About damn time someone pointed that out!

GoBama!

"I think the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," Obama said...

I agree with him completely and think Clinton's experience claims are vastly overstated. Glad to see Obama call her out on such nonesense.

If Obama doesn't consider his wife to be a valuable advisor, that probably says more about their relationship than it does Hillary's exprerience.

I followed the link and read the more complete set of quotes, finding a gem of an Obama quote: "They're trying to boil the hope out of me", referring to the atmosphere in Washington.
What an appropriate image to describe what happens to original ideals and hopeful determination in the stew of DC politics. 'Boil the hope out'.... sort of like overcooking healthy vegetables to the point of boiling out the essence of nutritive value.

Joel,

Where, exactly, did Obama say that he does not consider his wife to be a valuable advisor? Oh, he didn't and you just set up a wonderful little straw man in order to baselessly attack his relationship with his wife? Awesome, that's cool.

NY:

When he says Senator, he's talking specifically about his experience (as Senator) with relation to his wife and comparing it to Bill's experience (as President) with relation to his wife.

I'd rather Obama just let Clinton claim whatever she wants to claim. I'd even say it just like that. "I know Senator Clinton is claiming a lot of experience based on her husband's administration. I don't think we have any record of exactly what she did or didn't do, and those records aren't forthcoming, so I can't really comment on those claims. But in any event, I think it's time to move forward from the status quo that has seen two families control American politics for the last 20 years."

Obama should fight the urge to prevent Hillary from running as Billary. If HRC wants to go that way, I'd help her out...go ahead and say "back when Bill and Hillary were president..." A dig or two on the Marc Rich theme should help too.

As bad as Bush was, there is some undeniable nostalgia for naughty Bill. But in a dem primary the "let's go back," "dynasty," and "trust the big machine" messages HRC delivers in the very fact of her person is not as compelling as you first think.

dcshungu:

I agree with most of what you say, but if that's not what Clinton is arguing. She's arguing, in no uncertain terms, that she wasn't just a passive observer, she claims to have played a significant role in the development of economic policy and foreign policy. If she were making the argument you suggest, I don't think you would get much argument from anyone. But when she overstates her role (without any evidence), she invites criticism. At least in my opinion.

What is Obama's experience?

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'll come to Hillary's aid on this one a bit. Hillary's case is a little different that the traditional "first lady" role. She's not a housewife, she's an intelligent, sharp legal and political asset who was given a great deal of responsibility and territory of her own, more like a vice president. Hers was a job more similar to Al Gore's and Dick Cheney's than Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan.In that sense, it's absolutely relevant.
Still, I think Barack's larger point is correct, which is that experience isn't nearly as important as character, ability, and persona (i.e. the "[L]ook at all the experience Rumsfeld had..." line) His is a new, distinct, and frankly better brand.

Also, Joel and NY, maybe we start reading the post/quote a couple times through before we post a comment.

Keith wrote on November 26, 2007 12:58 PM:

dcshungu:

I agree with most of what you say, but if that's not what Clinton is arguing. She's arguing, in no uncertain terms, that she wasn't just a passive observer, she claims to have played a significant role in the development of economic policy and foreign policy. If she were making the argument you suggest, I don't think you would get much argument from anyone. But when she overstates her role (without any evidence), she invites criticism. At least in my opinion.

I would have to see quotes of Clinton's exact statements in order to be able to judge what she'd claimed, but how do you know that she had not, in fact, played a significant role in shaping policies, as an unpaid political advisor to her husband?

And being a black family is not a qualification for the White House nor is it an entitlement to it, as Mrs. Obama has proclaimed.

And we're now getting racism...ok then. Thanks for your constructive comments Anonymous. At least put your name on it if you're going to make illogical smears.

On to other news...Why don't you post this Greg:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393

New Zogby poll shows Clinton loses to every Republican nationally, while Obama (and Edwards) beat or tie every Republican. THAT'S NEWS!

dcshungu,

Isn't the burden of proof logically on the person claiming to have the experience? If the Clintons want to explain exactly what role Hillary Clinton played in making policy on the economy, foreign affairs, and so on, let's hear it. They could also give details about meetings between Hillary Clinton with the relevant Cabinet officials (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, etc.), and so on.

I continuously hear Sen. Clinton's supporters pointing to her "experience," which is the issue of contention here. It's clear that she was crucially involved in the Clinton administration--though the only issues on which we know she took a key role, the terribly mismanaged '93-'94 health care effort and the increasingly confrontational nature of the Clintons' media relations, don't speak very well for her.

