf1953 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    Why don't you respond to Oculus' question.  

    Hillary isn't the candidate claiming to have some magical power to "change" things in Washington, Obama is.

    So, please tell us what this magical power is and how he's going to effect this "change" he talks about.


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#155)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:59:18 AM EST
    So, where exactly is that quote for BO claiming he has "magical powers"?  Musta missed that.  

    "Magical Powers" (none / 0) (#164)
    by plf1953 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    Where do I make the claim that he has used this term?

    I am referring to his powers as "magical" because he hasn't yet demonstrated an ability to effect change in Washington, yet he claims, without proof or justification, that he can actually change things.


    Actually (none / 0) (#177)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    you said that Obama is the candidate CLAIMING to have magical powers.  

    Now, 2 posts later, you are claiming that you didn't say that.


    Well see (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    as a senator you can't change Washington.  If hillary is so experienced why hasn't she gotten a health care bill passed?  why didn't she repeal DADT as senator.  the answer is simple senators can't make the big changes presidents can.    

    He is saying his past is a guide to how he will do business in Washington, which will be a change.  his senate career is a good guide of what his values are.  The idea that when someone runs for president you expect them to have already done what they plan to do as president defies the power of the office.

    The idea that he should have accomplished everything he would like to do as president while he was a  senator, is silly


    The Whitehouse is No Place For Training Wheels? (none / 0) (#6)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:35:34 AM EST
    I don't think Hillary may have reached the apogee of lameness.

    If anyone took this infantile rhetoric seriously, it would be insulting and demeaning to use this type of rhetoric about a 47 year old man even if all he ever had accomplished was becoming president of the Harvard Law Review.

    However, it just sounds dumb.

    I kind of like it (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:44:56 AM EST
    but then, I liked the xerox line too.

    you're not alone (none / 0) (#12)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:48:18 AM EST
    I don't know where a lot of bloggers and media types grew up but they seem awfully scared and indignant of anyone using blunt, snappy language or arguing at all.

    I love a fighter who tells it like it is.  In fact I would like Obama more if he would be more aggressive in taking down the Republicans.  My name "diplomatic" was meant to be ironic after all.


    I think (none / 0) (#30)
    by muffie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:55:52 AM EST
    the experience argument is a much stronger line of attack.  Maybe its personal bias -- the one area where I favor Hillary is foreign policy experience.

    Oh? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    Richard Holbrooke?



    Yea they all make some silly remarks (none / 0) (#11)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:45:28 AM EST
    "My experience is grounded in understanding how the world sees America, from living overseas and traveling overseas, and having family beyond our shores," Obama said to an audience of nearly 900 people. "It's that experience, that understanding, and not just of what world leader I went and talked to in the ambassador's house who I had tea with."

    Obama the "world traveler" has never once been to Iraq and has only been to Europe once in the past few years eventhough he chairs the Foreign Relations subcomitee of European affairs.

    Let's not forget "periodically, when she's feeling down..."

    Neither of them is a saint in this race.


    Obama (none / 0) (#124)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    just won the overseas delegates primary. People LIVING over there seem to like what he's saying.

    ..and this relates (none / 0) (#172)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    to foreign policy experience how?

    "Living overseas," my a**! (none / 0) (#198)
    by plf1953 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    The guy lived overseas as a child, from age 6 to 10 ...

    Does anyone remember anything they did or learned during those years of their life?

    Is this like planning to be president of the US in kindergarten?

    Give me a break.


    very dumb (none / 0) (#20)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:04:15 AM EST
    I really hope she doesnt do this. Calling him a child is going to get a lot of people very upset, and will make her look terrible.

    And people around here get upset at HIS supposed arrogance, and condescension? Does she really think the American people are looking for that kind of attitude in a president?


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:50:03 AM EST
    Where did you get from what was written to "calling him a child?"

    Is it now insulting to point out if someone is inexperienced?

    This is an interesting argument I've had with friends. They keep talking about how Sen Obama will change things, he is new, they like that he isn't "part of Washington" (which in itself is a whole other bit of irony, but I digress). And I stand there shaking my head and wondering: if someone was about to perform open heart surgery on you would you want an "outsider" who was going to "change" procedures and wasn't experienced?

    I guess I take this process as having far more serious consequences than a popularity contest. I need help!


    Training wheels (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    if someone was about to perform open heart surgery on you would you want an "outsider" who was going to "change" procedures and wasn't experienced?

    Nope.  And neither would you want the surgeon's wife to do the surgery.


    Even if the surgeon's wife (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:42:15 AM EST
    was also a surgeon?  Hillary was nothing like Laura Bush as first lady...

    During the Clinton years, Clinton essentially tried to turn first lady into a cabinet position.  The Republicans wouldn't have it.  But she did everything she could to break out of, what Obama refers to, as tea service for foreign leaders.


    Yup (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    and she angered a lot of people because she was dismissive of traditional female roles.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    The listeners of Rush Limbaugh were angered.  The fans of Ann Coulter were really annoyed.  

    I'm really angered myself, actually, to think that these people are guiding the choice of the Democratic party for its candidate.  How is their opinion relevant?

    Democrats have to ask themselves who has shown they have the toughness to take on the Republicans, who has shown they have the bandwidth to get their heads around our country's incredibly complicated problems, and who has demonstrated over a lifetime that they will not give up on the projects that matter most to Democrats.  

    We have a couple of good candidates, but one of them is better on all three of those measures.


