As could be expected, the Clinton's put their own self-interests ahead of those of the party and the country. It's more worthwhile to hurt Obama's GE electability in the service of denying him the nomination than it is to try to win the nomination on the merits in the first. That's nice.

I used to like Bill. Now I can't wait till he's out of politics. If Obama is the GE, of course there will be GOP ads with Bill saying he's not ready and what not. Awesome. Thanks Bill! Really doing the party a great service there!

I agree SJW

I am also glad that Rose has a very limited viewing market. Most of the masses never even heard of Rose. I suppose WJC's remarks will be put into a soundbite replayed on Hardball,CNN and Fox though.

Now, we know what Bill has been saying to the status quo politicians endorsing Hillary.

This makes me wonder how much of a fair game it is for hits to now start about Bill's tawdry and licentious behavior.

That should be a real American concern to have to be dragged through all that lasciviousness again.

I expect Larry Flynn to expose Clintons philandering sense leaving the WH, following this Rose interview.

Things are going to get nasty.

Afterall, Obama may be the political opponent, but he did not raise 75M because Hillary is so well liked. Lots of people unassociated with Obama's campaign will use this as incentive to come out and knock the Clintons.

Geffen told us a long time ago that not only are the Clintons extraordinary liars but they also do it with exceptional ease.

Seems like this Rose interview fits what Geffen said.

Bill says Hilary is the real change candidate. 4 more years of a Clinton Presidency. How does that sound or look like a change?
This fits into Obamas message of change because like it or not Bill really is the top class of partisan politics. His comments help no one but Republicans.

For a different take..

The Atlantic

Towards the end of the interview, Rose indicated that Clinton's staff was asking producers in his show's control room to get them to have Rose end the interview. And Clinton said: "Somebody will parse this interview..." to take his quotes out of context. "It is stupid... I think we are fortunate in having people..I think the relevant question from me is, who will be the best president who has a proven record of making change in the lives of other people." They may parse his body language. Toward the end of the interview, his hands began to shake and his face reddened as he discussed the political thicket his wife finds herself in.

Doggie Alzheimer's Big Dog Rambles on Charlie Rose
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/bill_clinton_well_he_just_puts_1.php

Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:35

Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:31

Wouldn't it be awesome if Joe Biden somehow charged to the front and won the Iowa caucuses? Or Chris Dodd? I'd love to hear the Clinton's stutter and stammer as they explain how Hillary's scant 7 years in the Senate stack up against Biden's 34 years in Congress and Dodd's 32 years.

This experience argument from Hillary is such a house of cards. She has the experience of voting in favor of the Iraq War. She has the experience of wiping her ass with the bill of rights when she voted in favor of the Patriot Act. She has the experience of voting for federal control of schools in the form of No Child Left Behind.

just.remember.folks.hating.and/or.not.liking.the.Clintons.is.one.thing.but.having.the.Republicans.retain.the.WH.is.not.an.option...they.dont.deserve.to.have.any.leadership.positions.for.years.to.come.for.foisting.GWB.onto.this.country...the.GOP.needs.to.pay.for.W.and.in.spades...

Steve LaBonne -

FYi, Clinton was governor of AR for 10 years, a founder of DLC, and the head of NGA.

JFK was a two-term senator like Mrs. Clinton.

One cannot dream change. You have to work for change.

It is far past time for these two to politely go back to their respective careers.He is beginning to look a lot like a used car salesman and she is looking just like what she is. I am sick to death of both of them and how they are out for nothing but themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else.

The perception that somehow "Hillary is tanking" is not supported by the polls. If you follow the history of the Rasmussen tracking polls, the numbers now ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL to when they first started to poll about 18 months ago. There have been blips up and down over that time, but substantially, ALL CANDIDATES HAVE CLOSE TO THE SAME SUPPORT THEY DID STARTING OUT.

I realize polls are not necessarily good indicators of an ultimate outcome, but they are the best we have at the moment.

All the blather in the media about the Clinton campaign "faltering" and Obama "surging" seems more an effort to create a horse race, and perk up consumer interest in the process.

What was Bill's big resume like when he took office? Gov. of a s-hole state? What is Hillary's big resume? Voting yes on a war of choice, helping Bill decimate the social safety net, and being a freshman Senator? Let us not forget, Hillary got the Democratic Party affiliation effed into her, she was a Republican until Bill.

Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl. Just look at her voting record, Republican thru and thru

If Bill wants to support his wife for President over the other guy, it doesn't matter to me. He is, in fact, the only Democrat elected to office in 28 years.

Obama's main strength is representing change, and the fact that he is a Washington outsider. Yet, of any of the Republicans he runs against - Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani - who is the Washington insider? Obama is!

Call me pessimistic, but I don't see Hillary or Obama winning the general election, and I'm not in love with Hillary by any means. I just think she has the better chance to win of the two.

We shall see...

I'm in Obama's camp precisely because of his experience. In his adult life he has worked as a civil rights attorney, professor of constitutional law, community organizer, state senator, and now United States Senator. It is a clear record of a life lived in the public interest, and compares very favorably to the biography of not only Clinton, but John Edwards, a multi-million dollar trial lawyer who would have you believe that he's William Jennings Bryan. I would challenge the pundits to flesh out the question of experience, rather than let it hang mutely as some ill-defined qualification for the presidency. Does it mean that one has been "vetted"? Does it mean that one was built up a network of politically advantageous relationships? Is it about statecraft? Biography? The question as posed in the media is being too broadly framed, and should be addressed with respect for its complexity.

Barack Obama seems like a brilliant and eloquent man, but I'm appalled at the level of discourse and intellect displayed by his supporters in these comments.

It seems true of every other blog I've looked at as well. With all due respect to the man himself, he has the ugliest, lowest common denominator, following of all the candidates by a good margin. Maybe it's the Oprah factor.

For you Obama girls who love to compare Obamer to JFK, let's compare their experience. Obama may have enough experience to serve as JFK's butler:

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917–November 22, 1963), was the thirty-fifth President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963.

After Kennedy's leadership as commander of the USS PT-109 during World War II in the South Pacific, his aspirations turned political. Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961. Kennedy defeated former Vice President and Republican candidate Richard Nixon in the 1960 U.S. presidential election, one of the closest in American history. To date, he is the only practicing Roman Catholic to be elected President and the only President to have won a Pulitzer Prize.[1] His administration witnessed the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, the American Civil Rights Movement and early events of the Vietnam War.

Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime, but was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had acted alone in killing the president; however, the House Select Committee on Assassinations declared in 1979 that there may have been a conspiracy. The entire subject remains controversial, with multiple theories about the assassination still being debated. The event proved to be a poignant moment in U.S. history due to its impact on the nation and the ensuing political fallout. Many regard President Kennedy as an icon of American hopes and aspirations; he continues to rank highly in public opinion ratings of former U.S. presidents.[2]

Absolutely anon, I had to read bobby's post twice. I thought he was referring to clinton II people. They are bar none the worst. It's just insults and spin, no discourse. I guess that's what the talking points are, just hurl insults. I can't wait until the clintons are out to pasture. Its time to turn the page.

The Clintons have passed their prime. Now they are starting to embarrass themselves. Wait. They started doing that some time ago.

Clinton fatigue already.

Finally the truth is told. Obama is a neophyte that the Republicans would eat for dinner.

Biden, Dodd, Richards, Edwards and Clinton have all proven to be agents of Change. Obama has proven nothing. He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...when he actually shows up to vote.

Moreover, his state senate record is equally spotty...voting present. Great job taking a stand Barak.

I don't have anything bad to say about any of these people . . . well except Obama.

Thanks Bill.

Mike timmons.............you're pathetic. Do a little research before you make a post.

Marc Ambinder and ABCNews' Chalian saw things quite differently from this rather interesting take here at TPM. I won't reprint what is already posted upstream but in summary they viewed it as the sad ramblings of a past his prime politician trying to fight off the new guy.

Times are changing and alot of us are ready to turn the page. "Can't we all just get along?"--it is still the Democratic party and not the Clintoncratic party.

