Clinton is so condescending.

Clinton is so condescending.

Someone needs to explain to Hillary that saying you have experience is not the same as, you know, actually having experience.

Of course, I'm sure she discussed the finer points of interior decorating and place-setting with the spouses of many foreign leaders when her husband was President.

The sarcasm and cynicism dripping from Clinton is too much. I thought the "he abandoned the politics of hope" mantra was a little overdone, but she's finally shown that she's petty and sarcastic.

Obama COULD say the same thing about first lady junkets -- but I hope he doesn't. I want him to punch back with the judgment argument and talk about the world from a personal perspective.

Give me a break Hillary. Your foreign policy experience consists of 8 years as a "good will" ambassador (aka, photo opportunity) while First Lady, and four WHOLE years in the Senate before Obama arrived. Want to claim you're more experienced than Obama in national politics, or more familiar with the national healthcare crisis thanks to your efforts in the 90s? Fine, that's fair. It's misleading and disingenuous to claim you're significantly more experienced in foreign policy, considering your record. Dodd, Biden or (especially) Richardson could make his same argument effectively (and have tried), but Hillary? Not buying it.

In other words: Bush-Lite/Mrs. Bush '08

Dont' whine now.

Obama makes snarkey, condescending remarks about Clinton all the time.

They really aren't all that different, folks.

Forgive me but HRC's FPExp comes from being a broad for 60+ years.

Biden has decades of FPExp from being on the Senate Committee.

Richardson has years loggged as a Diplomat, not Policy . . .

Everyone else falls into little or none or life experience.

Clinton has been smoking the spliff . . .

ccpup: i might have been helpful to this post if you actually post something spelling out her foreign policy experience. As far as I can tell (based on your post) she has none.

Hillary certainly isn't an agent for change that this country desperately needs that's for sure! In a way her presidency would be "more of the same" to a certain extent, but referring to her as "George Bush Lite" is really a stretch...or is it?

I'd like to point out that Barack Obama is a current member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He is probably a little bit up to date on American foreign policy.

This is what I was going to say:

Keith wrote on November 20, 2007 4:15 PM:
Sounds to me she's making a strong argument for Joe Biden.

And if I'm not mistaken, under HRC's definition, this would constitute mud-slinging of the highest order.

I will add,Hillary is not the Democrats best choice. I prefer Obama ( I agree with Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic piece) but the others are fine. Clinton is not fine. There are more compelling reasons against her candidacy than for it.

Obama's foreign policiy experience appears to consist of getting bashed in the Pakistani press because he has such judgment and experience which he learned as a kid.

DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 4:10 PM:

Isn't that literally a "Republican talking point"?

No. It is straight from the horse's mouth:
Obama: My childhood is foreign policy experience

November 19, 2007
BY ASSOCIATED PRESS:

CLARION, Iowa — Democrat Barack Obama said Monday his childhood experience in Asia and his family in Kenya give him a greater foreign policy understanding than politicians who merely take junkets to other countries.

The first-term Illinois senator is frequently asked whether he has the foreign policy credentials to be president, and he faced the question again at a town hall meeting in Clarion.

‘‘I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia,’’ said Obama, who was born in Hawaii and spent four years in Indonesia. ‘‘My father is from Kenya. That’s where I got my name. He’s passed away now, but I still have family.’’

‘‘A lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs is not what I just studied in school. It’s actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live.’’

He's just handed the Repubs another stick to clobber him with should he be the Dem nominee, that's all. Hillary is NOT using the Repubs talking points. She is using talking points handed her and everyone by none other than Obama.

For DTM:

Here's how you embed a link to your story. So say for example you wanted to embed you Frist Read link above. The HTML code you use would be as follows:

Text You Want To Be Highlighted To Click On except that the last part would be .

I left the slash off of the demo to show you the code. If I hadn't it would have automatically embedded the link such as this:

First Read

If it doesn't work for you, it's likely you either forgot the quotes for the link address, of forgot to close your carots >

If you need more help, you can search the terms at Daily Kos kosepedia on the how tos, or ifyou post at Kos and usually use the link button, you can make a dummy diary, embed a link, and then copy the code substituting your own link.