    You clearly (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    have spent too much time at dailykos if you think an insulting statement like:

    neither would you want the surgeon's wife to do the surgery

    isn't going to be labeled for what it is here: sexist.

    I have certainly called out every episode of racism I've seen leveled against Obama. The fact that you not only don't call out instances of sexism, but actually have the gall to make such insults yourself, is one reason why I (and my spouse) are wondering how we could support Obama in the general election should he win the nomination. I don't relish being on the same side of an election with supporters who are so divisive and frankly, ugly in their rhetoric.


    insulting (none / 0) (#75)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:30:18 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is much more than just the wife of a former President.  2 term Senator from NY just for starters.

    I don't even need to go to further than that on the list since already your implication that Hillary is just the equivalent of a surgeon's wife is debunked.


    And Obama's a one term senator (1.00 / 0) (#96)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:15:58 AM EST
    One term as senator hardly makes a substantial difference.  You saying something is debunked doesn't make it so, btw.  HC may have done a lot of cabinet-like work during BC's term, but since she won't release her schedule, and disavows working on anything that is now unpopular, it's hard to know exactly what she did.

    So then you would have to refer to Barack... (none / 0) (#135)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    as just Michelle Obama's husband.  That is the equivalent of that insulting statement earlier that the sum of Hillary's experience is just being married to Bill Clinton.

    If you cannot understand this basic logic you should move on to another conversation.  Have a nice day.


    I smell burning straw (none / 0) (#167)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    I never made that claim.  HRC's experience is two terms as a Senator and 8 years as First Lady.  The only significant experience that she has that Obama does not is her experience as First Lady.  If you can't follow the basic logic of the argument perhaps you should move on to another conversation.

    A child? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:00 AM EST
    FYI:  He called her a six-year-old.

    Perhaps (1.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    training wheels is a better choice of words than "boy."

    Why do you say that? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:46:24 AM EST
    I think its a good argument, you may not agree with it. She has more national experience, and has seen how the white house works from the inside. He hasn't. So no matter how good a president he may be, he will be learning a lot of new things if he is the nominee and if he wins.

    So her point is that she is better suited, more ready. How is this offensive?


    it is offensive (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:09:03 AM EST
    because it doesn't paint Obama in a good light.

    Now, if Obama was saying this about Clinton, it would just be the truth.


    Actually, if Obama said this about Clinton (none / 0) (#71)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:21:12 AM EST
    People here would probably be screaming that it was sexist.

    Only (none / 0) (#73)
    by rooge04 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:23:18 AM EST
    because his sexism when he speaks on Hillary is usually clear as day. I wonder if he'll mention her "claws" coming out.  

    Clear as day to Clinton supporters perhaps (none / 0) (#99)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    Few others find the sexism case persuasive.

    In the last few primaries (none / 0) (#126)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    women are coming over to Obama's side. I think the sexism argument has strengthened H. Clinton's core supporters but hasn't played well with the general public, including women.

    re. the update (none / 0) (#16)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:55:03 AM EST
    Here I really dont understand your point Jeralyn.

    Yes, we have had a Democratic majority for the past year. But we have had a Republlican president. How can you say that having a Dem president is not going to make much difference?

    Presidents can veto laws. That means you need 67% to override. I really dont get your logic here.
    With a Dem president, and Dem majorities in both houses, the only power the Republicans will have is if they manage to hold together 40 Senators to threaten a filibuster. Otherwise, its clear sailing.

    AS for getting things through Congress, I really dont understand why you think Obama would have much problem, especially a Dem congress.
    But if it reassures you a bit, you can buy into one of my private little predictions - that Obama will appoint Tom Daschle to be his chief of staff.
    You heard it here first.

    Tano (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:10:22 AM EST
    do you not recall that it was with the help of a democratically controlled congress and senate that the insurance companies and the GOP derailed healthcare the first time?

    To assume that the party will fall in line lockstep behind him is the same mistake Obama is making by assuming that Clinton's voters will gladly cross over to support him.


    Supreme Court, Kathy (none / 0) (#128)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:12:17 AM EST
    Supreme Court. Your choice.

    Good point Kathy (none / 0) (#193)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    It was the fact that the dems caved in to the insurance lobby that helped to kill health care reform the first time around.

    It seems that Obama is naively expecting the Dems to go along lockstep with him, should he win the nomination. Dems are not like that, and Hillary Clinton has already learned that lesson.

    And personally speaking, I find her to be a much more commanding and stronger personality in politics.


    He'll (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:36:53 AM EST
    appoint Dick Durbin. He certainly can't be president in his own right.  That's why his whole candidacy is underwritten by career politicians who aren't popular enough to be elected to the WH themselves.  Shades of Dick Cheney?

    Like Hillary and Bill (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    This is more than a little offensive, hey bdo you think BIll will covwer for Hillary because obviously with only 7 years of service in elected office, she lacks the knowledge and wherewithall to be president.

    It comes from a decade (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:02:29 AM EST
    spent lobbying Congress on criminal justice bills. The compromising and the inability to get past the opposition is astounding. They horse trade like crazy. Every controversial bill gets watered down past recognition. We need a very strong President, not just a Democratic one, or a Democratic Congress, to get real change effected.

    well thats one theory (none / 0) (#22)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:46 AM EST
    And it is dependent somewhat on how you define strong.

    As a personal attribute? Sure, Hillary is a strong individual. But I think what you need is someone who is strong politically, and that may not be the same thing.

    Most Dem politicos that I have heard seem to feel that Obama will bring in more Dem reps and Senators, so the basic landscape should be better for him. Beyond that, you have his theory of how to make change happen - to build a strong popular mandate that can work to pressure the representatives from back home, as a counterweight to the the influence of the lobbyists.