Anonymous wrote on December 15, 2007 2:17 PM:
Finally the truth is told. Obama is a neophyte that the Republicans would eat for dinner.

Biden, Dodd, Richards, Edwards and Clinton have all proven to be agents of Change. Obama has proven nothing. He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...when he actually shows up to vote.

---- Anonymous, you are right! And that's the reason I think Hillary's support in Iowa is under-reported although it may be my wishful thinking.

a). How many young hot-heads will make their way back to Iowa for caucusing.

b). Whoever chooss Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, he or she chooses experience. do you believe their supporters will switch from people who have a lot of experience to someone with no experience but a good functioning mouth?

c). I believe eventually a lot of experienced people will be offended by Obama's touting of his inexperience and so called born superb judgement. I believe Ted kennedy will soon endorse clinton. He will tell Obama: Senator O, I know you a little bit for the days you show up for work, I know President kennedy very well. Sir, you are no jack kennedy!

There you go again bluedog. It's all just hate, hate, hate, hate. When in doubt throw out the hate card. Nobody raises a valid point obout clinton II they just hate her right. You clinton II lovers just crack me up. The bottom line is all dem sheep should just get in line and praise the queen. Just wait for the coronation.

The problem is that she will get slaughtered in the general election. She's spinning out of control over stupid misteps that were her own doing. The republicans will make mincemeat out of her.

If the republicans nominate the huckster, she doesn't have a chance. The other ones, it would have to be blind luck that she wins, but in the long run democracy and america loses. If she's the nominee, I am willing to bet the dems don't even hold the senate and lose seats in the house. Is that what the dems want? More stagnation. Anybody but clinton II in 08.

In the Charlie Rose interview, Bill repeats the lie that he did not run in 1988 because he felt he was too inexperienced. Here two accounts that dispute his claim:

From a review of Carl Bernstein's book "A Woman in Charge"

http://www.augustfalling.com/index.php?s=holed

Bill Clinton, Candidate
Bill Clinton always had his eye on the Presidency. It was where he could do the most good. He considered running in 1988, but decided against it. One issue was the amount of time it would take away from his family life–both he and Hillary were determined to be good parents. The real reason, though, was that at that time, his problems with women would have sunk his campaign.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/obama-clinton-e.html

Obama, Clinton, Experience
01 Oct 2007 09:50 am

Bob Reich counters the Clintons on the experience question:

While I can understand Bill Clinton's eagerness to undermine his wife's most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win.

Preacher Barack Obama

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:12:12 PM EST

Talking smack:
"I take the Clinton campaign's word that they didn't know what this guy was doing and I understand all that," Obama said, "but the one thing I will say is I told my staff that if I catch you guys doing any kind of stuff like this you're fired. Period."

"And I think what we need to do -- and I told this to senator Clinton yesterday -- is that we need to send a strong message to all of our surrogates and all of our staffs, that we don't play that," he said. "I know my staff has gotten that message because it's one that I delivered several months ago and I haven't seen that come out of their mouths."

Yes, that's why Barack Obama fired those staffers of his that came up with the racial slur Punjab-D to describe Clinton; and that's why Obama's fired the staffer that sidled up to Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, to ask "when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton's post presidential sex life." That's probably Robert Gibbs, one of the sleaziest of the sleazy, that works as Obama's Communications Director.

Right.

This drug stuff was a timid issue that the Obama campaign over reacted too, making it a bigger story than it needed to be. And now Obama is starting to sound petty and thin-skinned. What's Obama gonna do in the general election when he confronts a real propoganda takedown machine? Is he gonna lecture them while they rip him to pieces?

Update [2007-12-14 22:4:38 by Jerome Armstrong]: This whole drug thing is annoying and stupid. Shaheen was a jerk for making that statement. I wish the Obama campaign would have just ignored it. I tried to not blog at all about it, then nearly did so because of that stupid Hardball episode this am, and managed to avoid it, but then came across this ridiculous spin by Obama-- long past when it should have been dead.

That said, I do think there might be something there about this having traction among the black community moving toward Obama-- and that might be why they are milking it politically. But if so, it's a short-term gain when compared with the longterm result of Republicans having an easier time re-opening the issue-- with a much harsher attack.

I guess I should tell you HRC lovers that, no, I will not support her in the general since I will not put my mark next to someone who voted yes for the war in Iraq, and has not apologized for it, and continues to defend her vote.

I will not vote for a Iraq war supporter in November. I put my country before my party.

How about you Bluedog? Constitution before Party? Who voted for the Patriot Act?

It wasn't Obama.

Jerome Armstrong has no credibility.

Inevitability has led to scorched earth politique....Read this Clintonites....I know you are monitoring and infusing your efforts here and everywhere....

Lincoln didn't have the experience you are talking about....Neither did Ted Roosevelt or his cousin Franklin....

Oh my they might be considered the greatest ever....but let us ignore that and focus in on the obvious....Clinton's campaign is inevitably messed up tactically and strategically and the country an't buying what you are selling.

Obama is going away...and I hope he and Edwards form the dream team and bring down the entire corporate cabal you are not supporting

Anonymous @ 2:17 posted:

He has accomplished nothing in the Senate...

Oh, that is completely disingenuous, and you know it.

How about the Federal Funding Accountability Act of 2006? That counts as 'nothing'? (source: dailykos diary by 'barath')

How about the The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259)? Is that 'nothing'?

How about the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act (S. 969) which deals with Bird Flu, and was introduced in early 2005, well *before* the US panic began in 2006.

How about the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180), to help homeless Veterans?

I'm not saying that you should support Barack. I'm sure you have your reasons for supporting another candidate. However, be honest with yourself, and be honest with everyone else, and don't make these stupid, easily disputed claims.

(Source for bills was democratic underground)

Good news for Obama:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/15/54158/397/946/422120

Let's see if there's any coverage of the fruits Obama's hard work to make DC more open and accountable, especially in light of Clinton's insinuation that Obama is not a hard worker.

So that I'm clear on who I favor, I'm a baby-boomer independent who wants change in how our corrupt government currently works. I see Obama as that agent. Lacking the beltway experience here is a good thing, contrary to what slick-Willy has to say about it. Like LJ wrote:

I'd love to hear the Clinton's stutter and stammer as they explain how Hillary's scant 7 years in the Senate stack up against Biden's 34 years in Congress and Dodd's 32 years.

I also believe it's time for the (political) 'boomers'--yes, that includes you, Hillary--to make way for the next generation (Obama) to change the current dynamic. Again, that lack of experience of how things now work, goes well here. The present set of boomers (in both parties), shaped by the sixties and seventies, seem locked into certain mindsets with regard to our present problems (Iraq, Iran, the flattening of the global economy, the huge/growing deficit, politics of fear, etc.). The next gen has got to be given a chance to turnaround what the earlier (my) gen has gotten us into.

Bringing back the '90's, with Hillary as president, is not going to make that change. If H. does get the nomination, I'd hold my nose and would vote for her. But, that would be more to give the Democrats the chance at leadership since the Republicans have managed to so thoroughly screwed things up (so g*damn much) and trashed what this country has stood for.

As well, we've botched the response to the jihadist terror campaign. Yes, 9/11 happened. But, we reacted so ignorantly. Instead of keeping and making new allies in this fight, thus starving the fundamentalist movement of new recruits, we now make and gather more global enemies. And, we are running out of money to pay for those poor tactics. Obama was right from the start of this--contrary to Hillary. Where was her so-called experience? She's been on the wrong side of the votes? Explain that one, Bill.

When a serial adulterer gives his wife a glowing job recommendation, you take it with a big grain of salt.

It's a sad sight. I worked hard for this guy, but now he's pathetic. The more time he spends like this, the more we are reminded not only of how far Bill Clinton has fallen over the past decade, more importantly, we democrats are called to realize that his wife's race has never been about her but always about Bill

Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 2:42 PM:
Robert Ethan:

Google. It's a wonderful thing:

http://www.kcci.com/politics/2440457/detail.html

I wasn't comparing national polls, because they aren't relevant at this point. The closer we get to February 5th, they'll be operative. But right now, I'm looking at the polls were the most people are engaged and seeing the candidates. Where that's happening, the trends don't favor your candidate. That may change, but at this point in the game, the trends don't favor her.