EDWARDS CAMPAIGN: THE DEFINITION OF MUDSLINGING

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, John Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement on the definition of mudslinging:

“mudslinging |mÉ™d sli ng i ng | (also mud-slinging) noun informal: the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, ‘Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’

“Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about ‘throwing mud’ in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another.”

dsc,

Thanks once again for doing the homework. Good catch.

It's this insistent lust for the attack that has really turned me off the Clinton campaign. Maybe she's right on this point--who cares. The pattern of behavior, however, is something I don't care to see in my party's nominee.

And when your nominee is getting much, Much, MUCH worse than this in the General Election I do hope you're happy when he goes down in flames all the while playing nice just so you can sleep at night.

Ugh. This was nothing.

Shouldn't be so easily bothered.

And when your nominee is getting much, Much, MUCH worse than this in the General Election

Funny, when Senator Clinton was getting much, much less than this, there was the clarion call to defend her from scurilous attacks; that Democrats shouldn't attack one another, that just gives Republicans fodder for the general, and so and so forth.

And for the record, if this is the best that she (or the Republicans have), I'm not worried one wit about the General Election, should Senator Obama be the nominee.

Living abroad, not just visiting, at an early age, profoundly changes one's world view... forever. No longer does one view one's own country as somehow better or the greatest... once you see similar things elsewhere. One begins to feel a citizen of the world. And that endures. It's a formative experience.

The attack by Hillary really lacks merit. I write not as an Obama operative. But from personal experience. She's wrong in her presumptions.

RE Hillary's political experience:

First, from early life before she was elected to the Senate:

After graduating from Yale Law School, (Is becoming a lawyer helpful in any way politically, you know, making laws and understanding how they’re made and what they mean etc.? Any other politicians lawyers?)

Became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. (Hmm, does defending children legally help one to gain insight into any sort of political issues?)

In 1973, she became a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee working, ironically, on helping them to consider impeachment of President Nixon. (Hmm, House Judiciary Committee. Any political experience to be gained here?)

Her first job after marrying Bill and moving to Arkansas was running a legal aid clinic handling foster care and child abuse cases. (Hmm, again, were insights that were gained here ever addressed in the legislative arena – especially by Senator Clinton?)

At the age of 30, President Carter appointed her to the Board of the US Legal Services Corporation - a non-profit program that funds legal assistance to the poor. (Hmm, President Carter - appointed to US non-profit corporation dealing with poverty issue. Anything in the political experience arena to see here? Are poverty issues ever dealt with in that same political arena here in "the Oughts"?)

As First Lady of Arkansas, she led a task force on improving education and served on the Board of Directors of three national organizations: The Children's Defense Fund, Child Care Action Campaign, and Children's Television Workshop. (Hmm, wasn’t she also working for Rose Law Firm as well during this time? Oh, and working to help Bill on his gubernatorial and presidential election campaigns and handling Arkansas First Lady duties. So would you call her more a ceremonial or an activist First Lady gaining more insight and experience in political issues and state politics?)

As a lawyer, she chaired the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession. She was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. (Hmm, again with the lawyer stuff. Are women’s employment and professional issues ever in the political arena? And how does a lawyer gain any insight into such important legislative duties like, uh, the makeup and processes of laws, statutes, Acts of Congress, court decisions, etc.? Oh, and chairing a national ABA Commission and two times being named to “100 most influential lawyers in America. Any insights here on administrative ability, the ability to rise to the top of her profession as a leader?)

All that non-experience is from before she moved into the White House. I won't list her many political experience here. After all, what could one learn from being Bill Clinton's wife and confidant for eight years? So, we'll discount that, okay?

So, how about her running (administering) a couple of successful senate campaigns? Gain any political experience here?

Now, from her work in the Senate:

Even Trent Lott across the aisle said in Hillary’s first year in the Senate, “Though I disagree with her on nearly everything politically, you have to be impressed by what a hard worker she is.”

Senator Clinton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees.

She sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health.

Clinton also sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Here is just some of the legislation she has co-sponsored that is now law. This list doesn't include the hundreds of bills that she has signed onto or that she has strongly advocated:

Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill

Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families

Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act

Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act

Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act

Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act

Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices

Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding

Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico's Caribbean National Forest

Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation

Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement

Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment

Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act

Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act

Yeah, yeah. But what has she done lately? Some of what she's done in the Senate so far in 2007 (And I think she's been away campaigning a bit as well - Nevertheless:

Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill

Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.

Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.

Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate

Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.