    That is what lies at the heart of his whole attempt to fire up the base. All his rhetoric is about what YOU can do, as part of this movement. Hillary is all about what I can do, since I am so competent.

    Two theories of how to move things in Washington. I sense that Obama has become so popular in the netroots because his approach meshes perfectly with their vision of their own role. I think the Repbulicans have had an advantage in this regard recently, not in a really broad based movement, but with some highly organized and politically useful subgroups, like the christian conservatives.

    Organize the people, not just for the campaign, but to be your ally when in office, in pressuring for change. It makes Obama the first really true democrat (small d) in a long time.


    Coattails, too (none / 0) (#129)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    I think there is every indication that Obama's coattails are longer than H. Clinton's. The more Dems in Congress, the more likely progressive legislation will get passed.

    experience (none / 0) (#23)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:20:10 AM EST
    It appears to me that Hillary Clinton does have an experience argument. Unfortunately, particularly on the healthcare front, her experience is of failure. She gets elected to Senate against an opponent who is shown, in photographs, practically in bed with Newt Gingrich, so that was easy. She gets re-elected, fine. She acts as if the presidency is in the bag for her, and puts together a campaign modeled after the Three Stooges. She runs into trouble and goes to Bill to rescue her, thus indicating to the nation that she lacks confidence in herself. Bill, who was very serious and proper during the primaries in 2004, acts like a total ass; does he think the campaign is frivolous? But perhaps he is simply sensing the environment into which he has been drawn. In any case, the nation reels in shock; I take down the pictures of Bill Clinton that had decorated my refrigerator for years.

    I'll go with inexperience. Frankly I think Barack Obama will do just fine.

    pictures of Bill Clinton on your refrigerator? (none / 0) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:31:55 AM EST
    is that a new kind of diet? drumroll

    You are Right Jeralyn (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:55:25 AM EST
    The Experience argument will work better against Obama coming from a Republican, not from a Democrat.

    Senator Hillary Clinton Is Making A Tactical Error (none / 0) (#36)
    by HsLdyAngl on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:24:30 AM EST
    First of all, I need to state up front that I am an Obama supporter, although I would most likely vote in November for Hillary, if she gets the nomination.

    From observing Hillary in Tuesday's debate and then yesterday and today in her speeches, I find her comments to be rather labile.  

    I really admired her genuine and heartfelt closing speech at the end of Tuesday night's debate.  I said to myself, when I heard her summation....."Gee, this is how Hillary needs to present herself on the stump!!!"  Voters would naturally gravitate to this type of demeanor and would then listen to the wonky parts of her stump speeches and would be motivated to support her.  This is what Hillary is lacking in her speeches.....that certain something to make the audience "FEEL" optimistic, validated and an integral part of the political process.  

    Just when I was really impressed with Hillary, she does a 180 and starts the condescending and mocking diatribes against Obama.....the "Shame on you" rhetoric.  This is totally unpresidential, shrill and an insult to another adult.  She sounded harsh, dictatorial and very judgmental imho.  I would never make that comment to anyone, let alone another adult.  She did herself a disservice by using that tactic.

    And to add insult to injury, Senator Clinton now has mocked the supporters of Senator Obama with her latest speech, ridiculing the charisma that Senator Obama displays and the way he attracts the electorate.  Here is a clip of that speech:


    As an Obama supporter, I felt as if Hillary was attacking me for supporting him.  Using this type of offensive will turn off voters who are sitting on the fence when it comes to voting for her.  It was childish, immature and certainly will not garner any new support for her.  Rather it will alienate voters and that is why I feel that Hillary is making a serious tactical error in using this approach to win votes on March 4th.

    Thank you.


    Boo hoo! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:03:32 AM EST
    Here we go with the Obama supporters crying about Senator Clinton getting "shrill", yammering on about the tone of her voice and all sorts of nonsense and again, missing the big picture.

    As an Obama supporter, I felt as if Hillary was attacking me for supporting him.  

    That's why people who project themselves onto their candidate should never be involved in politics.  It becomes too personal with them, and they "get their feelings hurt".  But again, you missed the big picture:  She didn't insult or attack you, she attacked the approach Obama has been taking with that "THE SKY WILL OPEN UP" junk--she made a very SLIGHT exagerration over something Obama himself has said about the "light shining down upon you, telling you to vote for Obama" (he's said this in his stump speeches, one of them documented by a Columbia U. journalist reporting on his rally in South Carolina).

    And I disagree about her losing support.  The moment she called Obama on his Ohio mailers, I started to see more people impressed with her finally defending herself against Obama's tactics (which have been as dirty and deceitful all this time) and giving her more financial support.


    I sent (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by notableabsence on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:42 AM EST
    those videos (the mailer response and "mocking") to family and the majority response was that they liked it, or at the worst, didn't care one way or the other.  For me, Hillary was strong in defending herself in the first one, and the second simply emphasizes that Obama's unity meme just isn't feasible without the know how that Clinton has (then again, I'm a Clinton supporter and this is my sticking point with Obama).  Unity with innately divisive republicans doesn't just happen; you have to work at it and know how to work it.  

    The Obama mailer was crap (I HATE, no DESPISE, that Obama uses right wing frames to attack core democratic principles) and I've never believed Obama would be able to accomplish his unity meme, assuming that he gets the nod and is elected pres.  He's gonna hit a brick wall called republican opposition and wonder what the hell happened.  