Too lazy to go check, but I'm willing to bet that Obama had close to 25% in Iowa in August of this year. There has never been much of a gap between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in Iowa. They have all been in the low 20s there for months as I recall. It isn't like H C ever had a huge lead in the state as she does nationally.

Some of these posts are getting far too long.

On the subject of HRC's national poll numbers remaining static, I could line my birdcage with a national poll and get better use out of it. There is no national primary. The dynamics of each statewide campaign will shift the discourse over and over during January.

Feb.5 may depend on a national media narrative, but that is in flux depending on how the candidates show in the early states.

What if, for instance, HRC's numbers in Michigan (where the ballot is just her and Dodd) tank in the meantime? If Dodd beats HRC 2-1 in Michigan, he has made a statement for himself and the anti-HRC group has plenty to run on for Super Tuesday.

I guess that means what your defintion of "roughly" is. But then it depends on what your definition of "is" is. If you start out with a 40, and are now in the low 20's, roughly speaking, you are behind, if someone else is in the 30's.

I don't know why you give your name, because then everyone would just know you are an idiot, and move on to the next post after reading it was your post.

These comment sections were better a year ago when people only talked when they had something to add. I look forward to TPM in mid-2009.

Someone above said that, while Obama himself is a decent human being, his supporters who comment on his behalf are foul. Excuse me, but how many Obama volunteers have engaged in any conduct near as vile as the Hillary workers in Iowa spreading the Muslim rumors? How many Obama campaign chairs have done what Mr. Shaheen did?

—---

probably as many as you hear touted on the news in the same way as your 2 examples. that being next to none.

I think Bill Clinton makes an excellent case why Obama is not prepared to be president! Let me be clear! If he is our nominee I will support him for president because I am a Democrat. But as an American I don't think he is the best person to be the President of our country at this time. In another 4 or 8 years he may be better prepared. In fact (being in Illinois) I wish that he would run as Illinois Governor to gain more executive experience or at least finish one term in the Senate. Presidency is too important a job to have on-the-job training! Even though I tend to think Hillary is best prepared, I would take any of the other candidates over Obama. Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson are all infinitely better prepared because I have greater trust in their judgment. I like Obama and I think he has great potential. But, he is too risky now and I say that as an American. When George Bush ran for president his people made the arguement that as long as he surrounds himself with the right advisors he will be ok. As we now clearly know, this is not true. A president needs wisdom and experience and good judgment to make the right decisions. That also involves having made a few bad decisions.

The other thing I want to note is that I have noticed that in this and other blogs that Obama's supporters uniformly seem to be childish and mean-spirited in their comments about Hillary. There is a lot of name-calling and venom directed at the Clintons and their supporters. The language they use and their venom seems to be on par with what one finds in rightwing websites. I wonder why this is? They completely seem to miss the point of the legitimate criticisms directed at Obama's lack of exprience. Think of asking a first-year teacher to be the school principal, asking a summer intern to run a company, a Medical intern to perform a major surgery, or a legal assistant to go before the Supreme court however talented each of these individuals are. If a saw a kid at the helm of your airplane the next time you fly, you would be legitimately concerned and you wouldn't let one of your kids drive even if he had an extremely high IQ. Thus, Obama's intellect and talent is no substitute for experience.

I will say again if Obama happens to be our nominee I will respect that decision and vote for him but I think we can do better!

I also did not think Bill was being mean to Obama. He had a lot of positive things to say and was trying hard to be fair. I think he is making legitimate points that we should think about carefully as Democrats and Americans! Candidates come and candidates go but the country is more important.

The real fear of Obama or Edwards or Kucinich is in the chambers of the corporate/governmental revolving door/lobbying status quo, with whom the Clintons made their compact by compromising their original ideals and triangulating themselves to gain seats at the power/wealth table.
Anyone else wonder why the Clintons suddenly are worth up to fifty million dollars, and why they refuse to come clean about their income tax records, the donors to the Clinton Presidential Library, the donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, and Hillary's Senate earmark requests, not to mention the Clinton White House records?

The absolutely appalling collusion among insiders from both parties is right in front of our eyes, if only we stop to examine just why our so-called Democratic party 'leaders' in Congress keep on rolling over to the agenda of the other party. The reality is that both parties' 'leaders' are serving the same agenda of entrenched powers behind the scenes.

It is a false choice to pick a machine Democrat over a machine Republican. Only a true grass roots effort will unseat these colluders and change the politics-as-usual dynamics that continue to destroy the future for all but the elites.

This is like a rigged game of keep-away..... the common folk up against the self-enriched colluders who get to play on stilts made of insider connections, designed and rigged to make sure the people themselves never again get to touch the ball.

And yes to someone who asked up-thread, Bill Clinton's aura is diminishing.

Well, it seems you can't "move onto the next post" very well, Anyol'mouse.

You're being totally selective about the polls you pick for one thing. Research 2000 had Obama up by 9 points in Iowa at the same time as the Rasmussen Three Day Tracking poll had Clinton up by 3 points. Who ya wanna beleive?

Secondly, you are picking H C highest poll numbers and comparing those to the (debunked) Research 2000 poll. Even if you accept the R2k numbers, her level of support is in the range it has been over THE PAST YEAR OR SO in Iowa.

ROBERT ETHAN, are you paying attention?
The people who read and contribute to this forum are not stupid so stop treating them that way.
Clintons behavior is highly indicative of the fact that her campaign is sliding downwards and no rovian spin can change that. She sees it and deduces that the best tactic is to attack. It will not work. Just like in sports, it's not who has been hot all season, it's who's hottest when it counts!!!

What Big Willie is doing is hammering home the chosen meme for the Clinton campaign. HILLARY = SAFE.

That leaves her primary opponent (which looks like Obama at this point)stuck in the option of being the contrast to safe. Obama or Edwards would like that contrast to be "new" or "adventurous", or "exciting", or "charismatic".

But at the same time the Bills (Clinton and Sheehan) and Hill are planting the seeds of doubt about B O. When you get down to it the opposite of "safe" is not "exciting" or "adventurous" it is SORRY. OBAMA = SORRY.

Politics is really not all that complicated.

Does any else see this as possibly a little passive-aggressive behavior of a man interested in sabotaging his wife?
He has yet to do anything helpful to her, and this is beyond the pale, since the argument is baseless if you subtract out the (non-)experience as first lady.

Remember when Senator Dole started appearing in Viagra adds about the time Libby was ramping up for a Presidential run? I don't think he had her best interests in mind then either...

Since it is now painfully obvious that we're being asked to give Bill a third term, shouldn't we get to see who's been giving money to his foundation and library?

When I was 8 or 9 I once brought up the subject "when I was young." Hillary should keep this in mind. Her experience amounts to screwing up the last real chance at health care reform, not a record to be proud of.

Obama and Experience:

Abe Lincoln had a single 2-year term in the House. That was the sum total of his federal "experience."

Oh, and he served in the Illinois legislature for the same number of years as Obama.

Yes, I can hear the Bentsen imitators: "He's no Abe Lincoln." But for those of us under age 50, has anyone come close to having Lincoln's rhetorical and leadership skills, except Obama?

In any event, while Obama may not be Lincoln, to compare Obama to a "TV commentator," as Bill did, is just plain insulting. Obama paid his dues by working in the Illinois legislature and tackling the meaty controversial issues that arose in that body. Why is state legislative work qualititavely less important as "experience" then being in the US Congress anyways? That august body has recently dedicated its time to: 1) intervening in a state-court case involving a family's tragedy (Schiavo) and 2) voting on whether to censure MoveOn then Rush Limbaugh. Sorry, but I don't see a huge prestige gap.

Before his time in the legislature, Obama accomplished everything in his life by dint of his own efforts -- he's a classic self-made American. He had no inheritance, no trust fund, no nothing.