Oh, and compiled a 95%-plus voting record in the Senate on progressive issues as rated by the ADA.

Now, I'm sure Obama has as impressive list of political experience and accomplishments starting from age ten.

Could one of his supporters compile a list so we can compare with above to see who is actually more politically experienced?

Comments like this:

brewmn wrote on November 20, 2007 4:10 PM

Someone needs to explain to Hillary that
saying you have experience is not the same
as, you know, actually having experience.

Of course, I'm sure she discussed the
finer points of interior decorating and
place-setting with the spouses of many
foreign leaders when her husband was
President.

are appalling. All the more reason
(and there are many) to vote for Hillary.

colonpowwow,

I like cut-and-paste as much as the next person, but would you care to take a stab at identifying which of those items counts as foreign policy experience?

He's just handed the Repubs another stick to clobber him with should he be the Dem nominee, that's all. Hillary is NOT using the Repubs talking points. She is using talking points handed her and everyone by none other than Obama.

Obama wasn't arguing though that him living abroad until age 10 was all the foreign experience he needed though. Hillary is the one accusing him of saying that, thus distorting his statement. Furthermore, she's imply that's the ONLY experience he has.

It's a cheap, petty shot.

You can say that living abroad as a child forms a basis of understanding the world, as many other experiences in life would - losing a parent, poverty,sickness. Foreign policy experience is not gained by living abroad at age 10 with parents while you go to school. I hope our diplomats get it while in state department service - but not at 10 years olds. It was an odd statement - or oddly worded.

DTM:

Boy, I know you set me straight on Hillary's lack of foreign policy experience, but then I thought of something in her current job duties as a Senator and I thought of something I listed (I know it's hard to find in such an extensive resume for the Presidency:

Senator Clinton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees.

Any foreign policy experience gained there? Whew, that was a close one. I guess I'll still vote for her.

That's right Dems, you all just run a primary by slicing eachother up. Then the Republican nominee can, with the gratis contributions of the MSM, deliver the coup de grace without even getting his hair mussed.
And whatever you do, don't embrace an overt War-On-Iraq-is-over stance, why, that could only, by every indication, clinch the election for you.
But I freely admit that whatever it is that the Democrats are trying to accomplish is beyond me, so please don't try and explain it to me.
I thought I'll-end-the-war is the same as: I'll-be-your-next-President.
But apparently, this is not so.

LJ wrote on November 20, 2007 5:33 PM:
Colonpowwow:

"Now can you please post Biden's accomplishments in his 34 year Senate career so we can all appreciate how his foreign policy experience completely dwarfs Hillary's"

Uh, no LJ. I'm not a Biden supporter so I don't want to make the effort to show this devastating fact.

Maybe he should run for President with all that superior foreign policy experience and all. Oh yeah, I forgot (along with most everybody else) - he already is for the third or fourth time.

Now I'll also concede that he's a much better plagarist than she is as well. And I just loved him being the prime mover on the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill for the Democrats (voting against the Wellstone amendments like Edwards did, and against Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone, and Hillary and other such non-progressives.

Yet Obama was right on the war and Clinton is STILL wrong about the biggest policy disaster in our nations history.

Nice to see the Clinton camp resort to bullshit smears that makes me want to sit out the race entirely (and FYI, I have not picked a horse in this race as of yet).

I will vote for any Dem over any GOP for President (save Gravel that is) yet Clinton seems to be going out of her way to divide and piss off loyal Democrats with this sort of crap.

Candidates without EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE should not even be considered for President.

OK, I guess that means we can scratch Abraham Lincoln off the list...

"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia," Obama said.

I can't understand why he is making an issue of this - it's pretty bizarre to portray your childhood as any kind of foreign relations experience - suggests grasping at straws here. I mean, once you finish college and held a job for a while, you usually take extracurricular activities in high school off your resume.

Why do you have to attack to the max on every issue?

It's this insistent lust for the attack that has really turned me off the Clinton campaign. Maybe she's right on this point--who cares. The pattern of behavior, however, is something I don't care to see in my party's nominee.

I assume, then, that you think that John Kerry handled the accusations of the Swift Boaters just fine.

I dunno, from my standpoint, the "bitch" seem to know just how to respond to the bitch slap.

lestatdelc wrote on November 20, 2007 6:00 PM:
colonpowwow

"None of what you posted has relevance to Foreign Policy, which is what the topic at hand is about. Try reading 101."