    We'll see (1.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    if going negative works.

    If she spends her time attacking the NAFTA flyer on accuracy and the argument is over whether she said "boon" versus "this has helped our economy" she's lost that argument. It's another "what is is" moment. Her husband pushed through NAFTA as it was written, everyone knew what it would do. That either makes H. Clinton complicit in NAFTA, a liar or stupid. None of those positions are particularly good for her in 2008. I suspect that H. Clinton will rue the day is speaks about NAFTA. And now that she's raised her complaint, expect NAFTA to be an issue on Thursday. It'll be an interesting tapdance.

    As far as health insurance, pointing out that there are mandates in her plan isn't any sleazier than her Wisconsin flyer asking which people Obama would deny healthcare to.

    I will be interested in how the "gay hooker snorting cocaine in the back of the limo" story will play out. And lapel pins and middle names are surely the true tests of patriotism. But I don't think anything that H. Clinton now says about NAFTA is going to help her. And it shouldn't. It was reprehensible in 1992 and it still is today.


    Right (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:26:17 AM EST
    That's why people who project themselves onto their candidate should never be involved in politics.  It becomes too personal with them, and they "get their feelings hurt".

    You've just described about 75% of the posters here.

    If you think that speech won over anyone, I think you have completely lost the plot.  The Hillary partisans may have loved it but that's about it.


    Obama skeptics (none / 0) (#63)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:35:48 AM EST
    Who aren't necessarily big fans of Hillary. It may not be a big demo, but we exist. Her rhetoric over the past few weeks has reaffirmed my reluctant 2/5 vote for her.

    Really? (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:40:48 AM EST
    So what about her hostile rhetoric do you find appealing?  

    Is it the part where she attempts to chide him as if he were schoolchild by saying "Shame on you!" to him?


    I don't find her rhetoric hostile. (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    I find it refreshing.

    OK (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    I suspect you aren't exactly objective about the matter.

    You find it refreshing because you want to see Hillary go on the attack.


    She is saying what a lot of people (none / 0) (#109)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:38:21 AM EST
    think about Obama. It's politics, not a bridge game.

    I'm fine with that (none / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    I'm not offended by her comments.  I understand that politics is a blood sport.  

    You should probably remind some of your fellow Hillary supporters the next time they complain about Obama being "unfair".


    It's the lies that bother me, and his (none / 0) (#194)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    political posturing which harms the chances for any Democrat to enact a health care proposal.

    I get so tired (none / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM EST
    of hearing people complain about politicians lying.  

    You seem fine with Hillary "lying".  


    and you (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    fit into Hillary supporter demographic.  

    She didn't mean to offend (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by suskin on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    I  have to say, as a Hillary supporter, that I loved that clip.  Thank you so much for sharing it.  I am sorry that it offends you.  I wish that our party was not being divided the way that it is.  But Obama's message of hope and change was and is an attack on Hillary and an unjustified one at that.  So it gives us Hillary Supporters a great deal of satisfaction to see her hit back.

    Hillary and Bill are not polarizing; it's the issues they were fighting for that were polarizing.  Issues that as a Democrat you should support. It was the Republican Attack Machine that spewed insult after insult, attacking the Clintons personally for their attempts to make the lives of American families better.  Since Hillary has been in the Senate she has reached across the isle and worked with Republicans to pass important legislation.  She is respected and admired by members of Congress and the military alike.  Obama's attempt to denigrate and misrepresent her work is repelling.

    The problems America faces today are not the result of partisanship and bickering and they are not going to be solved by "transforming" Washington.  They are the product of a failed administration that pushed us into an unjustified and unending war, encouraged jobs to go overseas, didn't invest in new jobs and sat idly by while the sub-prime mortgage market imploded.  America needs a leader who knows that.  That is the point Hillary is making.

    Hillary is not trying to woo die hard Obama supporters; she knows that you are "in love" with Obama - and I don't mean that in a derogatory way - but love is blind. Hillary's focus is on the voters who haven't fallen "in love" yet, and to try to kick some common sense into them.  I for one, hope she can do that.


    Thank you for this (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill are not polarizing; it's the issues they were fighting for that were polarizing.

    It is the single most important point to understand when analyzing Hillary Clinton's so-called "divisiveness." People want to think her divisiveness is personality-driven, but really it has to do with the fact that she's been unapologetically pushing Democratic causes her entire career (and, yes, I have to say it: also because strong women have often been viewed as "divisive").


    His trick (none / 0) (#39)
    by catfish on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:32:06 AM EST
    He does something interesting - every time somebody questions him, he says to the effect "don't pick on the people who voted for me" instead of answering the question.

    Also at his rallies I don't see him addressing the people still making up their mind. To somebody not "in the tank" yet for Obama, his speeches feel very exclusive.

    Today SHE said to her audience some of you may still be making up your mind and I am asking you to hire me for this job. Here is why I think I'm the best applicant.


    The deflection of criticism (none / 0) (#134)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:58 AM EST
    to his supporters seems to be working. Personalizing arguments doesn't work for any candidate, unless the supporters are so wedded to the candidate that they presume he or she IS the supporter.

    Spot on (none / 0) (#42)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:40:04 AM EST
    A lot of Clinton supporters round here were thrilled with that Cincinnati speech, because,,well I am not sure why. I'll let them speak for themselves.

    I thought it was horrendous. I would suggest to any Clinton supporter to set your fandom aside for a second and watch a clip of that rant and imagine the extent to which the average American would be looking forward to seeing something like that on their television screens every night for four years.