Hillary, with a huge leg up from her husband's machine started her own elective political career near the top with a US Senate run from a state where she had never lived. That's not classic dues paying. She's done well as a Senator, but has NOT taken on the hard issues, except when she waded into the Iraq war authorization vote and took the wrong side.

The real truth here is that Bill Clinton is on fire with envy of Obama. Obama has all the raw political talent and brain power Bill has, but Obama, unlike Bill, overcame his personal demons early in his life, grew comfortable with who he was, and did not "act out" with reckless self-destructive behavior, as Bill did throughout the 1980's and then into his tenure as President. Bill looks at Obama and thinks, "If I could have controlled my impulses, my insecurities, and my appetites, I could have been considered a great leader rather than a pretty good President marred by a second-rate scandal." That's why he can't control himself in his effort to stop Obama.

Robert Ethan adds some nice life to the comments. Yes, the press has a lot at stake in making this an interesting horse race. Yes, if you look at the national polling graph at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/DPM2008_12_12.png
it looks like Obama really really needs to hope that if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire it will have some catastrophic effect on all those blue states.

That said, I think Bill's interview and just his style is pretty dead and boring by now. I'm glad he's doing good at charity work, but I don't much see him at the UN anymore. Okay, one interview, maybe he's not that bad off. Regarding shaking and turning red, it's possible he's not that young anymore and his health is deteriorating. Anyway, he thinks his wife is more qualified, not exactly news.

Its about judgment. Judgment. Judgment. After 15 years of Clinton/Bush "judgment", or the lack thereof, (although admittedly judgment on entirely different matters) I do not believe HRC's experience out weighs her poor judgment on the Patriot Act and Iraq. Period. This country requires a President whose sound judgment we can trust to lead us back to a sane foreign and domestic policy. HRC is not that person.

Give me Barack Obama's good judgment over HRC's "experience' any day.

If experience was such a big help to Bill Clinton in 1992, how did he manage to lose Congress to the republicans within two years?

How naive Senator Obama is to think that anyone will "change the tone" in Washington.......no one is going to give uo their interests without a fight...Senator Obama better be willing to fight the fights of the 90's the fights of FDR, JFK........if he thinks changing the tone is going to affect the pharmeceutical companies, oil, automotivve then he's delusional at best. Frederick Douglas said something to the effect that "power concedes nothing"....

Bill Clinton doesn't really deserve the hatred I feel for him right now; but for him to talk about Hillary and Obama like he's some sort of objective observer of the situation is the height of chutzpah, and galling.

If he wants to be photographed hugging her in public, that's great; but if he's going to come out like some Big Blue Attack Dog and try to sell us his wife and tell us why Obama is so naive... it's a gargantuan sell-out, the destruction of his political legacy and a stain on his soul. He ought to be ashamed. He ought to stay out of this.

Blue Dog. Obama is happy to debate Hillary on health care, though she didn't exactly raise the level of discourse:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/democrats-should-stop-battling-over.html

Bluepuppy, I say we purge the party of the bush-lite republicans like you and the clintons. Your post is so full of bs. The 90's legacy of the clintons is nowhere near as rosy as you people claim. One of the reasons why is they are more republican then democrat. Nafta, don't ask don't tell, government privatization to line the pockets of political allies, get rid of welfare to screw the poor, refuse to negotiate with a dem congress on healthcare reform????? and on and on. I don't understand why people call them dems or why they have all this dem support, they should be running in the republican primary.

I am so sick of the ultra-left in the democratic party republican talking point spewed by clinton II lovers. I guess 70 percent of the country is ultra left, because 70 percent of the country want us out of iraq yesterday. She wants to keep us there forever. I guess she plans on getting campaign contributions from the companies raping iraq now, just like she's getting caaaaasssh from insurance and big pharma to keep lining their pockets with her healthcare "plan." Might as well call it what it is, corporate welfare. Pathetic.

Chris. Please take a deep breath and you'll realize how ridiculous you sound. Hillary and her surrogates have been saying ad nauseum that Obama "has no experience". Obama and his supporters have answered that argument pointing out that Obama does have experience and that unlike Hillary his experience leads to good judgment and concrete legislative achievements like more open and accountable government spending. Nothing in Bill Clinton's rant spoke to that argument. The people of Iowa and NH have had a good long look at Obama's superior track record and they aren't fooled. If the Clintons and Mark Penn cannot effectively respond to a supposed "amateur" then they are undermining their own argument that they alone can take on the veeeery scerrrrry winguts. This fear-based campaign tactic will not work.

Folks, we Obama supporters are not faulting Bill for bringing up the experience issue. We are faulting for his doing it in that uniquely Clintonian way of lying or exaggerating. He says Obama began running one year after being elected. Wrong. 2 years. But more importantly, Bill talks as if Obama never had a public life before his Senate run -- as if he had been a TV news commentator like Keith Olbermann or something. That falsely reads out of his biography eight years taking the lead in the Illinois Senate on issues much tougher and meatier than those Hillary chose to tackle in the US Senate -- with one exception. Hillary took a clear stand on the Iraq war, calling it "the most difficult decision" in her career. She happened to be wrong. Worse, she later pretended the vote was just a vote for diplomacy. But if that's what it was, it was not the "most difficult decision" in her career, it was the easiest.

Michael A...You are absolutely correct.

These sell out, Red dog Republicans who think they are democrats are the reason we might lose the general election. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican and a Nixon supporter. Then she met Bill, and saw a way to political power. Ouila, she became a Democrat.

If we could just find a way to purge these Bush enablers and Constitution haters out of our party, we could empower the majority of Americans who think of the Democratic Party as just "Republican light".

APS. Stop treating people like they are invisible. Referring generally to "Obama supporters" without saying which person or comment in the thread you are responding to amounts to simply spewing untargeted negativity into the conversation.

What a bunch of thin-skinned maroons. Clinton was totally even-handed in this interview, praising Obama fulsomely throughout. What did you expect him to do, endorse Obama over his own wife?

If Obama does end up getting the nomination, I sure hope he isn't as much of a candy ass as his supporters seem to be.

I think the real question is: What's important to Bill Clinton? If Hillary gets the nomination and is elected, then that act alone would be enough to overshadow Bill. Or does he think that electing her would enhance his legacy? If Bill doesn't want Hillary to get it, then he'll just work hard enough to make it seem like he's supporting her but won't actually sabotage her chances.

I've notice Al Gore hasn't weighed in yet. I'm pretty sure he's not running. He may wait until after Iowa and New Hampshire to give his endorsement. The safe endorsement would be Edwards, the predictable endorsement would be Hillary. It wouldn't really help either one of them. Obama would get the biggest boost from an Al Gore endorsement.

I will not be voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I will be voting against any Republican if any other Democratic nominee gets it except Obama. I would genuinely vote for Obama.

Sorry Jeremy, didn't mean to ruffle the feathers Dear, but your reaction is just further to my main point. I don't have an axe to grind with Obama, but compared to other candidates he is relatively inexperienced, and was lucky enough not to be in office for the original Iraq vote, and has been conspicously MIA for subsequent votes that he has taken HRC to task for actually making. Hillary has her faults, but the point that Bill was making is that Obama just isn't ready yet, and the whining that I hear from his campaign and supporters on the web every time that someone says something mean about him is telling.

APS,

I find that amusing too. I also don't see what's so "brutal" about that interview clip posted above -- other than Rose's incessant attempts to paraphrase President Clinton's observations and opinions in more brutal terms. It's more like Rose was trying to get him to take the gloves off and Clinton wouldn't bite. I actually thought Clinton showed a lot of restraint in not going off on Rose after the third or fourth time he tried it. He's been known to take an interviewer to the wood shed for those kinds of antics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

The great man has taken a $10,000,000 gift from the Saudi Royal Family towards building his library. So much for expecting much action on alternative energy development from a Clinton II administration. Anyone asked Al Gore for his opinion on this?

And HRC supporters, I look forward to having you people advise us Obama supporters in the future.

The only reason George W Bush became President was because he was the son of a President.

