I wish it hadn't come to this, but here goes:
What's Hillary hiding in her tax returns?
Who donated to the Clinton library?
Who was Norman Hsu again?
etc.

If Hillary says, the following when asked about a Dream Ticket (her and Obama),

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me"

--- perhaps Obama should USE those words EVERYTIME she attacks him as not being WORTHY or READY for the PRESIDENCY.

If she thinks he's GOOD enough to be 2nd in command if anything happens to HER -- then how can she claim he's not good enough to be PRESIDENT now?

Going negative will only show that he is not above the fray ... he is, as all of them are, a politician.

Is it really too late for Edwards?

Directly responding to her "I have so much experience" claim is good.

I think asking for her tax returns to be released is entirely reasonable, if done in a non-snide way (just, let's see 'em please, without insinuations about what they might show).

But, I think dredging up the endless/old Clinton dirt would be a bad idea. It would drag Obama down to her level.

I have confidence that Obama and his campaign will hold steady and keep moving forward with their eyes on the prize.

Judging from his quote, it seems pretty clear that Obama's idea for the way forward -- direct engagement with Hillary on her core argument -- is the sounder course.

i'm anxious to see those tax returns. i've been told by hillary that speeches don't put food on the table, but something tells me those returns might tell a different story.

I think he can go "negative", but he's got to be very careful about it. I don't want to see him do what Hillary did on 60 minutes and say one thing while insinuating another and leaving room for doubt. I don't want to see him play race and gender. I don't want to see cheap shots.

I want to see him go after her hard about her foreign policy experience and her vote for the war in Iraq. I want to see him go after her hard about her tax returns. If she keeps pushing Rezko (spelling?), push back and point out her associations with shady characters.

There's a difference between going negative and taking cheap shots. When Hillary goes after the Obama/NAFTA/Canada thing, I see that as a fair negative criticism of Obama and something that Obama needs to defend against. I think that Hillary's 3:00 AM ad is fair (although I don't think she's got the foreign policy experience to back it up if Obama hits back on it). When Hillary insinuates that he's a Muslim to play on people's terrorism fear, that's a cheap shot.

I want Obama to go negative but avoid the cheap shots.

This is a pretty compelling case that Rush Limbaugh sabotaged Texas and Ohio in favor of Hillary:

Rush did it

Clinton is old news. Except for the online Obama Cult, no one else will have patience for all of the rehashed criticism of the Clintons—it is simply Republican garbage spouted by a desperate Democrat that realizes he has nothing beyond a pretty face, some hopeful ideas, and an adoring at all costs following. And the tax return, give it a break. This is a non-issue intended for distraction purposes and Republican muckery. Now, how about foreign policy?

Okay, from the most recent:
1. NAFTA. Obama has two answers, one must be a lie, else he doesn't have control of his own staff. Oops, that hurts his so-called management and leadership claim, which even he admits started with the campaign for president. Plus, did he not miss that the Canadian government was a bit conservative? Did he think this would be held in confidence?

2. Committee Chairmanship. Oh, yes, that is right, he was too busy campaigning. Too bad for our struggling troops and faltering war effort against the Taliban and Al Qaeda as the committee has oversight on NATO and Afghanistan. But I guess Obama hasn't yet figured out that this might be that foreign policy thing.

3. And the 3 a.m. Ad. That hurt him, his response was lost because it was not as effective. Politics? Yes, but good hit that highlights Obama's unreadiness and the unease that folks get when they give this some thought.

4. Leadership in Foreign Policy? McCain and Clinton have it all over Obama. No matter how you parse it, Obama has none. By the way, has he really ever been overseas!? Sorry, even if Olympic ticket operators get it mixed up (are you old enough to remember that?), New Mexico doesn't count as a foreign trip.

You know, the more Obama opens his mouth on supposedly serious issues, especially when he tries to contrast and create experience out of nothing, or to tear down Clinton or McCain's, he comes across as an inexperienced, wanna be nuisance.

His claim of experience and stature from a speech given years ago is about as foolish as his widely accepted claims of success in the Illinois senate. It is clearly reported that his benefactors spoonfed him bills to cake walk through. Left to his own devices he ended up with present votes and a bunch of supposedly mistaken votes where he claims he pushed the wrong button. Do we need another idiot like Bush in the presidency. Especially one who admittedly presses the wrong button?!