    It plays to and accentuated all the negative sterotypes about her.
    "Shame on you" in an angry hectoring voice. Thats what America is looking forward to hearing from their president!


    Men can rant, women not (none / 0) (#58)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:57:01 AM EST
    now if only a man had made that speech we would surely be able to listen in every night to such a POTUS.

    sterotypes are bought into by each individual of their own freewill.


    Nice (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:24:10 AM EST
    You can always fall back on sexism as an excuse.

    Apparently Howard Dean didn't get the memo that it was ok for men to act like that.

    Anger is not a trait that is valued by American voters, at least not for someone running for President.


    Howard got hit with sexism (none / 0) (#65)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:03:54 AM EST
    As I recall, one of the critiques against him was that he could not control his wife. She was not first lady material, reports said. She had her own career as a doctor. For all the criticism Michelle Obama is getting, she very much fits the First Lady mold. She stands by her man. She reminds me of Laura Bush with a law degree--or a younger Barbara Bush.  

    Hillary deserves credit for her "experience" in the White House. It will help her as President. But sexism prevents her from getting any.

    Obama, according to one poster, deserves credit for being a 47 year old man. That's some achievement.


    I don't recall that at all (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:49:21 AM EST
    I followed the Dean campaign pretty closely.  His wife made a few comments that were controversial but that was hardly the mortal blow to his campaign that you are suggesting.

    Didnt say it was a mortal blow (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM EST
    just pointing out the inherent sexism of the presidential campaign which assumes appropriate roles for first ladies (and thus for "first men"). hillary was not a tradional first lady and once again, years later, she is being made to pay for that. the clintons presented her as an intellectual and politcal 'partner.' that didnt play and it still doesn't play. which, as tina fey pointed out sat. night, is too bad and short sighted.

    dean's wife did not fit the mold either, but in a different way from hillary, and that made howard a 'weirdo' to some.

    this campagin has proved that at higher levels of society sexism is more insidious and prevalent than racism.

    obama is the sexist candidate or the candidate of sexism. the unspoken assumption here is: hillary is a woman therefore she can't be experienced. and anyway she's just some philanderer's wife. so transparent and so depressing. one would expect this in the GE, not now.

    obama is very good at running as an "experienced"  sexist. mccain's followers won't be as impressed as all the so-called liberal whie men are with this tactic. and when obama does not have hillary to kick around anymore, he'll look like a one-term senator with pretensions.

    and then he'll be seen as the latest mcgovern.


    Can you imagine (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    the coverage if Obama had taken that tone?

    Oh Dean got a lot of flak for that... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    ..and so did she. Were you a Dean supporter in that campaign? Maybe you didn't notice it, but I sure did.

    You only (none / 0) (#69)
    by rooge04 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:20:08 AM EST
    consider it angry and hectoring because it's coming from Hillary. When it came from Howard Dean, we were okay with anger and speaking the truth. When it's HRC, it becomes about hysterics.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    IIRC, Howard Dean did not win the Democratic nomination.  As a matter of fact his emotions sunk him before he even started.  

    I won't completely disagree (none / 0) (#139)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    I think that a lot of people are turned off by H. Clinton's vocal TONE when she has to project loudly to a crowd. That is unfair. I'm not joking when I say that she could have added five points to her popularity by spending a little money on a vocal coach last year and making sure that her public appearances had good PA systems so that she didn't have to force her voice to be heard.

    John Dean was too far to the left for the megamedia but it was his screeching in Iowa that nailed him.

    The above has nothing to do with the strength of H. Clinton's candidacy or the content of her message.


    Barking Up the Wrong Tree (none / 0) (#47)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:53:20 AM EST
    doesn't really work. HRC's 8 years as first lady don't count for anything. Inexperience is going to be as much an issue for HRC as it is for Obama. Both are going to get hammered by mccain in that area.

    It depends on the threshold... (none / 0) (#51)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:00:46 AM EST
    I can't remember where I read it earlier, it might have been here or I might have heard someone say something on the news.  But when it comes to the experience thing, it's not so much about total number of years, it's more about threshold.  Once you're past a certain amount of experience, people stop caring about the quantity.  If people decide that Hillary has enough experience, it won't matter that McCain has a bit more.  In that sense, the gap between HRC and Obama is a lot larger than the gap between HRC and McCain.

    I also worry that in the Primaries people want the hoper/dreamer, but in the General people want the person with experience.  It get's a little scary to pull the trigger on someone who is untested.


    First Lady Doesn't Meet Threshold (none / 0) (#57)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:51:44 AM EST
    I don't disagree, my point is that I don't think HRC's years as first lady are going to count in people's minds as "experience", so her "threshold" is nearly as low as Obama's.

    I agree on primaries vs. general election being hopes/dreams vs pragmatism. Obamamania is setting dems up for another fall.


    In general, the pundit class ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:37:32 AM EST
    makes a good reverse barometer.

    For example, they all claim the plagiarism charge backfired.  But I think they're wrong.  Because at the very least, it painted Obama as "just another politician."  And it also suggested he's "nothing new."

    And it's not one of those charges you can reverse by saying "you are too."  Because Hillary has never suggest she isn't a politician or that she's "a new thing."

    I would also add that they're still talking about the plagiarism charge a week after it was made which indicates it wasn't just a three-day story.


    There is one kind of experience that no one (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    talks about, and that is that after 8 years in the WH, she knows the mechanics of being in the WH like the back of her hand.  She knows who does what, who speaks to whom, what the protocol is, how the offices are set up.