And the only reason Hillary has any chance of becoming President is because she is the wife of a President.

The Bush & Clinton dynasties have taken nepotism way, way, way too far.

Donna, with all due respect to Gore, who cares what he has to say at this point? I'm glad for his Nobel, but roll back six years and the guy ran one of the most inept campaigns in modern history. Smart guy, but an aweful candidate. The fact that Bush even got close enough to have it come down to Florida is shameful.

His cause is a righteous one, but the latter day canonization of the guy by the American Left is getting nauseating. 10% of you voted for Nader in 2000 because you just couldn't see the difference between Gore and Bush at the time, remember?. If you watch the clip of what Clinton is saying, he's actually quite reserved in what he has to say about Obama. It's a reasonable question to be asking, and the fact that the Obama crowd is so offended by Clinton's "Attack!!!" on Obama is speaking volumes.

Chris. With all due respect, I can be tolerant of ignorance, but willful ignorance is quite another thing. Glacly, your repetition of an uninformed talking point gets very little traction with voters that have had the time to examine the candidates' track records. Early on, before voters learned more about what Obama has achieved (which is significantly more and more significant than Hillary's accomplishments as a Senator) voters were reasonably skeptical. Note however, that the more voters learn the more they like Obama. The reason is his track record of good judgment and achievement. So your political potshots about missed votes while campaigning (the type of Rovian shit we last saw aimed at Kerry and Edwards) just doesn't matter. The fact is that on issues from death penalty reform, to ethics, to CAFE standards, to health care, to criminal justice, to actually making a difference for veterans (here Obama's record is particularly strong and grossly ignored), and on and on Obama has delivered in ways that Hillary has not. This isn't about whose turn it is or who is entitled. It's about who has earned it. Obama has a track record of fighting for and delivering change and no amount of willful ignorance on behalf of your girl will make it go away.

APS said "Everyone in politics has skeletons in their closet? have you heard of Rezko?"

Ever heard of mud wrestling? We know Hillary is and she loves it. Too bad the other candidates and the nation aren't going to play in the muck with Hillary and her supporters. I was shocked, shocked, shocked at Obama's kindergaren essays. Still laughing and hfully innoculated from Hillary's wild attempts at mud slinging.

DRinOH wrote on December 15, 2007 4:26 PM:
Robert Ethan - your overexpanding the context of the original statement "Hillary is tanking in the polls." The obvious meaning is that she was once inevitable and now she's at least tied, more likely behind. When someone says a candidate is "tanking" that's a reference to current trends, not a relation to where they stood over a year ago, and if you look at the tracking graphs near the top of this page from Pollster you'll see that while Edwards has gone up a little in the last couple months, and Obama has gone up a lot, Hillary has indeed headed south.

Again, we're looking at current trends, not a year-long arch. There's simply no denying that for about a month and a half, Hillary has gone down. Might that change? Sure. But as of now, she's tanking.

Once again, I think it depends which current poll you look at as much as anything. The Rasmussen Tracking Poll had Hillary at 29% in their last release, December 12, Obama at 26%. These guys track continuously, and use a much larger data base than the local newspaper polls everyone is trumpeting.

In their summary, it said that "H C leads with 29%, the same support as she had 2 weeks previously, and 2 POINTS HIGHER than polls taken a month ago.".

I don't put great faith in polls, it seems everyone chooses the poll that best suits their argument. Usually taken off their candidates site. Exit polls taken after the 2004 caucuses in Iowa showed that nearly 50% of the voters made up thier minds "within the last 3 days"! That fact makes ANY poll taken 3 weeks before the event a bit redundant.

They both say 'all options are on the table' re. Iran. Neither wants single-payer health care. Neither will cut the 'defense' budget, neither has ever mentioned the poor, or has done much to get us out of Iran. What are you wasting your time on these two for? No one's voted for either of them yet.

Concerned, let's be real. Come Feb 5th, Obama's an afterthought, and good riddance. Even if Obama wins in Iowa and NH, come super Tuesday, he's done. The idea that the lonely nation will turn its eyes to Iowa and convert is preposterous. Also, this notion of being above it all and "not playing in the muck" is just too much. Just because Obama and Oprah have decided to push the "Hope" and "New Direction" meme to its limits, you can't just put your nose up in the air and refuse to engage with the mean boys and girls because you've decided that those are the new rules. Just wait until the Repubs sink their teeth into this guy. I worked on the Carter campaign. We were going to bring a new direction to Washington too. It lasted a week.

Maybe we SHOULD nominate a conservative like Obama or Clinton. We need a third party in this country, anyway.

I have to go to take one of my kids to a school play! May the best candidate win! I think it is Hillary! However, any of the Democrats are better than the Republican field! What unites is a lot more than what separates us! Who said that?

At the end of the day, they are all politicians! They are not saints and they are not messiahs. The only ones who care ultimately about us are our family, friends and neighbors! I hope for less anger and more listening to each other! Peace and prosperity to all of you and wish you all happy holidays!

A preview of what will happen to O-Bomb-A if he's on the natonal ticket:

“… I thought Hillary Clinton had it locked solid, but it looks like it’s opening up a bit. I must admit I find it a little surprising that a guy who has virtually no experience of an executive nature, leadership nature, never run anything, no experience of any significance in the private economy. As a state legislator he was not doing a lot of heavy lifting. In the United States Senate he hasn’t been the champion of a major piece of legislation, and some how because he can talk well why we think he can be president. I have to shake my head, because I think it takes more to be president than just being able to talk well. I think you have to show that you have a record of demonstrated success in leadership in a number of ways. And uh, I gotta tell, if we’re going to select our nominee on the Democratic side based on the number of celebrities they know, like Oprah, it’s a pretty frightening course.” - Mitt Romney

O-Bomb-A is a loser big time for the Democrats. And Democratic voters - nationwide - understand that. Just look at all the polls.

I worked on the Carter campaign. We were going to bring a new direction to Washington too. It lasted a week.

Nice work there.

On point: What of the Obama campaign's ability to turn HRC & co's missteps into momentum *and* cash? It's not that O can't "play with the mean boys and girls," it's that he's succeeding in capitalizing on the rest of the nation's fatigue w/r/t all things Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in a way that the lazy pundit class couldn't fathom was a possibility all but a year ago.

DC will do that to you.

Yeah, a guy who wears a diaper and believes Jesus was Satan's brother is going to beat Obama. More Clinton fear mongering.

And if you analyze Romney's statement it shows the inherent racism of someone who was raised to believe in the Mormon faith:

"John Taylor, the third prophet of the Latter Day Saints also explained how the blacks survived the flood - "After the flood, we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God."

So,yeah, Mitt Romney would be my preferred opponent against Barack Obama.

Because Barack doesn't have to explain what a President Mitt would believe, I would do that for him.

How can anything someone says be taken seriously if they are immature enough to refer to someone as "O-Bomb-a?"

"Here's a quote," said Obama. "The same old experience is irrelevant. You can have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. And mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. And that was Bill Clinton in 1992."

"The notion that there is a particular kind of experience that he has had, or his wife has had, that is more relevant, I would disagree," he continued. "I believe I have the experience that the country needs right now. I think that's why we're doing relatively well in this race."

i'd say that pretty much answers this interview.

So apparently it's not just me. It's been my impression for some time that of the three top-tier candidates, Obama has been running the most relentlessly negative campaign by far all along, mostly without really getting called on it by either the MSM or the blogosphere. Looks to me like I was right. I just read on the Des Moines Register site that the Clinton camp had launched a new web site called Attack Timeline chronicling attacks on Senator Clinton by Senators Obama and Edwards over the past year.

It's a pretty cool site. Interactive, very nicely designed. The timeline goes back to February and in terms of quantifying attacks, I count 57 separate incidents for Obama vs. 40 for Edwards. That would put Obama ahead of Edwards on mud-slinging by almost 50%, which I actually found unsurprising even given Edwards' recent experimentations with the politics of outrage.