Thanks for your kind comments and your insight into "reading 101 (sic)" by your ignoring my posts at 5:19 and 5:28 re the foreign policy-related parts of her vast political experience.

I'll skip the nasty comments like you directed at me because none are necessary.

DTM:

Thanks. I did compile that list myself so I feel free to use it as necessary. And I wouldn't have to post it so many times if the Hillary-haters wouldn't constantly ask, "Well, just what experience does she have besides being Bill's wife? Huh? Huh?" Especially the same people asking the same question a couple days later after the (partial) list of her credentials shuts them up for a minute.

how would being raised in another radically different country and having close relations in yet another radically different country [I]not[/I] inform a person's views on foreign policy?

that's all Obama was saying here.

and phew, Clinton supporters who post in these comment sections make some really absurdly bad arguments. if i knew nothing else about her candidacy, that would be a huge alarm bell.

It would actually be great to have a president with a wider global view. Spending years abroad certainly can only help to make that possible. And no, going door-to-door as a Mormon missionary in France doesn't count, Monsieur Romney.

Bill's wife really has room to lecture about foreign policy experience. Obama at least had the insight and courage to oppose the Iraq War. Hillary showed a monumental lack of good judgment in giving George Bush authority to attack Iraq, triggering the largest foreign policy fiasco in American history. And knowing now what she knows, she voted to give Bush authority to attack Iran. What value was all of her "experience" when it came decision time?

We need leader, we don't need Hillary.

ccpup , thanks for the campaign boiler plate. Any socialite, or political wife educated at Wellesley and Yale Law School could match Hillary's resume. Most of what she accomplished she did because she was wife of a Governor and president.

While we are speaking of foreign policy experience, I notice you didn't mention (and Hillary NEVER does) her very well-compensated service on the WalMart board. It was in the late 1980s and early 1990s when WalMart was developing its plans to flood the U.S. market with cheap Chiense imports. Bill and Hillary once in the White House, thanks to some hefty WalMart and Walton family contributions, helped WalMart deliver on its plans by pushing for relaxed trade restrictions with China, allowing inferior, unexpected, dangerous products come to the U.S. into Walmart stores. WalMart profits and stock mushroomed.
And WalMart/Walton family contributions helped Hillary buy a Senate seat and seed a presidential bid.

If you're going to talk about Hillary's "experience" as qualifying her for president, you can't edit out the parts that make people cringe.

I was 23 and had a couple of college degrees when I first went overseas, and had some shocks to my cultural and public school-instilled sense of America being the best and the greatest.

First, England, and lo and behold, clean litter-free parks, and neatly clad children playing without that madcap shouting mania I had always associated with 'childhood'.

Then, another real shocker, Copenhagen and a stay with a Danish family. Mrs. Von Binzster had several amazing modern appliances in her kitchen that I'd never seen at home....there went my naive assumption that America was foremost in innovation and gadgetry. Then Tivoli Gardens, the world's foremost amusement park, but such a different atmosphere. Ride attendants in suits and ties.....free music by the Danish symphony...... carnival games [like picking plastic ducks out of a stream] but, guess what.... you were told, without putting out any more money, to keep trying until you won something! Imagine an amusement park designed to give fun instead of just designed around profits.
Everywhere, the Danish countryside and homesteads were spotless. The autos were maintained for 10-12 years to run perfectly and look like new.

Never again did I assume my own country to always be superior to other countries, or my own consumption-geared culture to be superior.

Just HOW Obama's childhood years abroad allow him a unique perspective may not be easy to grasp. But, I have no doubt that that experience did offer him some perspective and understanding beyond what most of us would have.

dcshungu,

I am glad we agree that anyone who responds to a criticism by saying the critic is echoing Republican talking points is making a dumb argument and not addressing the substance of the issue.

colonpowwow, nice long list of "political" qualifications for Hillary. No one is arguing she's not a rultless, skilled political operative.

We want a leader! With all of Hillary's "experience", she has shown terrible judgment. In the Senate she is a follower. She's "co-sponsored" a mountain of dead-end, show boat legislation. Big deal. Name major legislation she has authored and championed to passage as law. Oops. There is none.

Hillary is not qualifed to lead the nation and the world.