But aside from her membership on the Children's Defense Fund board (which I think has long since lapsed), exactly what are the issues on which she's "led" and "fought"?

I still perceive no rationale for her candidacy beyond "Trust me, I'm a Clinton," "I'm a woman," and "The Republicans hate me so much that I must have something going for me."

anonymous at 1:28,

It is also the same argument that Bill Clinton made in 1992, and Ronald Reagan in 1980. In fact, to my knowledge it is the same argument every candidate without extensive Washington experience has made against their opponents with more extensive Washington experience.

And as the examples of 1980, 1992, and 2000 show, this argument often works. That is because voters are at best ambivalent about such experience.

anonymous at 1:35,

There is no doubt that if Washington experience is the deciding factor, both Clinton and Obama will fall far short of candidates like Biden and Richardson.

But note that Obama isn't arguing it should be, and that Clinton falls short by this measure. Rather, he is arguing such experience shouldn't be the deciding factor, while also noting that one of his critics on these grounds--Senator Clinton--isn't really in a position to make such arguments.

But aside from her membership on the Children's Defense Fund board (which I think has long since lapsed), exactly what are the issues on which she's "led" and "fought"?

Yeah, 7 years in the Senate counts for squat with Obama acolytes.

On the other hand, Obama has led and fought and won on what issues at the federal level in his mere less than 3 years as a senator?

I still see no rationale for his candidacy beyond "I'm black and it's time America had a black president, regardless whether I have any leadership experience or not."

anonymous at 1:46,

That makes absolutely no sense. Hillary Clinton has been explicitly making her White House experience a central part of her campaign, and the Clintons presumably know all the relevant facts about that experience. But you suggest that the way we answer these questions should be to make everyone else try to figure out what role Hillary Clinton played in Bill Clinton's Administration, rather than just having them tell us? Even without the sealed records issue, that is just an absurd suggestion.

And you don't see people like Biden or Richardson saying, "I'm experienced, and now it is up to everyone else to prove otherwise." Rather, as we should expect from our candidates, they are happy to explain exactly what they have done and why they think it is relevant. Again, it would just be absurd to do it any other way.

anonymous at 1:49,

Well, in Obama's first Congress as a Senator, among his achievements were Coburn-Obama and Lugar-Obama.

Isn't the burden of proof logically on the person claiming to have the experience?

I have heard people state in these forums that Clinton's years as First Lady do not count as "experience" nor do they qualify her to be POTUS. But folks, Clinton has been in public life since the 70s! Wasn't she a senate aid during the Watergate hearings? Isn't she now a two-term US Senator? Wasn't she active in a host of issues involving children welfare and such? That is part of her record! Being First Lady is just the tip of the iceberg, and, yes, it does count as part of her experience because it gave her a much closer look at the workings of the executive branch than any of us or her opponents will be ever have!

What is Obama's national "experience" other than his 2+ years in the Senate. He is trying to go from junior college to the position of CEO of the most powerful company in the world, and they call Clinton ambitious. LOL. It is why it would be a disaster to nominate him. The Repubs will not be shy and will rough him up badly, not to mention trying to scare southern white voters about having a black POTUS...[ads suggesting that a black man in the WH would be "payback" time for blacks against the slave masters, or an opportunity to expand "entitlement" programs, etc, would be played and replayed and not even subtly]

I guarantee you that it won't be pretty.

Jane,

Of course Obama did not question his wife's competence. He did, however, suggest there is only so much she would learn from him discussing his job with her.

And frankly, I think this is a pretty obvious point. My wife is a professional, and she talks with me about her job. Does that make me qualified to do her job? Heck no. And I have no doubt there are many other people who have never done her job before, but because of their education and other experience in her professional area, they would be a lot more qualified to do her job than I am.

That said, maybe it is true that Hillary Clinton played an unusually active role in forming economic and foreign policy during her time as First Lady. But that leads us back to the proof issue.

dcshungu: "... only someone who is completely clueless could believe that Clinton's 8 years as First Lady did not give her a better sense for the workings of the American presidency than anyone else who is currently vying for that office. By itself, being First Lady does not automatically qualify anyone to be POTUS. However, Clinton has lifelong record of public service, and is now a two-term Senator...on her own."