Obama's strengths have been repeatedly manifested in his "cool" persona. The gloves need to come off, the tax return questions, the Hzu issue, her misrepresentations of his positions ("you want bomb Pakistan" for example) - all these need to be brought to the forefront. If O can keep his cool while throttling her on her faux experience, great. Let the surrogates get nasty.

All I can say is that it is about time. She will not withdraw without savaging him first; delegate math be damned. I would love nothing more than seeing if he can throw some haymakers. High road be damned.

In my opinion, any and all Clinton skeletons should be fair game. If she can trade on her husband's experience, she shouldn't be allowed to dodge his or his administration's liabilities, real or perceived.

"This is a pretty compelling case that Rush Limbaugh sabotaged Texas and Ohio in favor of Hillary:

Rush did it"

I was presiding judge yesterday for a precinct in rural central Ohio. We have 835 registered voters. I estimate a quarter of them are registered Democrats, at most. Out of 184 Democratic ballots cast, 54 if them were cast by people switching allegiance from the Republican party to the Democratic party. Tempering my cynicism to an exaggeratedly low level, I suspect at least 40 of them did so to do Rush's bidding. This despite the statement I read directly to each and every one of them that "... subject to the punishment of election falsification, (I)hereby state their desire to be affiliated with the principles of the (Democratic) Party..."

When I contacted a Democratic representative of my county's Board of Election, I was told that even if they stated to me directly that they are switching allegiance to vote a lesser candidate into the party's nomination, I could not "disapprove" this action.

The talking heads on the BigNewsNetworks say this was not a factor. Out of the votes cast yesterday at my precinct polling station, she won by 22 votes. Anecdotal, yes. But I feel it was significant.

It's time to hit back and expose Hillary's hollow claim to experience. Senator Obama in fact has more experience crafting foreign policy than Hillary!

Can we get some updated reporting on the Goolsebee flap? Given the weight it apparently played in Ohio (and possibly in Texas), it would be nice to get a post-mortem of what ACTUALLY happened and whether there was anything to claims like these made in this dailykos diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/112926/0842/300/469572

``We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we'll continue to do that," said Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. "If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.''

Well said, sir. I'll get the popcorn going.

Obama should have hung NAFTA around Clinton's neck and re-inforced it in Ohio. How can she evade responsibility for NAFTA? Was she taking another "vacation from experience"-- like the vote for war? Both her book and her husband's book endorse NAFTA.

She flings a little dust in the eyes of Ohio voters with the Goolsbee affair and suddenly Obama is the one who's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama needs to go more populist, not more dirty. Clinton's record will sink her.

Over at The Atlantic, Matthew Yglesias had a clip up from a presser with some of HRC's folks the day she released her "3am phone call" ad. Someone from The Slate asked her people if they could cite to a specific example in her political past where she's had to make that tough decision.

His question was met with silence.

After about 10 seconds of dead air and some sputtering someone pointed to the China speech she gave where she said "women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights."

A speech. (note, for her speeches DO count as experience and illustrate her readiness to lead)

She has no foreign policy experience and if BO hammers away at that then she is forced to explain and try to parse through what she did and didn't do as First Lady, which opens her up to attacks about not releasing her daily schedule from the White House or any of her other papers.

She has flaws but Obama has been reluctant to attack them. Now he will.

He needs to hit her where it hurts. Tax returns themselves may be boring, but they hint at the corruption/psychodrama that made the 90s so tiresome. When it comes to secrecy, loyalty, and bad foreign policy, Hillary is just an extension of Bush. She's not a victim of the right wing so much as its enabler.

All I know is, Hillary has demonstrated that she is right down there in the gutter with the republican attack animals. Hell, she is identical to 'em, and in fact IS one of 'em. Another republican in dem's clothing.

It is long past time time for Obama & Company to get aggressive with republican attack dogs of every stripe, be they Hillary, McSame, or whoever.

I'm talkin' tear 'em some new a**holes aggressive.

Hey JTHB,

You want a record? Here's part of it, and a link
to even more, enjoy:

On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On votingPassed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warmingS.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

I would just like to offer one thought. I can think of one thing Hillary Clinton has experience in. That would be taking a punch, having someone "go negative" on her, you know; "taking off the gloves". I would caution you to consider how many times people have tried to bring down the Clintons. I am just saying to be prepared for these attacks to have a reverse effect. Bill Clinton, for all his shortcomings and mistakes, left the White House with a 60% approval rating.