    In this respect, she really does have the ability to hit the ground running - and given the amount of ground that needs to be covered, I think any logistical advantage she has is extremely valuable; it counts more than most people realize.

    And, I'm sorry - you don't spend 8 years meeting world leaders, lobbying them on areas of interest - like human rights - being bold enough to take them to task when necessary (see China) and not have that count for something.

    What continues to strike me as worrisome is that the candidate who has had the opportunity over the last year, as head of the Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee on Europe, to meet with those leaders, and build his foreign policy and experience cedibility, has failed to do so.  Try as I might, this makes no sense to me.


    But (none / 0) (#141)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    claiming experience by being in the White House means that she owns her husband's record. NAFTA doesn't look so good now.

    exactly, anne. (none / 0) (#150)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    Experience should matter (none / 0) (#156)
    by suskin on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    I agree - Hillary was no standard First Lady.  Her staff was larger than Al Gore's.  She was working when she was in the White House.  She was in the thick of it.

    But I agree with the comments that the "experience" card alone won't cut it because Obama has been successful in framing the main issue in campaign to being about Washington and who can change it. Hillary can't win that argument - because she is Washington.  She needs to change the debate - and frame it in such a way that experience matters.

    Hillary needs to point out that the problems America faces - a war on two fronts, a failing economy, jobs going overseas, a mortgage crisis - are not the result of partisanship or lobbyists in Washington, but the result of a failed administration that has neglected American families.  An administration of a relatively unknown and inexperienced candidate who told America that he was going to change the tone in Washington, he was going to be a uniter not a divider.  We didn't know what we would get with Bush, and we sure don't like what we got.  We don't know what we are going to get with Obama either.

    Who is Obama?  What kind of leader will he be? What does he mean when he says he is going to bring people together?  Does it mean he will avoid divisive issues that may polarize the parties?  Does he mean he will compromise for compromise sake?  Or does he truly have some magical mystical power that can transform liberals into conservatives and conservatives into liberals?  And if he has this magical power, why hasn't he used it yet?

     I voted for Obama for Senator in Illinois, but before he ran, I had never heard of him.  Whatever he was working on, didn't trip the news radar.  Looking over his accomplishments they seem pretty ordinary, certainly nothing trailblazing. He seems to avoid divisive issues, compromise in the face of opposition, and change his mind a lot.  He certainly hasn't proven he has a magical mystical ability to forge change. He asks us to take a leap of faith and trust in him, but we did just that with Bush, do we really want to do it again?

    By contrast, Hillary is a proven, experienced leader with a long track record of fighting for issues that matter.  And she has the knowledge and experience a president needs to lead America on day one. When the real issues are clear - war, economy, health care - experience does matter.  Hillary needs to frame the issue so that America realizes we can't afford to take a chance on an unproven leader.  We need a president we can depend on.  


    Oops (none / 0) (#50)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:57:39 AM EST
    Thought you were responding to the Providence "the sky will open up" thing...  I haven't seen the Cinci speech.

    Latest (none / 0) (#72)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:23:08 AM EST
    MSM headlines are that Obama is criticizing Hillary for "supporting NAFTA" but says he favors free trade. (?) So, another hypocrisy from the Chosen One?

    Jeez (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    I thought Hillary supporters were into detail.  he favors fair free trade, with labor and environmental protections.  He says NAFTA's were clearly inadequate.  Hillary has the same position essentially, only different is before she starting running for president she praised nafta.  

    So answer me this.... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    ..do you believe that those environmental and labor protections would not have been enacted if Al Gore or any other democrat had been president for the past 8 years? Free trade is a work in progress, what it has become is more the result of a Republican administration and agenda than anything Bill or Hillary Clinton did IMHO.

    That's what irks me about the Obama campaign. Why can't they run against the Republicans? The argument that he will perform better against McCain than Hillary is one that I actually do accept; but why does the Obama campaign need to tear down the Clinton administration when it is the Bush administration that has taken us to hell in a a handcart?


    Hey this is (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    an election between Clinton and Obama.  Not Al Gore.    I'm not really going to get into  a hypothetical about Gore.  What i do know is that Hillary Clinton praised NAFTA until she started running for president.  So if Hillary Clinton had been president the last 8 years my guess is she wouldn't have changed NAFTA.

    That's okay if you won't answer my question... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    ....I won't insist. :)

    That's what you get (none / 0) (#142)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    from depending on MSM headlines. Go to Obama's website.

    Correct, but (none / 0) (#84)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:46:56 AM EST
    Re: "Just having a Democratic President isn't going to eliminate Republican opposition to our policies and make them become law."

    But, it might make their opposition irrelevant on many substantive issues.  A Democratic President, unlike a GOP president, will limit the ability of the GOP to continue to do what it is doing in the Senate.  Putting aside the issue of the Ds never making the Rs filibuster or the President veto, currently, to be veto proof, a bill "needs" 60 votes -- to override the "inevitable" veto.  As both the majority and the minority, the GOP has followed W lockstep.  With a Democrat (either D) in the WH, and a Congress with a D majority in both house, the ability of the GOP to continue to obstruct sane legislation will depend on their ability to actually filibuster those bills they don't like.  

    Therefore, the idea that we're going to have to fight tooth and nail to get what we want might just not be the case.  We'll fight, but more on our terms.

    Both Clinton and Carter (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:59:18 AM EST
    had Democratic majorities in Congress (Clinton for only 2 years).  It isn't the least bit easy  even with favorable conditions.  And it certainly won't be easy this time around no matter who is president.  And if anyone thinks it will be? well, I think they're pretty naive and unrealistic.