No question but that Clinton has a strong record of public service, whether or not you like her, or agree with her positions. And while I don't live in New York, it's pretty safe to say that many New Yorkers respect & appreciate the work she does on behalf of them, certainly enough so as to get her elected to a second term as their Senator. However, it's wildly implausible to suggest that she was elected to that first term as Senator on the merits of her record. She may have held positions & cultivated skills that many New Yorkers admired, but absolutely no way could a lawyer who grew up in Illinois, then spent her adult life in Arkansas & Washington, DC, as the wife of a powerful executive, move to a state where she had no claim or history & reasonably be expected to win national office.

I'm certainly not suggesting that she's not smart or capable enough to be Senator or President, but it's either naïve or convenient to ignore the huge leg up that she's got by virtue of her name recognition -- name recognition which comes by virtue of her husband's having been Governor & President. It's not fair to begrudge her that fact, but it's perfectly appropriate to call her on it when she starts claiming his experience as hers. If she can point to specific work that she did in his administration, initiatives she developed, projects she oversaw, or tasks she completed, then I'm very interested in hearing more. Otherwise, this is all just talk of leadership by osmosis.

The maybe-racist Anon (the internet equivalent of the white sheet?) writes at 1.49pm:

Yeah, 7 years in the Senate counts for squat with Obama acolytes.

On the other hand, Obama has led and fought and won on what issues at the federal level in his mere less than 3 years as a senator?

I still see no rationale for his candidacy beyond "I'm black and it's time America had a black president, regardless whether I have any leadership experience or not."

Note the evasion of my original question:

... exactly what are the issues on which she's "led" and "fought"?

I don't dispute that she's been in the Senate for seven years. But aside from constituent service and bringing home pork--both on which she's been diligent--what has she done? And why is she running? What is her "leadership experience" beyond triangulation in the service of war and corporatism?

The unattributed crap this Anon throws out about the Obamas, meanwhile, has nothing to do with his rationale for running. It's that the system, as represented if not embodied by Bushes and Clintons, has become utterly disconnected from the needs of our people. He'll try to reconnect it. And on specific issues, Obama has committed to ending the war, more actively pursuing nuclear non-proliferation, putting entitlement programs on firmer financial ground, and the sort of goo-goo "process reforms" that the money-loving Clintons disdain but that many of us see as the keys to reinvigorating American democracy itself.

. . . It is true that Obama has limited "national" experience, but of course so did many other Presidents before him, and there is little evidence to suggest that "national" experience is correlated with being a good President. . . .

There is even less evidence to suggest that being an outsider (Bush) is correlated with being a good president.

We might also mention "Bay of Pigs" and "Vietnam" as reasons to reject inexperience as being a virture.

. . . Of course neither is Clinton--you should be looking at Biden, Richardson, and Dodd. . . .

No, we should be choosing someone who is experienced and can get elected. None of those can.

Don't be stupid.

Clinton may not win either, but if Obama can't beat Clinton in the Democratic primaries with all their leaning towards left-wing radicalness (at least compared with the country as a whole), then he has no hope in the general election, no matter how many idiotic Zogby polls one cites.

And everybody keeps saying that Clinton's name recognition tops Obama's buzz as a black Senator and a FOO (friend of Oprah) . . . pullllleeeese.

The idea that Obama doesn't have any name recognition and that he's suffering from lack of publicity compared to Clinton is the lamest of Obama supporters' lame excuses for their candidate and his performance to date.

anonymous at 2:35,

Right, there is no real correlation either way between experience and good presidencies. Indeed, you mentioned Vietnam, which was just as much the result of bad decisions by LBJ and Nixon (two very experienced Presidents) as of Kennedy.

Anyway, what makes you think Biden, Dodd, or Richardson couldn't get elected? The fact that they currently are not polling as well among Democrats for the purposes of the primary does not imply they would not do as well or better among the general electorate.

Indeed, you almost put the pieces together by noting the Democratic primaries involve a different cross-section of voters. But then at the last moment, you reversed the logic and seemed to claim that if you can't win the primaries you must not be able to win the general election. Again, the more obvious point is that often the primary voters will favor someone who is LESS popular among the general electorate, precisely because primary voters are a nonrepresentative subset of that general electorate. All this is premature, however, because we do not even know yet who the primary voters will choose.

Finally, I can speak only for myself, but I do not think "name recognition" is an important factor at this stage. I do think, however, that many people in many states still do not know much about Obama. That isn't a "publicity" issue, because the widespread media outlets tend to focus on the sorts of information people do not really care about (such as polls, fundraising, and so on). So to give people the sorts of information they do want, campaigns traditionally need to advertise, send out flyers, and so on. And that process has just begun, and only in a few states.