By the way, I suppose one could also view a bill banning flag-burning as being related to foreign policy.

I think arguing over the merits of the case is futile. Neither one of them has much experience as a foreign policy decision maker - only their senatorial experience counts as that - whatever the merits of their various experiences and studies. Let's stipulate to a draw on the merits. (I know you're going to tell me that Obama would not have voted with Bush-Cheney in the Iraq war vote, but there is no way to tell that for sure. He sure has gone along with them since, and he missed the vote on Kyl-Lieberman).

The point is that we are picking a candidate to take on the Republicans and their media cohorts. Obama responded to a good, fresh, snarky one liner with a full paragraph rehashing his stump speech that we have heard in every debate. That kind of approach did not work very well for John Kerry or Al Gore, as I recall.

Who would have thought that uber-wonk Hillary Clinton would have learned that lesson better than the younger, fresher, Obama?

Foreign policy is not Senator Clinton's strong point. What will happen when the Republicans trot out the picture of her giving Yasar Arafat's wife (now widow) that great big kiss. It is going to be an ugly general election no matter who gets the nomination.

This is truly astonishing---Hillary is shameless and hypocritical. Her own foreign policy experience is completely nonexistent, but she throws stones at Obama. This is no better than Bush's operatives complaining about John Kerry's military record, when Bush weaseled out of military service. The more we see of Hillary, the less there is to respect. I wish she would simply go away.

colonpowwow wrote on November 20, 2007 6:27 PM:

"understanding and voting on foreign policy issues that arise constantly in her eight years as a Senator;" in my 5:19 post. But obviously I didn't since you said they "all" refer to military matters.

Again, Clinton has not been a Senator voting on anything for 8 years, and second, who do you think has more foreign policy chops, someone serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or a Senator whose only dealing with Foreign Policy issues are floor votes like every other Senator?

Ugh:

"...the Senate Arms Committee is directly exactly foreign policy experience..."

Should have read:

"...the Senate Arms Committee isn't directly foreign policy experience..."

Mea culpa.

dcshungu, its called perspective, empathy, outlook, objectivity. With a Kenyan father, life in multicultural Hawaii, an Idonisian stepfather, life in multicultural Indonisia, Obama gained early in life a differnt view of race, nationality, geography, poverty, education, citizenship, immigration.

Bush has made some really horrible mistakes because he has a privileged preppy/fratboy/pseudo-cowboy view of the world. Hillary bought into Bush's view of the world, big time with her Iraq and Iran votes.

Obama has life experience from an early age that has given him perspective that helps he see respective differences and bridge divides. It's not his only qualification, but it is a UNIQUE qualification that is certainly relevant to development of respectful, successful foreign policy.

If Hillary wants to belittle that, she is narrow and naive.

Hillary Lewinski!!! Does not count for experience

If her experience comes from being in the WH, what did she do? Select the menus for parties? or Select flowers? or Figure out what she is going to take with her at the end of the Presidency?

If sleeping with the President counts as experience, then Monica Lewinski qualifies to run For president!!!!

I have been a registered Independent and reliable Democratic voter for the last 20+ years.

Honestly. . . fuck you Hillary. You will never get my vote.

dcshunga wrote:

Let's not be too simplistic about what constitutes foreign policy experience. You are confusing foreign country experience with foreign policy experience. I have lived in the US nearly my entire adult life (30 years) but until then I was born and lived elsewhere for all 17 years of my early life. However, for the past 15+ years I have attended scientific conferences in almost every corner of the globe (Sydney Australia, Glasgow, Kyoto, Shanghai, Prague...always combining the meeting with at least 2 extra weeks of vacation). Does this give me foreign policy experience that could be the basis for American foreign policy? I doubt it. I just have plenty of foreign country experience that allows me to get around just about any city in the world without getting into too much trouble because I know something about other countries...It says nothing about my ability to make sound policy decisions toward other countries.

Fair point. Nice plug for a Biden or, especially, Richardson presidency. Clinton and Obama shouldn't be trading barbs about real-world, executive foreign policy experience. Obama's world view may have been formed while a child, and that's illuminating. Clinton's may have been forced while First Lady. Neither should claim more.

I do feel that Clinton is staking claim to more than she should, if we were being intellectually honest.