The biggest impression I'm left with after watching that clip is that Charlie Rose is really annoying. If he hadn't goaded BC relentlessly and re-phrased everything that came out of his mouth, news sites and blogs like TPM and others wouldn't be able to have their "Gloves off" headlines. But then I guess that's Rose's job. What's disappointing is that TPM decided to go with the simplest view--the same neatly packaged idea that every other one else went for. That Clinton was attacking Obama. I'm an Obama supporter, but I usually enjoy TPM because it has a little more insight and complexity than most blogs. Not in this case, I guess.

CalD. That is a cleverly designed site, but it has zero credibility for anyone interested in making an objective judgment and it reinforces the image of Clinton as whiny and entitled. Opposing campaigns will discuss their differences with the front runner. Here is an example of one of the "attacks" listed by that site:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/12/wobama12.xml

Clinton is crazy if she thinks that pointing to a candidates track record and assessing the judgments they've made is unfair campaigning.

Hmmm, who to support?

Andrew Sullivan's pick - Obama?
(Andy was a Bush apologist/Clinton hater long before he loved him some Barry)

or

Larry Johnson's pick - HRC
"Obama Talks the Talk, But Where’s the Walk?"
"Sen. Clinton has stuck her neck out "
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/13/obama_talks_the_talk_but_where_s_the_walk

People who say Obama isn't ready must have never heard of that one term congressman who became the nation's best president -- Abraham Lincoln. Obama has enough experience -- its just not the same as last generation's.

Truly brutal excerpt?? The MSM brought down Edwards early. They've been trashing Hillary non-stop ever since. If they succeed in stopping her, what they do to Obama will make Bill Clinton's comments sound like a Valentine. Those on this blog who think that was an attack have very short memories, and will be unpleasantly surprised when the media start to unload on Obama.

Could some of you Hillaroids please answer a simple question? Just what in the hell is it that you think the Republicans are going to be able to do to Obama that Hillary can't? Seriously, you piss and you moan and you quake in your little boots about how the Republicans will "eat him for dinner," and yet, there he is, bearing up under the full onslaught of Hillary's oppo machine. If there was any dirt to be dug, dontcha kinda think she would have found it? She can't be, both, the meanest, roughest, toughest, candidate who ever ran for office and, at the same time, not be competent to take down this guy who you all seem to think is such a lamb to the slaughter.

Give me a frakkin break, people. If your candidate's propaganda requires you to believe two utterly inconsistent things at the same time, then either your candidate is counting upon his/her followers' having a totalitarian mindset or else you're following a politically incompetent candidate. Or both.

Finally, how in the hell anyone on pacc's side of an argument can possibly accuse Obama's supporters of being "the lowest common denominator" is quite beyond me. You whine and cry about how anyone who does not prostrate themselves before her Strength and Experience is an Arkansas Project Hillary Hater while tacitly enabling the one regular commenter who invariably spews the foulest, most vicious, small-minded, bigoted cant to be found here. If any Hillary supporter has ever said, "whoa, that's out of line," to him/her/it, it wasn't on a thread I've seen. Police your own twisted hatemongers and then, maybe, just maybe, you'll have the moral authority to tut-tut those of us who dare dispute Hillary's entitlement to the throne.

Jeremy,

Don't you get dizzy from all that spinning? (Never mind. I think I know the answer.) I'll just reiterate that most objective observers would characterize the report you linked to as an attack on Clinton by Obama -- including the author of the article who began the very first sentence saying, "Senator Barack Obama yesterday launched his toughest attack yet on his rival Hillary Clinton..."

Legitimate criticism would have begun and ended at I disagree and I would have done that differently. Obama however, took it a step further and turned it into a negative attack on character. Duh.

CalD. With all due respect I believe it was an "attack", since you insist on the framing of the report, on Senator Clinton's judgment not her character. Indeed, his emphasis was on his own good judgment: "I feel good about the fact that my judgment was we shouldn't be proceeding and I think that speaks hopefully to the kind of judgment I'll be bringing to the office of president."

You are making my point for me. Rather than directly respond to the criticism, you want to turn it into some kind of cheap shot. This is why your candidate is losing. She hasn't been capable of maturely answering her opponents' arguments.

As for your "dizzy from all that spinning" line. It's condescending and not the least bit clever. Grow up.

Hi Karl. Love your work. You wouldn't happen to be seeking employment? There's always unions to bust and mercenaries images to polish, ya know!

NCSteve...

You are right... I always thought pacc was no better than that creature Michael A. for Obama.

Insanely irrational.

Though recently you've not done much better. You regurgitate the typical Obama supporters talking points uncritically. Name calling. Insults. Just look at the post of yours above.

And by the way pacc is one person. Except for Keith almost all Obama supporters in here are beyond the pale. Comes from having an irrational "belief" in the Chosen One I'd say.

I just came from watching the clip mentioned at the top. I now realize Eric has a solid sense of irony. Good on ya!

Jeremy,

I will reiterate once again that you contended that the Attack Timeline web site lists material that doesn't properly qualify as attacks by Obama on Clinton. In "support" of your contention, you linked to an article whose very first sentence begins with the words, "Senator Barack Obama yesterday launched his toughest attack yet on his rival Hillary Clinton..."

I'm just pointing that out (for the third time now). And note that I did say an I thought most objective observers -- for example, the reporter who wrote the article -- would characterize the example you chose as an attack on Senator Clinton by Barack Obama. The same might not be true of course of someone who had a dog in that fight.

Wow, this video clip qualifies as "brutal?" This site is so outrageously anti-Clinton that people have lost their minds.

Bill was quite polite and genuine about the difference between a symbol of change and an agent of change. He praised Obama's political ability, but contrasted that with political ability plus substantive programs to implement a vision of change.

You people need to learn how to pick your battles.

Ni Daye:

I have to disagree with your comparison of Obama to JFK. While everything you said was true, most of it occurred after he was elected president, so it is irrelevant to a discussion of how much experience someone has BEFORE being elected.

Experience only goes so far, I'm curious how her experience as a Wal-Mart board member, first lady of both Arkansas and the US, junior senator, and prominent lawyer makes her more qualified than someone who was a community organizer, constitutional law professor, state senator, and junior senator? Both have impressive resumes, and boiling an election down to "who has more experience?" degrades the whole process.

Boston Globe endorses Obama for POTUS

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/15/for_the_democrats_barack_obama/

Oh Pulleaze. This is supposed to be taking the gloves off? What the hell? You've got to be kidding! What do people expect Bill to say? How much more tame could he actually be and not be accused of being "luke warm" about his own wife's campaign?

But this hit piece on Clinton reads like something you'd hear on Hardball. I expect anti-clinton hyperbole from Matthews. Didn't really expect to get it here though. really disappointing coming from my favorite site.

Hillary won Des Moine Registers endorsement!!!!!!!!! Go Madam President!!!!!!!!!!!! Change America: more oppurtunity, health care for all, peace & respect--America is back!!!!

Keith wrote on December 15, 2007 8:50 PM: --

You have the gall to belittle Weslley, one of the best liberal arts school in the nation. As an elected student president, you think it is a lesser leadership role than an editor for a law school journal? count me as unconvinced!

I saw the Des Moine Registers endorsement! At least someone is not following media narrative. this is not a big deal but a relief. Imagine how the obama people would have behaved if it went the other way!

Hillary only joined Rose AFTER Bill became Governor of Arkansas, the state Rose was based in. Sorry, but it's impossible to disregard the fact that a connected law firm would love to have the Governor's wife on staff. Throughout her career, she's always been granted positions in direct correlation with Bill's career. She's always been in his shadow.

It's like GW Bush got every job he ever had on his father's coat tails.

Again, Bill isn't campaigning for Hillary the individual, he's campaigning for his wife, to get himself back in the WH.

Ni Daye-

As someone who was a senator in student government, transferred to another college and was a representative in that student government, and is currently in law school, I can say that the editor of the law review is FAR BETTER. Welsley may be the best liberal arts college, but Harvard is the best law school.

JKF was underrated in his experience, granted. But so is Obama, community organizer, lawyer, con law professor, state senator, voting rights lawyer, on and on. Besides, I think what people who make that comparison are suggesting is that experience can only get you so far.