The maybe class-baiter, woman-hater dajafi wrote:

". . . the money-loving Clintons . . ."

". . . the system [represented or embodied by the] Clintons . . ."

Talk about unattributed crap.

Obama: "I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it,"

Really? That's what she's claiming? That's a fact?

Certainly no political overstatement there!

Hope and change people... Hope. And. Change.

Heh-heh.

What good is her experience, as First Lady, if she learned nothing from it.

She voted for Bush's Iraqmire, without reading the Intelligence Report, and she recently repeated the same stupidity with her vote to enable Bush to press forward on his Iran attack folly.

If she was such a sharp First Lady, why was she so surprised by her presidential partner's Lewdinsky(Pun intended) affair.

There is a big difference between having been there, and having actually learned from having been there. Hillary's votes on Iraq and Iran show that her experience as First Lady taught her nothing.

Just as living outside the box (e.g., living in a foreign country for a while) provides important perspective, so does living in particular boxes, such as the Senate.

President Johnson, despite all his faults with respect to the Vietnam War, was able to manage important legislation (the Great Society) through the US Congress because of a deep understanding of how that body works, as much as a commitment to reform, as well as the relationships developed during his time as a congressman.

Experience from access to classified information over time provides a clearer picture of the world and the underbelly the public, including inexperienced Senators, never get to see. The more reports one sees from around the world, the better the perspective, if taken with a grain of salt and heavy demands for answers and followup.

So, yes, the more time spent in Congress the more important relationships are developed, the more important but publically unavailable information one is exposed to, and the more opportunities for contacts with foreign dignitaries, governmental entities, and NGOs one becomes familiar with.

Such experience is never the sole criteria, but there is no evidence that Obama supporters have (honestly) offered that would suggest that Clinton is less smart, less committed to attainable liberal political goals, and less capable of pursuing important reforms in the way our government operates.

Obama in other words has not proven himself more capable of achieving liberal goals than Clinton.

At best, he merely has been more vociferous in his liberal demagoguery than Clinton, but that simply boils down to big talk, pretty much like Bush, and two bills passed (again, with the help of the GOP, boo-hoo if it was when they were in power) doesn't show Obama's talk is the equivalent of action, and in the end his far-left demagoguery will eventually offput moderate Americans in ways that Clinton's middle-of-the-road, practical vagueness will not and previous elections (including Bill's) shows that moderates control elections and playing to them eventually pays off, whatever the polls say today.

Obama has not shown he can appeal to moderates in the long run during a general election, as he has focused solely on appeasing the far left and attacking Clinton in ways that will damage her during the general election.

He's doing more long-term harm to the party's probable nominee than he is gaining in short-term good for himself in the primary process.

Clinton may be doing the same thing now by aggressively attacking Obama's experience, but she's the front runner, and damaging an unlikely nominee is not as harmful, and she didn't start it - Obama's supporters started it by shamefully trashing Clinton with terms like "GOP-lite" or essentially "Bush III" and absolutely demeaning her liberal credentials with utterly false and slimely accusations.

I'm no Clinton fan, but Obama supporters make me every bit as sick to my stomach as Nader's did, undermining legitimate liberal candidates by demanding they be as far left as they are or suffer the consequences of a smear campaign.

Obama supporters are swift-boating Clinton and they have from the start.

Obama supporters are, in my opinion, no better than those Bush supporters who thoroughly trashed any conservative who dared question Bush, proclaiming them to be not conservative and even to be traitors to America and its soldiers.

In other words, it is Obama supporters who are demanding ideological purity with respect to their agenda and values without any room for moderation, condemning anyone who doesn't not embrace their far-left vision for America as being the equivalent of the enemy and where have we seen those tactics before?

Bush and his supporters.

If anyone is Bush-lite, it is Obama and any supporters are Bush-suppoter lite it is Obama's supporters.

So, you push, those who object to demands for ideological purity can be expected to push back.

We don't need no stinkin' liberal version of George W. Bush and his ideological attack dogs.

Liam: . . . She voted for Bush's Iraqmire, without reading the Intelligence Report, and she recently repeated the same stupidity with her vote to enable Bush to press forward on his Iran attack folly. . .

No matter how many times you repeat this, it will still be a lie.

Which is why, despite not supporting Clinton, I absolutely despise Obama and his fruitcake far-left supporters, for their arrogant and dishonest attacks on Clinton and their attempts to either win for Obama or destroy Democratic chances, just like they did when supporting Nader in 2000.

They are trying to hold the Democratic Party hostage to their ideological demands.