    The current Democratic Congress has quite a number of bluedogs.  I don't think that's going to change, either.


    I never said it would be easy (none / 0) (#93)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    What I said was that it likely will not be the dogfight that Clinton's supporters would like to make it out to be.  I'm not naive.  I'm a realist.  And I was merely pointing out that the GOP Senate will likely be somewhat neutered if either Democrat is elected.  They won't have a R president there waiting with the veto pen so that they can threaten a filibuster and have Reid say boo.  Provided the Democrats in Congress learn how to advance proper legislation, and actually force the GOP filibuster (talk for days about why something a majority of Americans want is so bad) those bills they don't like, some things should actually get done.

    Also they were both Governors -- not Senators (none / 0) (#95)
    by katiebird on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    I know that's considered a plus (not very many Senators go right into the White House) but Hillary has the experience of being an insider in the White House during the Clinton Presidency AS WELL as the experience of her time as a Senator.  

    She's got legislative experience from both the White House as well as the Senate.

    I think that's important and valuable experience. And I don't think it's just me.  I hear her experience sited as a reason for support all the time.


    So... (none / 0) (#100)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    would someone like, say, Al Gore, be the perfect candidate for you?

    Yes, but I don't remember having the option (none / 0) (#106)
    by katiebird on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:33:30 AM EST
    of voting for him this year.

    I'm just trying to get at (none / 0) (#110)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:40:11 AM EST
    whether or not you think that there are any criteria beside experience that matter.

    No hope here (none / 0) (#145)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    Then why vote at all?

    the majority of Americans eligible (none / 0) (#148)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    to vote don't vote.

    Change can go either way (none / 0) (#89)
    by catfish on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:01:34 AM EST
    And we've had a lot of change over the last eight years, maybe more than we'd have liked. With Hillary, we'll get a correction.

    That's a good argument for her.

    Insulated vs Street cred (none / 0) (#107)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    Clinton has been living in Governor's mansions and the White House and has lived a life of privilege, with drivers, cooks, housekeepers, landscapers and gardeners. She doesn't wear off-the rack, and she has been waited on hand and foot. She and her husband are milionaires many times over. Their NY mansion, sweeping offices speak of not being in touch with the rest of us on the street who are struggling.

    On the other hand, Senator Obama wrote two best selling books to repay he and his spouses college loans. He understands struggling and he won't forget checking the water bill for errors.

    The experience argument is hogwash. Clinton stood in debates and looked Biden and Dodd in the eye and said she had 35 years of experience. She has 6 years in an elected office where she spent most of her time filling her warchest with money, donating to super delegates  and campaigning for president. Obama, working on the ground as a State Senator and as a US Senator has more nitty-gritty experience. I have carefully read the bills Clinton has sponsored and the bills Obama has sponsored. All you can say about Clinton is, "Where's the beef?" Obama passed really important and tough bills and Clinton passed just 6 bills on her own all in the range of changing names on buildings.

    The experience argument doesn't fly. The "in touch with Americans" doesn't fly. The authenticity argument doesn't fly. All the signs along the highway say, "Which Clinton will show up today?" She's an exhausted candidate, light on money because her campaign is heavy on spending on expensive hotels and fancy restuarants. Is that how Clinton will run the White House?

    You should really read Hillary's biography (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    She has earned her way in life and was a very hard working student who got through college on loans just like Obama.  Just read the biography again so you don't sound so uninformed next time.

    Middle class upbringing in the burbs (none / 0) (#178)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    Yes, thats some struggle Clinton has had, attending a private all women's college after such a hard life in the burbs.



    Hillary's 35 years experience vs Obama (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    Hillary has been an advocate of children and family since college.  Investigate her, and you'll be amazed about her dedication to work for Americans:



    After graduating from Yale in 1973, Rodham began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center, after having written her widely acknowledged thesis on children's rights. She also became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund and was recruited to serve on the presidential impeachment inquiry staff for the House of Representative's Judiciary Committee, investigating the Watergate Scandal. Rodham moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas,


    First lady of Arkansas

    During Rodham Clinton's 12 years as first lady of Arkansas, she continued to pursue children and family issues. She chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee to improve the testing standards of new teachers, founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and introduced Arkansas Home Instruction for Preschool Youth, a program that trained parents of preschool children in preparedness and literacy. The first lady also served on the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services board, Children's Defense Fund board, while continuing to work for the Rose Law Firm. She was named one of the 100 most influential attorneys in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991. She was also named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.


    Serving on boards (none / 0) (#188)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    Clinton, by virtue of marrying Bill Clinton was given symbolic membership to many boards as are every other Governor's wife or husband. She didn't get up and struggle from the bottom to the top of any organization. Board appointments are a dime a dozen if your spouse is the Governor.

    Serving on boards means quarterly meetings or monthly, that staff organizes. The Ex. Director does all the grunt work. Board members go in to vote on something and perhaps make a suggestion now and then. Anyone who's served on the board of LWV or AAUW in their local area will tell you it's the perfect job for retired ladies.


    Sorry but.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton did not live a life of privilege and Barack Obama has a 1.5 million dollar house. These are both very able, well-educated people who are not hurting for money.

    Clinton's networth is $34.9 Million (none / 0) (#169)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:15:28 AM EST
    Clinton's networth is 34.9 million. Her advance and royalties for her new book, Living History, $15 million.