Does Senator Clinton believe that she should have voted to allow Bush to go to war?

That is, knowing everything that she knows now.

That is, knowing that Bush would do ANYTHING to get his way? How realistic are her political instincts if she couldn't/can't understand how underhanded and criminal the current regime is?

Miki,

I don't think that drawing principled differences is bloodlust. It is not letting misinformation, fear and deception win the day. Even Obama has said, for example, that putting accountability into the process, shame and consequences for bad actors is a key method he would employ to get results (a la Google for Gov't, his plan to broadcast the health plan meetings)...

Thus, HRC needs a little "transparency" brought down on her series of patently ridiculous claims for herself and her misrepresentations on many issues.

It isn't negative. But it is hardball. I believe Obama can walk the line. I hope he can. His debate improvement over time, and the org he's built tells me he's a guy that you can't hurt twice the same way.

One possible problem with going Obama going negative is it could be portrayed as man on women violence and Hillary will do what she can to promote that if it would help her win.

I agree that Obama has to start hitting back hard, but if he keeps it substantive, than that isn't going Rove-ian like she has, but will keep it still about the issues.

He should totally be taking this whole 35 years nonsense apart, from the ground up. He's started, but he needs to get specfic about it on several levels. First off, get it out there that she's claiming every single year of her experience since she left law school at 25. He should start calling her the experience...as the corporate Law candidate or married to people who get elected, because 7 years ago? That's basically it. He should start explicitly pointing out that she has less years in elected office that he does. Period.

And he's started, finally, but he needs to really point out that as First Lady, she was a glorified cultural ambassador. And he needs to point out she had no security clearance while her husband, the guy elected to office, was there. Though he'll have to be careful about this, because he won't want to offend he older/female voters.

He should point out even more, that the one thing she actually was in charge of in the Clinton WH, she failed at and even their own party couldn't work with her.

And his people need to start going after Clinton's use of the NAFT/Canada stuff. They should show all the CBC data about this, get THAT story out and make the story that Clinton's campaign was using false smear tactics...and days before an election in a manufacturing state. Make a negative a positive.

But the Obama people have to get out there. They've been reactive and passive for these past 2 weeks. They can keep the message of hope, but they can also hit hard on substance. Keep their message that they are just trying to fight back against the "silly season." And have surrogates keep at the points and get their message out there.

That's great, reader -- Hillary can swift boat Obama all she wants, from that glass house she lives in, and no matter how sleazy or corrosive to the Democratic Party, because everybody knows hers is a campaign of win at all costs, no matter how sleazy the tactics may be, or how much pure innuendo is involved, but Obama can't respond because he wants to pursue a new form of political communication? That's the same recipe that cost Kerry the election in 2004 - don't respond to demonstrably false musdslinging because you want to appear above the fray.

Sorry, reader. Doesn't work that way. She has made an issue out of experience and "what we don't know" about the candidate. I would say that makes more than "fair game" out of her tax return, her presidential papers, her experience (not her proximity to experience, but her actual experience) and a host of other issues. I wish it didn't have to go there, but we all know what happens when you let the "nig lie" go without a response. I've seen that play, and I don't like the ending.

So, please favor us with a response to this simple question: Name one foreign policy crisis that involved Hillary being called upon to act which has contributed to that famous "experience" she talks so much about? Go on, knock yourself out.

I'm reminded of that old Sesame Street skit: One of these things is not like the other...

"I love his idea of staying positive...Kick her fat, pantsuited arse, Obama."

Way to stay positive. Why do attacks against strong females always go right for their physical appearance? Can you imagine how insane it would be for someone to attack Obama based on his clothes and body?

This line of bashing is so offensive that it makes me want to vote for Clinton just to shove it in the face of all the misogynists out there. Keep up the misdirected attacks and I might just get that chance in November...

You'd think that there were enough substantial things to call Clinton on. The state of her 60 year old derrier would not be the first thing on my list. And it's probably not on the top of the list for all those female voters that Obama needs to swing onto his side to clench this nomination.

Obama's just the stronger candidate and that's why he should win. Not because he'd look better in a skirt.