This time out, I'm looking past experience and conventional wisdom. It's going to take vision and a healthy dose of idealism to sell it, something I feel we're all guilty of discounting in the face of a split, hostile Congress.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton wants to discuss her formative years and how it shaped her world views to the point that she considered herself a Goldwater Republican.

I think it is a complete tragedy that this campaign is going to devolve into the most soul-crushing back and forth crap that always tears the Democratic party apart.
If I was an American citizen, I would proudly vote for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich or any of the others (even John Edwards, who is much more snide than his supporters are willing to accept -- i.e. "Is that a planted question, Wolf?").

If it really does come down to Hillary and Rudy (or Mitt or Huckabee or McCain), how much of this anger toward her is going to remain a part of the discourse. One thing she realized long ago was that to be in this race, she would have to measure every word, every thought, every press release because it's ALL going to come back at her in the general election, if the grassroots don't tear her to pieces first.
This is all very random, I know, but I hope that your party will get its act together and rally around the ballot box when the time comes. Your current leadership is a bloody nightmare.

Hillary has gotten stuff done.

That was Bill that had the bidet put in the Oval Office.

This has gotten so big, that I guess Hillary will have to roll out the Clenis.

Will he say "how dare you"? Will he say "shame on you"?

I can hardly wait for his next corporate event appearance to find out.

Like Maureen Dowd or not, she is a truth speaker. Her column in the NYT 11-21-07 should not be missed by anyone concerned about the the Democratic nominee for president in 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/opinion/21dowd.html?th&emc=th

EVERYTHIBG THAT FOLLOWS IS QUOTED FROM DOWD'S COLUMN:

... [Hillary Clinton's] Democratic rivals had meekly gone along, accepting her self-portrait as a former co-president who gets to take credit for everything important Bill Clinton did in the ’90s. But she was not elected or appointed to a position that needed Senate confirmation. And the part of the Clinton administration that worked best — the economy, stupid — was run by Robert Rubin. Hillary did not show good judgment in her areas of influence — the legal fiefdom, health care and running oppo-campaigns against Bill’s galpals.

She went on some first lady jaunts and made a good speech at a U.N. women’s conference in Beijing. But she was certainly not, as her top Iowa supporter, former governor Tom Vilsack claimed yesterday on MSNBC, “the face of the administration in foreign affairs.”

She was a top adviser who had a Nixonian bent for secrecy and a knack for hard-core politicking. But if running a great war room qualified you for president, Carville and Stephanopoulos would be leading the pack.

Obama’s one-liner evoked something that rubs some people the wrong way about Hillary. Getting ahead through connections is common in life. But Hillary cloaks her nepotism in feminism.

“She hasn’t accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law,” wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: “She isn’t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that.”

The Clinton campaign in Iowa is in a panic. Obama has been closing the gap with women and her ginning up of gender has lost her male votes. Speaking around Iowa this week, Obama made the point that his exotic upbringing, family in Kenya and years as an outsider allow him to see the world with more understanding, and helped form his judgment about resisting the Iraq war.

“I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia,” he said. “If you don’t understand these cultures then it’s very hard for you to make good foreign policy decisions. Foreign policy is all about judgment.”

...“With all due respect,” she told a crowd in Iowa. “I don’t think living in a foreign country between the ages of 6 and 10 is foreign policy experience.”

But is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience

No, Maureen Dowd is not "a truth speaker". She finds the petty angle in things, the voice of resentment of people of small stature.

"Barak Obama was for Clintonism before he was against it."

That's the one line Hillary's people have to figure out and repeat, and that pretty much finishes him off. And the way the central argument of the campaign has become Clintonism.

Edwards is done. But his problem is analogous that he was for Bushism before he was against it.

"[Oh, if it's unfair to elect Hillary because of her husband, is it unfair to elect Obama because of his interesting mother?]"

When was Obama's mother president? Did I miss something?

"Rather than nitpick whether it is 8 or 7 years of foreign policy experience that Hillary's senate career involves as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a foreign-policy maker."

Once again, you seek to conflate tenure on Armed Services with "foreign-policy making." Name one "foreign policy" she's "made", or just admit that your argument is bullshit.

And again, the fact that she seems to see foreign policy through a primarily military lens is one of my biggest problems with her, and one of the things I like best about Obama is that he is making the argument that negotiation and diplomacy should always precede threats and military force.