    Obama's networth is $1.3 million which was achieved recently by writing two books to pay off law school loans for he and his wife.


    At this time in her life that...... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    ...is Hillary's net worth. Try comparing when they were at comparable stages in their lives and careers. Say when they went into the White House and Chelsea was 12. Fair is fair.

    You do remember ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:41:57 AM EST
    when Bill Clinton ran for president he didn't even own a house.  

    Mansion to Mansion (none / 0) (#205)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    Why would the Clinton's buy a huse while they are moving from mansion to mansion paid for by tax payers?

    GWB's Advisors? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    This argument never works for me, because Bush was also light on experience.  Maybe if he'd had more experience he wouldn't have listened to his advisers or let the VP run foreign policy.

    You can argue for a repeat of that.  Frankly, I'd prefer something different.

    His advisers had tons of experience (none / 0) (#115)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    Dick Cheney was Chief of Staff under Nixon and SecDef under Bush I. Rumsfeld was both the youngest and oldest SecDef. Colin Powell, well, 'nough said.    I remember all the Democrats were hoping that Bush II would be moderate right after he won, since he brought in all the 'adults'.

    I'm not saying that Clinton will pull anything this stupid. But the only value of experience is if it provides good judgment.  


    You completely missed my point (none / 0) (#192)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    Bush had limited experience, his cabinet and advisers had more.

    This is certain to be the case with Obama.

    Again, I fail to see why this a case for the value of Obama's lack of experience.  It's the opposite for me.


    Obama is Bush in donkey clothing. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    We all know Hillary has guts, stamina, brains, and the big 'E' factor.

    But it's what she said over the weekend that should lead her charge to save this nation now.  

    For 8 years Democrats have raged at  Republicans for getting duped into that nice guy evangelist for change schtick. Nevertheless, they've opted to be blinded by the slight of one their own.

    Talk about the personification of  a logo.  

    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#147)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    Be all for one candidate or the other, 'tis the American way after all.  But the idea that BO is W in "donkey's clothing" is absurd.  And what HRC said over the weekend, while apparently making many of her supporters giggle with delight, was really quite offensive and childlike.  sort of like the drinking the Kool Aid shtick.  Her follow up with the photo of OB in Kenyan tribal dress really shows how she'll get things done, right?  Or is it just another play right out of Karl's play book.  Oops, sorry that HRC's comeback for OB.  

    he may be lieberman (none / 0) (#149)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    in disguise, though. a lot of us don't trust him with roe v. wade. he will not get us out of iraq--he's got to defend those bases too. i dont see him moving the party or the govt. to the left. of course i also dont see him getting elected.

    Checked local Ohio papers (none / 0) (#161)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    Obama is steadily moving up the polls across Ohio, much like he did in the past 11 states who voted for him. The Obama crowds have been 10,000 or more in each appearance. One rally 5,000 people had to be turned away.

    Clinton is handing the election to Oboma with her cheap sarcastic shots, negative tone, digging up a photo of Obama in native Kenyan tribal dress (extraordinary racism) and talking as though she's his mother with her "shame on you" line...yep she's presidential material alright. Her play book could have been written by Karl Rove.

    Accusing Clinton (none / 0) (#166)
    by Firefly4625 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:11:27 AM EST
    of the Kenyan tribal dress thing, which came from Drudge, by the way, IS ROVIAN on your part.

    Remember when Rove bugged his own office, then insinuated it came from the opponent's camp?

    That's certainly what this smells like to me...


    Ah, no (none / 0) (#181)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    they ain't denying it . . . from her own website

    Statement by Maggie Williams, Campaign Manager


    "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

    "This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

    "We will not be distracted."

    And Drudge, just like the National Enquirer, gets things right every now and then.  A broken clock is right twice a day.  Own it or don't throw it otherwise you look like a child needing training wheels and she's been riding this bike a long, long time.


    UH (none / 0) (#185)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:30:51 AM EST
    The Clinton campaign was asked about this and did not deny it.  As a matter of fact Maggie Williams said this about the photo..

    "Enough," Williams said in the statement. "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

    Ms. Williams did not, unfortunately, state their reasoning for sending the picture out in the first place.  I wonder why?  I'm sure she had a very good reason that had absolutely nothing to do with tying him to Africa and/or Islam.


    Kenyan picture (none / 0) (#191)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    I don't know how the picture came into play and I don't care who put it out.  I am suprised that the Obama camp was not prepared for this.  His campaign needed to embrace this picture and weave it into how his presidency will improve our relations with foreign countries.  Instead we have David Plouff being outraged by the "shameful offensive fear-mongering" for circulating the picture, as if there is something wrong with wearing traditional tribal garb.   I think his campaign blew it big time here.

    You don't care? (none / 0) (#200)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    So negative and arguably racist attacks are fine with you.  The problem is that Obama didn't handle it properly?  That's interesting reasoning.

    When will Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:57:42 AM EST
    take responsibility for anything?

    He's mad at a picture that is of him, taken obviously at his consent.

    He's fast becoming the biggest crybaby in politics.


    Wonder if McCain is touting THIS experience... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    Experience gap total mistake by Clinton (none / 0) (#171)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    Clinton might want to work on her enthusiam gap.

    Taking a hint from Fox News (none / 0) (#201)
    by mg7505 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    on how to attack liberals, touting accomplishment would be a better strategy. Stick a number in people's heads: the number SEVEN MILLION, all of whom have healthcare thanks to Hillary's creation of SCHIP.

    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:55:48 AM EST
    We're over 200, thanks for your thoughts.