I think that boiling down the question to who has the most experience is a poor way to judge a person. The presidency isn't a "lifetime achievement award," otherwise Biden would be leading in the polls. Its about which candidate shares your values, which should be a complicated question that requires some thought. Its not a talking point, its a decision.

the Harvard Law Review is the most prestigious law review and among the most prestigious legal publications of any kind in the country.

there is absolutely no comparison between being its editor and being class president at a liberal arts college, no matter how highly thought of.

Obama has 0 foreign policy experience. I smeall whiff of sexism in the suggestion that Hillary does not. The letter below puts that notion to rest.

As diplomats and former Ambassadors who represented the United States to the rest of the world, we were personal witnesses to the important role Hillary Clinton played as First Lady in promoting American interests and values abroad. During those eight years, in travels to over 80 countries, Hillary Clinton was America’s human face to people around the globe who looked to America as a beacon of inspiration, hope, and opportunity.

As First Lady, Hillary was a highly effective and passionate advocate on behalf of human rights around the world. She met with the mothers and grandmothers of the disappeared in Argentina in 1997, survivors of the Rwandan genocide, and mothers of children kidnapped in Uganda. She advocated on behalf of women’s rights around the globe. Perhaps most famously, in her historic speech at the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, she declared that "women’s rights are human rights," inspiring actions in every corner of the globe to raise the status of women. Building on her overseas work, Hillary spearheaded U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking, and led the Vital Voices Democracy Initiative to support emerging women leaders who were advancing social, economic, and political progress in their respective countries.

Senator Clinton was also one of America’s most visible advocates for those struggling to gain the tools of opportunity. She put a spotlight on U.S. development programs that were bringing solutions to global challenges. She recognized the potential of microfinance in creating self-sufficiency for the world’s poor, and she led efforts in the United States to fund microcredit programs in developing countries.

As First Lady she worked for reconciliation in the aftermath of wars and she led humanitarian efforts for Bosnia and on behalf of Kosovar refugees. She developed programs to aid the victims of war, including mine awareness in the Balkans, where land mines left over from the fighting were claiming the lives of innocent children, and she enlisted all sectors of society to aid in assisting the victims of the conflict. She supported the role of women in Northern Ireland in building the peace and creating a better life for their families.

Senator Clinton helped pave the way for important diplomatic initiatives. Her 1995 trip to India, for example, helped foster good relations between the world’s two largest democracies. She also played a leading role in supporting people in the new democracies from the former USSR to South America. She championed the important role of civil society and supported nascent nongovernmental organizations.

As former ambassadors and diplomats we believe the United States faces unprecedented challenges. We need a President who will be ready to face them head on, beginning on Day 1. Senator Clinton’s diplomatic accomplishments as First Lady and her achievements in the Senate, including her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, make her uniquely qualified to lead our nation at this time of great challenge. She is the candidate with the strength and experience to restore America’s standing in the world and to return the United States to a position of global leadership.

* Christopher Ashby - Ambassador to Uruguay (1997-2001)
* Harriet C. Babbitt - Ambassador to Organization of American States (1993-1997)
* Elizabeth Frawley Bagley - Ambassador to Portugal (1994-1997)
* James Blanchard - Ambassador to Canada (1993-1996)
* Amy L. Bondurant - Ambassador to OECD (1997-2001)
* Edward P. Brynn - Ambassador to Ghana (1995-1998)
* Robin Chandler Duke - Ambassador to Norway (2000-2001)
* Stuart E. Eizenstat - Ambassador to European Union (1993-1996)
* Thomas Foley - Ambassador to Japan (1997-2001)
* Edward E. Gabriel - Ambassador to Morocco (1997-2001)
* Marc C. Ginsberg - Ambassador to Morocco (1994-1998)
* Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon - Ambassador to Chile (1994-1998)
* Anthony S. Harrington - Ambassador to Brazil (1999-2001)
* Richard Holbrooke - Ambassador to Germany (1993-94), Ambassador to UN (1999-01)
* Swanee G. Hunt - Ambassador to Austria (1993-1997)
* Karl F. Inderfurth - Rep. for Special Political Affairs to the UN (1993-97)
* James R. Jones - Ambassador to Mexico (1993-1997)
* John Kornblum - Ambassador to Germany (1997-2001)
* Philip Lader - Ambassador to United Kingdom (1997-2001)
* Luis Lauredo - Ambassador to Organization of American States (2000-2001)
* Tom McDonald - Ambassador to Zimbabwe (1997-2001)
* Gerald McGowen - Ambassador to Portugal (1998-2001)
* Charles T. Manatt - Ambassador to Dominican Republic (1999-2001)
* Walter F. Mondale - Ambassador to Japan (1993-1997)
* Richard L. Morningstar - Ambassador to the European Union (1999-2001)
* Peter F. Romero - Ambassador to Ecuador (1993-1996)
* James C. Rosapepe - Ambassador to Romania (1998-2001)
* Cynthia P. Schneider - Ambassador to Netherlands (1998-2001)
* Derek Shearer - Ambassador to Finland (1994-1998)
* Wendy R. Sherman - Ambassador at Large (1997-01)
* Terry Shumaker - Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago (1997 to 2001)
* Daniel Spiegel - Ambassador UN in Geneva (1993-1997)
* Joseph Wilson - Ambassador to Gabon (1992-1995)

"The Harvard Law Review is the most prestigious law review and among the most prestigious legal publications of any kind in the country."

One of the most prestigious in the world.

Literally, when democracies are forming around the world, their top people tend to be educated at Harvard Law and still read its publications in forming their opinions.

Baloney.

A lot of fluff jobs and appointments that the First Lady always gets to basically act as a secretary to the President. When we have a first woman president, her husband, the First Gentleman or whatever he's called, will also get a lot of fluff appointments, but nobody is going to later claim he's Presidential material on that fluff.

In Hillary's case, if elected she'll just be GW Bush to Clinton as Cheney. She may want to run the show, just like GW does, but she doesn't have the experience or capability to actually be the smartest person in the room and will always be a puppet by those around her and feeding her cherry picked opinions, just like Bush.

You know, it's too bad Obama isn't a woman so we could finally put this to rest and have a competent woman as President. But Billary isn't it.

I might be wrong to point this out, but judging from the timeline, it seems like all those ambassadors were nominated by Bill Clinton.

Just for fun, I'm going to throw Dodd out there, as someone who we should be talking about. Anyway want to back me up? I've got money ;)

I'm late to this party so I will just say I somewhat feel sorry for Bill Clinton. Obviously he has to support Hillary, but under the circumstances that means he has to argue against the new (and arguably improved) version of himself from 2008. Charlie Rose exposed that fundamental conflict, and the results weren't pretty.

The Boston Globe endorsed Obama. Stirring editorial. So far no TPM mention. More evidence of TPM bias. Sigh.

Now, with regard to the commenter who invokes the fact that "Hillary as a young woman confronted a powerful Senator as a commencement speaker." Go back on read her speech. It's a incoherent and full of then-trendy jargon-- proof she's always been a go with the flow person. And the "powerful Senator" she confronted was at that time the first -- and only -- African American senator since reconstruction. He was the liberal Republican Ed Brooke, very pro-civil rights, progressive on issues of poverty; and to the left of where Hillary has been for the past decade or more. Some worthy person for her to disrespect! She has a problem showing respect, as we saw the other day when she was laughing as Obama was trying to answer and then going beyond laughter to needling him.

Well this dis-respectee took the needle and poked it right through her gut, which is what I bet Brooke wishes he had done.

Folks, Hillary is awful. She's a bundle of arrogance and self-righteousness whose principal virtue is that she was th victim of many unfair and over-the-top attacks. But as I've written before, although she is running on her supposed superior ability to withstand Repub attacks, the truth is many of those attacks have stuck to her among independents; she's only convinced Democrats of her strengths. Republicans and, more importantly, the independents we are going to need to win just don't like her.

Don't like Clinton? Must vote for Obama. Appears to be the general trend here. So limiting.