And they will get and deserve the same condemnation that Nader supporters got in the wake of their dishonest attacks on Gore.

He's literally right, but sounds enough like a "what do you know? you're just a wife" asshole that he's gonna take a lotta shit for it.

"...nor the experience of looking over the shoulder of a governor."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Is this really what Hillaryites are now reduced to? How pathetic can you get?

I smell...desperation.

This is silly stuff. Hillary has some experience of how the White House worked and it was an embattled time. To say she was not Treasury Secretary shows a juvenile mind at work. No one aiming for this office can ever have the all round experience argument tacked down fast. Obama has had half a term in the Senate and local experience in Chicago politics and social work. That counts for something, but not much. Sure he got the Iraq vote right. But he was not in the Senate and the pressures at that time were enormous. Those who got it right (voting NO) are fine. But why dump on the others. There was a collective push on Iraq including the so called wise ones in the MSM. To dump all that on Hillary is too simple.

Hillary has some exprerience. Obama represented hope and a new way of doing things. But he has been forced into the attack stuff and it will hurt all the Dems. He may win the primary. But, after that???? You think the Republicans are going to roll over. You think the racists won't join in? After all, the women haters will have no reason to do much.

We Dems are great: a Woman, a Black male and a Trial Lawyer. A triangular firing squad.

DTM: As you point out, it was a similar approach that helped LBJ manage important legislation through Congress when he was President.

I said nothing about LBJ working with Republicans.

Maybe he did.

Maybe he didn't.

But I didn't say what you say I said.

So, I'm confused why you would ascribe something to me that I didn't write.

"But your attempt to paint him as a far-left extremist has no support in anything I have seen."

Obama's supporters in the Democratic Party seem to think otherwise, since they insist that Clinton, hardly a conservative, is way, way to the right of Obama.

But have it your own way.

You only see what you want to see which I find pretty standard for ideologues.

"And in retrospect, nominating Bradley instead of Gore should like a pretty good idea to anyone who has not enjoyed the last few years."

Gore won the popular vote and many seem to think should have won the electoral vote.

You have no evidence that Bradley would have done better than that.

Unless you think Bradley would have been better at preventing the election from being stolen or any more palatable to the Naderites, something which is laughable.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Is this really what Hillaryites are now reduced to? How pathetic can you get?"

Just look at Obama supporters and you will know how pathetic you can get.

"If the sheet fits, wear it, loser."

Thanks for proving my point about Obama supporters doing the same thing to Clinton supporters that Bush supporters sleazily did to his opponents, both right and left.

Obama supporters will swiftboat anybody who disagrees with them and we've got some fine examples on this thread alone to prove it and brewmn's charges of racism mirror those of Clarence Thomas's supporters.

Look in the mirror, bub, look in the mirror as you play the race card cause you got nothing else but an incompetent boob as a candidate.

Anonymous- You keep making these caustic statements about "Obama Supporters". Here is a pretty tame sample of what you've been posting:

"Obama supporters are, in my opinion, no better than those Bush supporters who thoroughly trashed any conservative who dared question Bush, proclaiming them to be not conservative and even to be traitors to America and its soldiers.

In other words, it is Obama supporters who are demanding ideological purity with respect to their agenda and values without any room for moderation, condemning anyone who doesn't not embrace their far-left vision for America as being the equivalent of the enemy and where have we seen those tactics before?"

I support Obama. I don't think I'm far left. I don't think he is far left. Am I automatically guilty of demagoguery because I support someone you don't?

If you are ok with people having different beliefs than you, but object to the negative way they express those beliefs- start with yourself. You have consistantly been the most negative person on these forums. For every point you make, you make two ad hominem attacks. Make some points and quit calling everyone names.

You were asked by several people to explain why you think Obama is a far left fringe candidate. You were also asked why you think Hillary can appeal more to those on the right. I am curious about those claims too. I live in a red state. Here, Hillary is not popular with anyone on the right (I don't agree with her detractors).

I would love an answer to whose questions (I don't mean that in an Eddie Haskel way). I want the democratic candidate to win above all.

pbov: "Am I automatically guilty of demagoguery because I support someone you don't?"

When Obama supporters quit insisting that anyone who supports Clinton (and I don't) wants to continue the Bush administration atrocities and is GOP-lite and not a true liberal or Democrat, then we can stop this nonsense.

I won't hold my breath.

And you seem to suffer from the same mendacity or inability to read as other Obama supporters: "You were also asked why you think Hillary can appeal more to those on the right."