The comparisons to Abe btw are a bit much. Lincoln was a major player in the days of the creation of the Republican Party. A young party in which a rising star had a step up. He was a top legal player from a key swing state of the day. He nearly won against the top national Dem. of the day (after debates that only made him more nationally known), the one deemed by many the clear candidate in 1860 (before events split the party).

IOW, he won the nomination for various reasons ... the fact he had little experience as a politician (he did serve in the Ill. legislator for a few terms too; "safe" candidates with little political experience were often a serious choice in those days too) would very well have damned him without the other key draws to him as a candidate.

What national leader did Obama almost beat? Where is his years (Lincoln started being a player in the R. party in the mid-1850s, having a credible shot at a senate seat even before running against Dougals) of experience as an important player in the party as a whole? Heck, he had a good speech at the convention in '04, but where is his Cooper Union? His "House Divided?"

Obama might very well be a great candidate. I'm not convinced yet. But, comparing him to Lincoln on the experience matter w/o context is a bit silly.

Dear Mr. President,

That interview is not coming off well. A specific attack on Obama and telling the voters to look at EVERYONE else EXCEPT Obama appears waaaay too political.

When you ran for President both times, you had less experience than both of your opponents.

If I were Obama, my response would be: Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington, . . .

"The Boston Globe endorsed Obama. Stirring editorial. So far no TPM mention. More evidence of TPM bias. Sigh."

TPMC was for the Iraq war, which Josh has apologized for. But Josh is still a fan of predictive markets and such. As much as I respect JM, he has a tendency to go with the establishment flow even against better judgment, and regret it later.

I think JM is on the fence or maybe even favoring Obama, but afraid to say so, hedging bets and all.

Ni Daye "I'm watching SNL."

Who cares? This is a political forum. Not your MySpace page, and that you consider Hillary your friend doesn't amount to a lot either.

BlueDog wrote on December 15, 2007 3:00 PM: I am not allowed to point out the HATE?

The intellectual dishonesty of many Obama supporters online is often appalling. No slur against Hillary Clinton (but for some reason seldom against Edwards) is to mean or to sexist. No hateful dismissal of her supporters is to base.

It’s really kind of sad but I actually find it kind of funny; the proponents of “Hope” and “Change” tumble over themselves in the gutter to spew out hate and arrogance.

When Hillary is our nominee we shall see if these hate mongers will return to the fold or if they will stay true to their anti Democratic beliefs and work against our party.

For any voters who might actually care about the online conversation, to choose between Obama, a totally inexperienced guy with an online following that are often as nasty as h*ll, and Hillary Clinton will be a no brainer.

There is actually nothing, nothing, the Rethugs can say or do to raise Hillary Clinton’s negatives anymore. They have a host of spent bullets and that’s all they have. Much like the horseshit that is repeated ad nauseam on the comment sections of this blog (see above for lots of examples). Besides, from a Democratic perspective, a Rethug onslaught against Hillary Clinton would be like a free dinner and breakfast too. The voters would produce a very comforting backlash against any Rethug attacks.

Obama however… On President Clinton’s point that Obama poses a risk, this piece from Taylor Marsh is very interesting.

It's not "sexist" to point out Hillary's spouse Bill is more powerful and that most of her career, including her election to office in NY, and much of her private career, has all been in large part to her marriage.

When we do have the first woman President, her husband will probably be someone a lot like Hillary. A good and smart man who is a great confidant and help to his powerful wife, but that's it.

It's absurd to think Hillary is Presidential material because she was in the WH with Bill, elected to NY because of Bill, and appointed to various positions in large part due to Bill.

My wife and I are best friends too. We both comfort and advise each other too. But we also have our own careers, and neither of us would know how to do the other's job. If I tried to do her job I'd be lost and inevitably would rely on her to tell me what to do all the time, and vs versa.

Bill isn't just campaigning for Hillary, he's also campaigning to get himself and his family back in the WH again.

Which would be better than GW Bush, but not as good as Obama.

The main thing that was good about the Clinton years was the economy, which he had really little to do with. He was responsible for NAFTA. They did botch HC reform and fail to listen to good advice that said the Clintons would fail because they were doing it wrong, which proved to be right.

Do we really need NAFTA again? Failed HC reform again? Pandering to corporate interests again? People need to take off the rose tinted glasses and remember what the Clintons actually were, and it wasn't that great.

"There is actually nothing, nothing, the Rethugs can say or do to raise Hillary Clinton’s negatives anymore."

Are you kidding or just nuts? As terribel as her negative are, it'll be pretty easy to make them worse becasue she is vulnerable on way too many issues from policies to character.

Hillary has repeatedly polled low and weak against Republicans, and has the highest negatives of any Dem candidate. That includs Edwards who was on the 2004 ticket and has been viciously attacked on the national stage by Republicans in a Presidential campaign.

When Hillary campaigned in NY it was also a safe state for her where they love Bill. If she had the courage to run in Wisconsin or Ohio or such then I'd say she was "vetted."

Vetted nationally or anywhere outside NY? Please.

Hillary started on the huge advantage of Bill's popularity but is a terrible campaigner and politician. If she was even on par with Obama regarding judgment, policy stances, and electability, then she should be way ahead of him with all the advantages she has.

In reality, already in Iowa she's gone from #1, on name recognition and Bill's reputation, consistently down as voters there get to know her.

Her announcement to run was done cuddling pillows on the sofa to soften her image, and was just awful. Her cackling and obnoxious behavior in debates has been awful. Her repeated attacks on rivals have backfired. Her votes in the Senate on everything from PATRIOT to paving the way for an Iran war, have all been awful.

Chris said: " Sorry, but the reaction by alot of folks here and on other sites who support Obama presents just more evidence of how 'not ready for prime time' Obama is."

Count me as an undecided Independent, leaning Dem. But I really can't stop laughing at the Hillary crowd and their postings. Now it's not just Hillary who is a constant victim, it's her supporters too? I read alot of blogs and comment sections. The overzealous and often mean-spirited Hillary followers share characteristics I don't see with any other candidate Dem. or Rep.: they are arrogant with no basis for it, vicious, spinners to the point of real dishonesty, quick to take offense and characterize any opposing opinion as based on "hate" "an attack" "a lie" and then to dismiss legitimate commenters as "idiots" "fools" "morons." I won't make a decision on who to vote for based on the behavior on the comment boards. Hillary should feel releaved about that.

pacc is lapsing into unvarnished racial hate speech. Does Election Central tolerate that? Most boards delete such comments and ban the posters. I guess exceptions are made for Hillary Lovers on EC.

kozmik wrote: Are you kidding or just nuts? As terribel as her negative are, it'll be pretty easy to make them worse becasue she is vulnerable on way too many issues from policies to character.

Of course she has higher negatives than does, for example, Obama. He is virtually unknown to many voters, especially outside the early primary states. If they were to get to know him by presentation of the Big Red Slime Machine, I can assure you his negatives would spike, and anybody’s guess is good as to where it would end.

Hillary Clinton is battle tested and wise and as good a candidate as they come. She has taken on the Big Red Slime Machine and come out on top. Battle scarred? Sure. But she knows how to beat them.

An awful lot of trash-talking going on from both Obama and HRC supporters. What concerns me about Obama is what concerns most Democrats right now with our Congress. His strength is his ability to compromise. Same quality we find in Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I am fed up with negotiating everything away.
BTW, I am really surprised that so many of you have become such rabid anti WJC phobes. Boy I miss having someone of his skill and intellect in the white house. Have you guys been drinking from a Republican breast or what? Stop fantasizing and re-writing history and go back and look at what the man really accomplished, even in the face of an incredibly vitriolic attempt to destroy him mounted by the right wing of the Repug party. Get a grip.
For myself, in the GE I'll vote for any Democrat as all of you should too. But based on wisdom, experience and programs my order of preference in the primary is Biden, Edwards, HRC and Obama. I hope post primaries that we put forth a ticket that contains two of the above and of all of them the only one I would definitely assign to the VP role is Obama. If he was VP for eight years he might be ready to be President.