I NEVER said that Clinton can appeal more to those on the right, but as the preceding moron says you are free to prove me wrong.

I said she would appeal more to moderates in the end.

Moderates.

Not Righties.

Are you incapable of reading the written word?

Apparently I have to actually have to spell it out for you?

And you wonder why I get so upset at Obama supporters when you continue to misrepresent what I've written without any qualms whatsoever in order to prove your point, just like you lie about Clinton and insist she voted for the invasion of Iraq and Iran.

Piss off.

Jane - "Based on their voting records, Hillary is more of a Democrat than is Obama. I wish Obama would clear up whether or not he asked for Joe Lieberman to be his mentor in the Senate as Joe claims he did."

Ha! You're exactly the kind of person I'm talking about (above). No idea what you're talking about, but why not spew it out there anyways???

Whatever, you can use some BS index to say that Hillary (friend of Rupert Murdoch) is "more of a Democrat" than Obama (hilarity ensues) if you want, but it doesn't mean jack crap. And no, Obama did not request to have Lieberman as Senate mentor - and never did Lieberman claim such a thing. They are appointed, and a simple google search would have told you that much. Its amazing how many articles still falsely claim that Obama "endorsed" Lieberman over Lamont for Senate in '04. Obama spoke on his behalf once way before the primary, and then backed Lamont against Lieberman in the election, because Lamont had won. But still one person after another will ignorantly make claim...most certainly a dirty method trying to link the two together in order to bring Obama down.

Hey, since there's such a Republican free-for-all, also, how about having the Presidentially experienced Laura Bush go head to head with Hillary. If you look up the whitehouse.gov/firstlady/ you'll see she's been an Ambassador, she has a Masters from a fine Texas university, SMU, and she's pretty. She's a world traveler, met lots of leaders and unlike Hillary, would probably let her husband make the decisions.

anonymous at 5:05,

First, I apologize for misconstruing your remarks about LBJ. When you wrote, "President Johnson, despite all his faults with respect to the Vietnam War, was able to manage important legislation (the Great Society) through the US Congress because of a deep understanding of how that body works, as much as a commitment to reform, as well as the relationships developed during his time as a congressman," I thought you had some things in mind which apparently you did not. Again, I apologize.

Anyway, I'm not sure it is true that Obama's real world supporters view him as significantly more liberal than Clinton, and of course it is possible for people to think Obama is moderate and still think Clinton is more conservative than he is. In any event, what I do know is what I mentioned, which is that Obama does relatively well among Republicans, independents, and moderates.

As for Bradley, the one thing we do know is that there was no President Gore, and whether there should have been does not change that fact. Still, I agree we don't know if Bradley would have won either, but if you would have preferred a President Bradley to a President Bush, and you had a time machine and the means to make him the nominee, that would seem to be a chance worth taking.

By the way, Nader's effect on the outcome in 2000 is often overrated. Much more significant, for example, was the fact that Gore lost his cross-over battle with Bush (meaning more Democrats voted for Bush than Republicans voted for Gore, and the net effect in Bush's favor was much higher than the net Nader effect in Bush's favor). Kerry, by the way, also lost his cross-over battle with Bush, but Clinton won his cross-over battle with Dole.

So it turns out that in recent elections, being able to win the cross-over battle has been more important than any third party effects, including the Nader effect in 2000.

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening.

Sorry 'bout the typos... spell check dictionary had Barack as Barak.

I for one would rather have someone new with a fresh mind as president rather than someone who "has been there before" and "knows how things work". In times of need, we fall back on what we know, and if what Hillary knows is the presidency how it was under Bill, odds are there will be little change.
In short: Hillary's "experience" is not as helpful as she makes it out to be if she really wants to bring change to the presidency and politics in general.

On another note, I wish Obama wouldn't stoop to negative campaigning as much as he has had to and just focus on what makes him the best candidate... unfortunately, as the results of recent polls have shown, there are realities that must be faced when one runs for president, and those are, among others, a) accepting money from rich people* and b) making your opponents look bad.

*To his credit, I believe Obama has received more small donations from regular citizens (a.k.a not rich people) than all the other candidate's combined -- anyone know this for sure?

The only experience Hillary had in the White House was mucking things up for Bill. The official title she had was that of first lady. That is all. And it was necessary for Obama to point that out. All Hillary did was try to get involved in various forms of policy which she had no business doing. That's not experience. That's meddling and showing poor judgement. But Obama should remember remember that Hillary has plenty of other politically vulnerable positions and history and he should not let himself get sidetracked.